Blogs: Michael Kwiatkowski

Obama's housing policy spells more of the same for inner city blacks.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:12:56 -0400

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW12_OscRZg

The above video was posted in a news article on the web site for the Boston Globe newspaper. Few publications can be counted upon anymore to cover stories like this. Of those that do, fewer receive the attention they deserve -- at least until it's far too late to do anything about it. The Globe is one of them. In 2000 and 2004, the paper reported on the shrub's desertion from the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. As usual, the rest of the mainstream media buried it; it wasn't considered proper to accuse Glorious Dictator of being a shirker of military duty.

Today we have another candidate for dictator whose shady record has been largely buried by the blathering of the corporate media over trivial matters ranging from lapel pins to jumping all over a decorated general and former NATO commander for Europe who who dared suggest that merely having flown a plane during war time and gotten shot down doesn't qualify one to be president (in spite of the fact that it's true). How many signs shall be ignored that the guy who may very well become president only to continue the shrub's amoral and disastrous socio-economic policies is nothing but a phony playing us all for saps? Change? I've got twenty-five cents in my pocket. That's about all you'll be left with, if you're lucky, before Obama's done. That's assuming he doesn't blow the election for Democrats as did John Kerry and Al Gore before him. Right now it looks as though he's hellbent on doing just that with his sharp tack to the hard right.

This is completely unacceptable. It does America no good if we manage to defeat McCain and the Republicans only to end up with Democratic cowards and neocon enablers who just continue business as usual. The more Obama reveals himself as a pandering phony, the more disillusioned and pessimistic Americans become -- especially those who so foolishly and uncritically put their faith in him. What can we do to hold this opportunistic bastard accountable? Two words: Third Party. It's the only way we're going to make it clear to the powerful that we will no longer accept business as usual.

In the meantime, say a prayer this 4th of July for all those people doomed to decaying housing as a result of Obama's policies.

Olbermann has sold out.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:31:52 -0400

I just got done reading Keith Olbermann's tortured excuse for not calling out Barack Obama on his FISA cave, and frankly, it's as lame as it can get. Sorry, Keith, but you've sold out to the far right without even realizing it. Here's why.

Throughout this campaign, you've been doing little or nothing but bash Hillary Clinton for all the wrong reasons. While the senator supposedly representing New York has undoubtedly made plenty of verbal gaffes and has a poor record of defending the Constitution against the shrub and his gargoyle, you focused your rage exclusively upon her, and for all the wrong things. One example is her suggestion that the bigot bloc might not vote for Obama, which is true: no matter how much he panders to the far right, no matter how often he bashes blacks to their faces, the bigots in this country simply are not going to vote for a black man for president; they'd sooner cast their ballots for a white woman. You, however, joined in with those who relentlessly attacked her for pointing out this fundamental truth.

The selling your soul to the Obama fan club isn't apparent only in your relentless attacks on Clinton; you've failed time and again to jump on your candidate of choice for things you would never have let others get away with. In a piece by Counterpunch's Gregory Kafoury, the writer reminds us that the senator supposedly representing Illinois has committed a slew of misdeeds on the campaign trail that include:

- Obama announced a new financial team of supply-side economists led by Jason Furman, famous for declaring that it would be "damaging to working people" if Wal-Mart were to raise its wages and benefits. Obama had recently criticized Clinton for serving on the Wal-Mart board, declaring, "I won't shop there." In the Audacity of Hope, he sympathized with “Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope they’ll have enough money to support their children.”

-When questioned in a Fortune interview about his promise to renegotiate NAFTA to protect workers and the environment, Obama replied, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

- In a close congressional primary race in Georgia, Obama endorsed a troglodyte incumbent – a “Bush enabler” – over an exemplary progressive insurgent.

- In a speech to the Israeli lobby, he moved to the right of Israel’s government by ruling out negotiations with Hamas. A day earlier, Obama had told Cuban exile groups that he would only sit down with Raul Castro if the exiles had a seat at the table, a precondition that Cuba will never agree to.

- Obama refused to criticize recent Israeli war maneuvers and accompanying threats to launch massive air attacks on Iran. He failed to even urge restraint.

- Just as a move was growing in the Senate to strip the House-passed Telecom bill of its immunity provisions, Obama declared his support for the House version. Obama's opposition to immunity had been our best hope to learn whose phones and emails had been wiretapped by the Bush administration, and to punish those Telecom companies that assisted this massive criminal enterprise.

This last is especially relevant, because while you dismiss Glenn Greenwald's critique of you, the fact remains that you would have ripped into any other prominent politician for caving in to the shrub on FISA and telecomm immunity. That it happens to be Obama selling out to the far right in exchange for power changes nothing; it's still a craven capitulation to the shrub, no matter how one tries to spin it.

You've lost your impartiality, Keith, and for that you must apologize. Not only that, you must recognize that it is more important to tell the Truth than to get another corporate-conservative Democrat elected to office. You're an intelligent man, Keith. You know as well as anyone else that if Obama will not stand up and defend the Constitution and the rule of law as a senator running for president, he certainly won't do it as president. I expect to see you on the air from now on, ripping into Obama with all the passion and fury you reserved for the shrub and Hillary Clinton. The enemy is not confined to the ranks of the Republican Party: it is the entirety of the power structure, and this includes Obama.

You owe it to us, your viewers, to return to the standard you helped set by going after all the powerful, not just those you dislike.

How we can do something about the health care scam, part one.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:45:01 -0400

In my previous entry I explained a bit of the obvious, namely the nature of the health care scam and how it came about. Today I’m going to begin my series on what we can do to dismantle that operation, and replace it with something that works for all Americans. Much of what I am about to write has been explained before, by far more learned and eloquent persons such as myself, but it helps to stay up-to-date on ideas.

Before we can even begin to replace the existing system, we must understand why this task is so difficult to accomplish. It is not enough, as George Lakoff pointed out, to have truth and facts on our side; we have to be able to present them in such a way as to make people accept our argument. In this area we on the left have been unforgivably negligent, allowing movement conservatives to frame and control the national dialog. We can turn this around, but in order to do so we must first understand how and why the opposition has enjoyed so much success.

Let’s take a hot-button issue, say, family values. A recent online acquaintance helped me by providing a solid argument for why this can be used to take back control of the dialog. Preachers and conservative politicians rail on about protecting “family” values, but what are they and from what do they need to be protected?

Usually these so-called values include the following: a husband and wife, living together in a marital situation; a couple of children, maybe more; Father goes off to work while Mother stays home and runs the household chores (though this role has changed over time so that now Mother works as well); the children are obedient, don’t have sex until they’re safely married, and don’t do drugs; and the family has a strong religious morality—usually Christian.

Where do threats come from? The removal of religion from public institutes of learning; homosexuals marrying, thereby challenging the conventional tradition of marriage in America that is define as one man, one woman; perceived permissiveness in the culture, usually sexual in nature; disobedience and defiance of authority; and the intermingling of groups previously considered segregated by necessity. Challenges to religious authority take the form of tolerance of other religious beliefs, and accommodations thereto. Threats also come from the exertion of rights by other groups, such as women, Blacks and other racial minorities, and homosexuals.

Conservatives narrowly define so-called family values, and then frame the question in terms that force ideological opponents to accept their definitions, or else appear to devalue or disregard the value of traditional family structures and beliefs. By forcing us to accept their definitions, we cede the argument that not only might there be different sets of values, but that the question itself is the wrong one to ask.

If you support family values, the far right demands, then it follows that you must support what we tell you to. This means no taxes for the wealthy (who are always labeled—falsely—as average Americans, middle class folk); strong moral grounding (nearly always framed in Christian values, albeit Old testament ones); opposing “challenges” to traditional family units (gay marriage); and so forth. If you don’t, the argument goes, then you don’t really support “traditional” family values.

My online acquaintance urges us to frame the debate as follows: instead of accepting the rhetoric of the far right, we challenge it by posing a different question: valuing families. This includes ensuring decent jobs and wages; good, adequately funded schools; adequate health care for all; and so on. This is an excellent idea, but executing it is not nearly so easy as it might seem.

For instance, it’s one thing to ask your opponent, “Do you value families?” But can you explain to him the how’s and why’s of it? Do you understand them? What does valuing families entail? Can you ask the question in such a way as to put your opponent on guard and always on the defensive, thus taking control of the debate? Can you, if called upon, become confrontational with your adversary? These and related questions must be answered before we can take the next step.

As an experiment, jot down what you think are good ways to value families. Include such things as access to good health care, a good education, clean air, water and food, adequate wages, and so on. Then sit down with a friend and roleplay scenarios. Be sure to take notes, and be prepared to make mistakes, especially early on (errors are surprisingly effective teachers).

The first step is to learn how and why the far right is able to seize control of the discussion, and keep it. The second is to learn how to mount an effective counterargument that allows you to reshape the tone and take back control. Once you’ve mastered that, then you’ll be ready to take the next step.

The Health Care Scam

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:17:31 -0400

I have an idea for a health insurance company, one that is sure to work really well. Here's the pitch:

You pay me a fee every month—say, between $500 and $1,000—and I pocket the money. In return, in the event you need someone to cover your medical expenses, I'll tell you in so many words to go fuck yourself, you're on your own. I'll use any excuse to deny your claim, and if one of my employees does the unthinkable and puts me in a position of having to shell out money to pay for your freeloading, I'll send that imbecile to join you on the unemployment line.

I might feel the occasional bout of generosity; I might deign to throw you the occasional bone, just to keep you complacent, and cover some minor thing. But don't expect me to pay for your heart operation. What were you doing wearing it out by making it beat so much, anyway? Don't you know that's a sure-fire way to end up needing surgery at some point? Especially if you don't take care of yourself by eating right and exercising regularly? And you can forget about that cancer treatment. Drugs and radiation treatments cost money. Pay for it yourself. I'm busy counting.

By the way, you can forget about complaining. Even if you manage to get through the array of computers set up to discourage you from lodging a complaint, any human employee is going to give you the runaround, too. Raise too much of a ruckus, and I'll just cancel your policy. That'll show you, you ingrate.

And I won't stop there. Just in case some uppity customer decides this isn't legal, or shouldn't be, I'll use some of the money you pay me every month to bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions to pass legislation protecting my right to bilk you for those monthly fees. Oh, sure, you might complain. You might even try to vote out corrupt politicians who accept my bribes, but by the time you get off your lazy ass I'll have bought pretty much everyone in D.C. and the fifty states who might be capable or inclined to resist. Let's face it: with campaigns costing more and more money each cycle, politicians listen to those who can fork over a hell of a lot more than that measly ten or twenty dollars you can afford to part with. You're screwed.

Great idea, right? Well, not for you, but we're talking about me. You don't factor into the equation, except as an ever-opening wallet. What's that? You don't think it's so hot a concept? You're right, it isn't. But that's exactly what you buy into whenever you sign up for insurance from companies ranging from Humana to Kaiser Permanente. The only difference between what I pitched to you, and what the health insurance industry tells you, is that I'm being up front about my intentions.

The health insurance industry is the among the biggest and most successful scam operations in the history of the United States. It is set up to get you to pay money in return for almost nothing. And because what little public health care exists is severely underfunded, and qualifications limited only to certain cross-sections of the poor and elderly, this means your options for alternatives are extremely limited. In fact, nearly fifty million Americans have no recourse but to go without insurance, because they cannot afford the premiums (I'm one of them, by the way).

How did all this get started? As Michael Moore pointed out in his excellent documentary, SiCKO (which I blogged about last year), the scam was created when the CEO of Kaiser Permanente at the time had his flunkies meet with then-president Richard Nixon to discuss how the insurance industry could kill three birds with one stone: dismantle what public health care system existed, ensure that it could never return, and become obscenely wealthy in the process. It wasn't long afterward that Nixon pushed through Congress legislation that would fundamentally alter the health care system of the United States—for the worse.

What Nixon and Kaiser rammed through Congress resulted in the creation of the HMO system we suffer today. It's the scam outfit that separates you from your money, while denying you coverage for your medical expenses. And you allow it to go on. Why is this? I could write a dissertation about it, but essentially it all boils down to fear and the dominance of the right in the media on issues such as health care. Professor George Lakoff of Berkley University described in 2005 how conservatives have come to shape and control the national discussion, and get Americans to vote against their own interests. The fear element involves scaring you with horror stories of socialism and the loss of freedom, never mind that you've already given up your freedom.

The problem is compounded not only by the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose this sort of swindle, but in its embrace of the status quo as a matter of policy. While Barack Obama builds up his illusion of progressivism, his actual history suggests he is not prepared to challenge the status quo at all, but merely is all too willing to continue it. Hillary Clinton joins him in being among the top recipients of bribe money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The two Democratic rivals for the presidency have even taken millions of dollars in bribe money from so-called health professionals. And we all know where Republican John McCain stands on the issue of health care: more of the same.

This is the scam you pay for with your tax dollars, and the money you pay out of pocket. In my next entry, I'll tell you how you can do something about it.

Societal Murder

Michael Kwiatkowski — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:21:17 -0400

Last night, as I sat at my computer, an unholy stench came into the house and offended my olfactory nerves. It smelt of sewage, and something worse, but it seemed to come from outside. We have skunks in the neighborhood, and raccoons, so I assumed one of them had died or otherwise made some kind of mess. As it turns out. it was something far worse, and profoundly sad.

A few minutes ago I learned that Ernie, the crazy hermit who lived across the street, died some time between Wednesday and yesterday. I'm betting Wednesday or Thursday, judging by the odor. The coroner had to be called in after a neighbor called the police to check up on him. Ernie had been a shut-in, one of those mental cases that collects shit, unopened mail, and assorted garbage over the decades. It was likely Ernie's corpse I smelled last night as the process of decay took hold—though according to my mother it was more likely the stench of Ernie's collected feces. Funny thing is, the coroner didn't arrive until after midnight, and by then I was asleep. I tend to be woken up by sirens and flashing lights, but I guess the sleep of ages had taken hold of me because I dozed right through it. They all must have come right around the time I turned in for the night, which was after eleven.

I imagine this shall make the newspaper: "Crazy old guy dies in his own filth on Cleveland's West Side." What a depressing train of thought. This man, who probably should have been institutionalized decades ago, instead lived in the same house he lived in with his mother and became that most awful of social outcasts, the sort that just becomes the harmless yet deranged individual that maybe a neighbor treats with compassion and sympathy, but everyone else ignores.

How low have we sunk as a society to let this go on? How many Ernies shall die, undiscovered for days, weeks, months—perhaps even years, having spent their entire lives in squalor and the hell of mental illness? How long will the Ignored be forced to go without the care they need, before we wake up and start providing it? They are the Outcast, the Ignored, the Least Among Us. They are the people Jesus implored us to look after, for we are judged by how we treat them. Jesus...what would He say to us if He were to return today? This country, which lies to itself that it is a Christian nation, what would Christ Himself say of us?

But we're not supposed to ask ourselves these questions. We're not supposed to acknowledge just how cruel, unforgiving, depraved, greedy, selfish, without compassion, apathetic, materialistic, and oblivious we are. Because if we do, then we accept that at some point we must take responsibility for our crimes, and for those who cannot take care of themselves.

In the meantime, Ernie—and all those like him—go on, needing help but not getting it. We let them die; we let them expire alone, unloved, uncared for. We are all guilty of this form of societal murder.

I'm sorry.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 26 May 2008 16:11:11 -0400

Here's something you'll never hear from any pundit, news reporter, or politician this Memorial Day: an apology.

To all the soldiers who have been maimed and killed in the wars of the Bush-Cheney regime:

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry I didn't do more to voice my opposition when it mattered.

I'm sorry I have kept paying for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan with my tax dollars, without doing more to ensure that you had all the equipment and training you needed to stay alive. I'm sorry I didn't do more to prevent all the money spent so far from being written in the form of blank checks to Halliburton and other war profiteers.

I'm sorry for all the pain, suffering, and death you've had to endure.

I'm sorry you were sent in without a clear mission, without an objective, and without constraints on your behavior so you could avoid being put in the position of committing war crimes on the orders of your inferiors in Washington.

I'm sorry some of you were allowed to be in the military, when your recruiters and training instructors knew you had little or no moral compass, when they knew you might gladly mistreat prisoners at places such as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. The actions carried out by these disgraces to their uniforms have tarnished the reputation of the military as a whole.

I'm sorry many of you who were maimed -- mentally, physically, or both -- were tricked out of your health care benefits by a Pentagon so greedy for money that it decided it could get away with fraudulently listing your conditions as pre-existing.

I'm sorry I didn't make a bigger, louder, and more effective effort to call for the impeachment, prosecution, and conviction of those whose lies sent you into the hell of Iraq and Afghanistan with no way out.

To the families who have lost loved ones to these horrific wars and occupations:

I'm sorry your friends and relatives have suffered and died in vain. I'm sorry their sacrifices have been swept under the rug, their true stories and their names and faces hidden away so that the public feels little connection to what's being done in our name. I'm sorry your loved ones have been turned into instruments of propaganda and political posturing.

To the people of Iraq:

I'm sorry for everything you've had to endure.

What's behind the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton?

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:08:26 -0400

It seems everyone is in uproar over Hillary Clinton’s remarks about her staying in the race for the Democratic nomination to run for president through the month of June, and her ill-chosen example of Bobby Kennedy—the senator and brother of John F. Kennedy who, like his presidential sibling, was assassinated. The remarks were, of course, in the poorest of taste and they have received all the scorn they deserve. But are the commotions raised by those remarks, the sheer outrage and disgust, for the right reasons?

Clinton could just as easily been talking about herself, and the potential threat of assassination to her own person, as about her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama. That few, if any, seem to realize this is yet another attack on her for all the wrong reasons. Yes, it was insensitive and divisive, hurtful and potentially dangerous, for Clinton to invoke the trauma of Bobby Kennedy’s murder in 1968 in making the case that she must remain in contention for the nomination to run for president.

Hillary Clinton’s poor judgment is grounds for pushing her out. Consider her recent threat to obliterate Iran. No, the threat was not a direct one, being as it was merely a loaded response to an equally loaded question put to her by an interviewer. But that Clinton would even take the bait—knowing full well that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran stated flat out that Tehran is not pursuing nuclear weapons; that it abandoned any attempts to do so as long as five years ago; that its nuclear ambitions really do seem geared more toward energy production (at least for the time being); and that even if it were making weapons it would still be nearly a decade before even one successful bomb would be made—shows her willingness to be manipulated by the far right into saying and doing potentially very destructive things.

And who can forget her teary-eyed display of selfish egomania right before the New Hampshire primary, wherein she implied, so very condescendingly, that Americans are too stupid to realize how much they need her to be president—right before segueing into an attack on her chief rival’s readiness that was worthy of Karl Rove himself? These examples paint a clear portrait of someone so bent on pursuing a crown, so egotistical, that her stability (indeed, her very integrity) as a leader must be called into question. For these reasons, more than anything else and for the sake of honor, Mrs. Clinton should drop out now.

But the reasons for pressuring her to abandon her pursuit of the presidency go far beyond her moral vacuum, her willingness to say and do anything in order to be crowned president. And they have nothing to do with delegate math; Mrs. Clinton is in a far better position to win the nomination at convention than any of her underdog predecessors of the past thirty years. No one in the media pressured Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, or Jesse Jackson to drop out of presidential races before convention—at least, not on the level pundits who have called for Clinton’s departure have done. Nor do the reasons have to do with the false allegations of racism that have plagued both Hillary and her husband, Bill, since the campaign began heating up. Indeed, if any of the presidential candidates from either political party have exploited race in a negative fashion, it is Barack Obama with his insistence on distancing himself from any and all hints of Black resentment at how this subsection of our society has been treated through America’s history.

The reasons for calling for an end to the Clinton campaign stem, I think, from an irrational hatred of the woman that runs far deeper than it has any right to. Had a man said half the things she has said, he might be allowed to slide—especially if that “man” happens to be a Republican, such as John McCain (the presumptive nominee of his party this year). What is behind this hatred? I can only guess; certainly, Americans are justifiably wary at the prospect of going twenty or more years with either a Bush or a Clinton occupying the White House. But we’ve had political dynasties before, to one degree or another, with nary a peep from the press or the public.

Could it be, in the end, the prospect of having a woman in power who truly, unlike any “First Lady” since Eleanor Roosevelt, dared to be more than presidential arm candy? There appears to be some justification for this theory; the intense opposition to her attempt to reform the health care system during her husband’s presidency sparked chauvinistic indignation that a woman would involve herself in presidential-level policy-making. But, again, this doesn’t really hold up, for after the public and very final defeat of Hillary’s effort to change the health insurance system, she sold out to the industry and became little more than the caricature of a “First Lady” her opponents wanted her to be. Her public involvement in Bill’s policy-making seemed to go away. She was, or so many believed, properly chastened for being uppity enough to think she could be more than a pretty face.

This hatred of Hillary Clinton is much more personal, and I don’t know why. Nor, I suspect, do those who have so relentlessly attacked her.

Really, why should Clinton drop out?

Michael Kwiatkowski — Tue, 20 May 2008 22:25:57 -0400

A while back I had made a big stink about the primaries dragging on, because of the damage being done to the Democratic Party by having two massive egos battling it out until August. But after doing some reading and looking at the last couple of big wins for Hillary Clinton, the latest apparently being in Kentucky, I've come to the conclusion that the former First Lady should stay in this race as long as she thinks she can get the nomination to run for president. A large part of this has to do with the corporate media having participated in the drive to push her out of this campaign, "for the 'good' of the party and the nation."

The pressure being applied to Clinton to get out of the race is both unprecedented and unjustified, a solid case made by Eric Boehlert at Smirking Chimp.

Looking back at history, it's hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan's reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.

And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy's doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.

And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season's primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him.

When Hart took his crusade all the way to the convention, the media did not form a posse and decide it was their job to get Hart to quit for the good of the party. (And the press certainly didn't form a posse in March to start pushing Hart out of the race.) Nor did the press collectively suggest that Hart had an oversized ego that had turned him into a political monster.

That new media standard has been created exclusively for Hillary Clinton.

It's very difficult to argue with this line of reasoning. Granted, there is a legitimate case to be made for pressuring Clinton to drop out; her threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran marks her as dangerously unstable, like John McCain. For that reason alone, she should have done the honorable thing and announced the end of her campaign. That she hasn't is indicative of her inherent selfishness trumping any and all sense of decency.

But leaving that aside, and doing the delegate math, there are few if any legitimate reasons to expect her to leave the race when all indicators are that she may yet pull off a win at the Democratic National Convention in August. The ongoing bloodbath between Clinton and Barack Obama is still likely to result in a battered and financially broken nominee losing to Republican John McCain in November. But that was going to happen anyway, regardless of which Democrat ultimately gets the nod, because of the insistence by both candidates on running to the political right instead of embracing the progressive base.

The only reason left, therefore, is hatred of Clinton that goes beyond all reason. Not that she hasn't brought a lot of that upon herself, mind you, but still, there's no justification for it. (As Paul Krugman pointed out in a February New York Times column, Clinton Rules are certainly in full effect.) And there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it all. Whatever the source of this hatred, it is that more than anything else which drives the agenda to push her out before convention time.

Could it be genuine fear that she might actually manage to get the nomination? More than that, could it be absolute terror at the prospect that she could actually win against McCain in November with a large enough margin that the outcome wouldn't be in doubt (thus preventing the GOP's electoral fraud machine from claiming a "victory" that can be spun in the media as credible)? I don't see why, seeing as how even if she becomes president there is no reason to expect she would do any better or worse than Obama -- or, for that matter, McCain.

The answer is right in front of me. I'm just not able to see it.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:07:18 -0400

The boy just can't seem to stop making an ass of himself, can he? John McCain, who can't even tell Iraqi resistance fighters from Iranians, can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Iran -- because as far as he's concerned, they're all the same -- is criticizing Barack Obama for perceived foreign policy inexperience because the senator supposedly representing Illinois doesn't see Iran as a threat on the same level as the Soviet Union in its day.

CHICAGO - Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

Let's get something straight here, boy: you can't even tell one Arab group or nation apart from another. Where the hell do you get off chastising Obama? And what, may I ask, leads you to think Iran is as big a threat as the old Soviet Union was? Come on, I know you're a liar, but you're not stupid. You know as well as anyone else what the National Intelligence Estimate last year declared: that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons; that it abandoned any such attempts in 2003; and that its nuclear ambitions now seem to be geared more toward energy production than weapons.

An honest man might, in attacking his potential opponent over foreign policy naïvety, might have at least taken care to mention the NIE, why he disagreed with it -- based on available evidence, and pointed out any rhetorical flubs that might indicate said potential opponent might engage in talks incompetently. But John McCain is neither honest, or a man. He is a liar, a subhuman beast trying to pander his way into the White House by terrorizing the American public.

McCain needs to admit he was lying, apologize for having done so, and drop out of the race for the presidency. These are the only honorable things he can do. Anything less is unacceptable.

The Power of Defiance

Michael Kwiatkowski — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:33:55 -0400

If the electoral disaster of 2004 should have taught us anything, it's that our votes are wasted when cast for those candidates who represent the status quo and refuse to fight it. How many of you regret throwing your ballots away on John Kerry? How many of you did so, knowing in your hearts that you would much rather have voted for someone else, because you felt it was more important to try to oust the shrub than to vote your beliefs?

I did the same thing. I had voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary, and I knew Kerry didn't have the stones to win in spite of the inevitable vote fraud the Bush-Cheney campaign was pulling off, but I cast my November ballot for John Kerry anyway. I admit, I screwed up that year. I had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, a protest vote, because I believed then as I do now, that the only fundamental difference between the two major political parties today is one of competence. The GOP is inept at, well, everything except committing crimes and getting away with them. The Democrats are surprisingly effective at everything except committing crimes and getting away with them. That's all.

I watched, growing up, as the party of the New Deal abandoned all pretense of remaining true to its principles to join the corporate-conservative DLC in embracing Republican policies. By 2000 I had had enough. I would no longer vote along party lines. Although a registered Democrat, if I thought a Green or a non-aligned progressive could do the job, I voted for that person. So, full of defiance, I cast my ballot for Ralph Nader in 2000.

And yet I "repented" that action a mere four years later. Not because I had ceased to believe in what the man stands for, but because I had partaken of the 'Anybody But Bush' wafer. Not all of it, mind you. Just a tiny nibble, after the primary season was over. I suppressed the urge to vomit, poked the hole in the punch card, and hoped I hadn't made a huge mistake.

Except I had made a mistake, the same one so many Democrats continue to do even after nearly three decades of unbroken conservative misrule in government. I had compromised my principles, thrown away my vote. I watched in disgust and horror as CBS interviewed Black voters, who told us how they had watched their Kerry votes flipped over to the shrub and his gargoyle before their very eyes, on those unholy Diebold election-rigging machines. I watched and shook my head at the party for Kerry in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, as the results went from a solid victory for the Democrats to a bare margin of fraudulent triumph for the shrub. Another election had been stolen, I knew. My last and only hope was that Kerry would fight it. The next day, that hope was dashed. The Democratic granny candidate had capitulated. Again.

Needless to say, I've learned my lesson since then. No more will I hand my vote to someone who never has and never will earn it. Oh, sure, you might ask; aren't I just throwing my vote away? I've done that, but not in the way you might think.

My vote for Kerry was wasted because of one, unalterable truth: the only wasted votes are those not cast, or those cast for candidates who don't represent our interests.

Those who say we cannot vote our beliefs because our preferred candidates "can't win" subscribe to the notion that voting our beliefs doesn't win elections. But as the 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and soon the 2008 elections have shown, this is nonsense. We lose when we compromise our principles, and win when we embrace them. The so-called experts have it all backwards, and deliberately so.

Former member of British Parliament Tony Benn said, in Michael Moore excellent documentary SiCKO, that if people in America and Great Britain were to turn out and vote in large numbers it would be a truly democratic revolution. And he's right. If voter turnout were anything like what it is in European states such as France, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian states, and so forth, can you imagine how the political landscape would be altered? Can you imagine what would happen in elections if, during the primary season, voters cast their ballots based on choosing the candidates of their preference instead of who we're told to vote for?

The powerful can, and do, which is why they work so tirelessly to suppress the vote, to discourage us from casting our ballots the way we want. The powerful would lose the only thing that really matters to them: power. It's why men and women of principle, such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, and Ralph Nader are marginalized and excluded from presidential debates -- shoved aside in favor of corporate whores who beat the drums of war on the orders of their sponsors. It's why Diebold rigs its machines to favor certain political parties, state secretaries purge legally registered voters from the polls, and state legislatures pass laws designed to prevent certain types of people from voting.

All of it is set up to prevent true socioeconomic reform from ever again coming to pass. It wasn't enough for movement conservatives to dismantle the New Deal; they had to make sure it could never happen again. That's why your vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is such a waste. Neither of them is ever going to rock the boat, try to change the status quo. They're both from the DLC, the Trojan Horse whose sole purpose is to cripple the progressive movement from within the Democratic Party. No matter which of the major political party candidates you vote for this year, you're voting to keep things as they are. You're doing as you're told, which is exactly what the powerful want you to do. The message you send when you do that is that you are content with the status quo, even if you're not.

Your vote for Ralph Nader, or Mike Gravel, or the Green Party candidate, your ballot for Dennis Kucinich as a Democratic write-in, that is the only real power you have. The purpose of it is not to win in spite of a system rigged to favor the establishment every single time, though with hard work and unwavering dedication we may one day see that happen. The purpose of your protest vote and mine is to send a message of defiance: "You do not own our votes. We give them to those who do. If you want them, you'll have to earn them or just keep on taking them. But we shall never just give our votes to you."

How many of you, dear readers, have read Orwell's 1984? How many of you read the Party's lessons about power? Do you recognize what true power is? It's not in keeping a boot on the face of humanity, grinding us into the dirt forever; it's in Defiance. When you cast your ballot for the candidate of your genuine choice, you are choosing to defy a system that was set up to crush you, to keep you buried in the mud, groveling for what scraps the powerful deign to throw you.

Why do you think hatred of Ralph Nader runs so strong? It's not because he is perceived as having stolen votes that belonged to Al Gore in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004. We who are wise know that no political party owns our votes. The hatred burns so brightly because when we cast our ballots for him we are denying the powerful something they want but cannot steal. Oh, sure, they can prevent us from voting, or reduce our options so that we can only make the choices they want us to. But it's not the same as us giving them our votes of our own free will. They want, no, they need you to accept them, their way of thinking. The powerful cannot be powerful unless you hand your power to them willingly That's what motivates the Party described by George Orwell in 1984: the irrational need to be loved and accepted no matter what. When we vote for third party candidates, we reject everything the establishment represents. And rejection is the worst thing any of us can inflict upon the powerful.

Defiance. That is real power. Use it or lose it.