WTF?!?!?!?!?!

From the Globe and Mail 3/12/09:

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- The Afghanistan Supreme Court has secretly upheld a 20-year sentence imposed on a young journalism student who allegedly questioned Muslims' treatment of women.

The lawyer for Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh said he was stunned to find that the ruling had been made without his knowledge.

"On Saturday, I went to the Supreme Court asking for the date of the hearing and also to submit my defence," said Mohammad Afzal Nooristani, who has acted for Mr. Kambakhsh in the case that has drawn international attention.

"They told me they already decided about the case a month ago behind closed doors."

This is really disturbing. One of the rationales for this war is that it was supposed to end religious extremism.

It gets worse. Here's the "blasphemy."

In late 2007, Mr. Kambakhsh, 24, was charged with blasphemy after he allegedly disrupted classes with questions about women's rights in Islamic society. He was also said to have illegally distributed an article he printed from the Internet, asking why Islam does not give women equal rights, and to have added three paragraphs to the article himself, one of which read: "This is the real face of Islam. ... The prophet Mohammed wrote verses of the holy [Koran] just for his own benefit."

Another rationale for the war in Afghanistan was improving the situation for women. From what I've read, that only has happened in Kabul.

This is absolutely offensive. It is morally reprehensible to make a victimless action like blasphemy into a "crime."

What are we doing in Afghanistan? What are the goals for the expanded number of US troops being sent there? What will be done about the corruption and religious extremism in Afghanistan? Is there going to be any serious effort to rebuild Afghanistan after decades of war? (There hasn't been any real rebuilding in Iraq in spite of all the money being sent to war profiteers for "rebuilding projects.")

 

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) recently has exposed anti middle class and pro insurance company/HMO bias on CNN (which I sometimes call the Corporate News Network).

Before I reproduce the Action Alert, I would like to point out that CNN and this reporter are not doing their jobs as journalists to expose the massive fraud committed by the insurance companies and HMOs which literally causes so many Americans to die needlessly.

One of the truly reprehensible practices of these evil corporations is to delay care as long as possible in hopes that the patient will die before making the companies pay out for surgery, chemotherapy, etc. If CNN was really doing its job, people would realize that their suffering and the suffering of people they know are not isolated incidents, but rather the results of massive and deadly fraud by the insurance companies and HMOs.

CNN: Single-Payer Is So '90s
Medical reporter warns against 'government-run health system'

3/12/09

In one of the few recent corporate media mentions of single-payer healthcare, CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen (3/5/09) explained why healthcare "reform" is more possible now than it was under President Bill Clinton:
Fifteen years ago you sometimes heard--actually you heard quite a bit--people saying: "Let's have a single-payer system like in Canada. The government is going to be the health insurer for everybody." You don't hear that as much as you used to. So more people are on the same page more than they once were.

Cohen is right that there were many people in favor of single-payer 15 years ago; as an Extra! article from that era (7-8/93) pointed out, New York Times polling since 1990 had "consistently found majorities--ranging from 54 percent to 66 percent--in favor of tax-financed national health insurance." The numbers today? A New York Times/CBS poll (1/11-15/09) found 59 percent in favor of government-provided national health insurance. In other words, contrary to Cohen's claim, people are on pretty much the same page today as they were 15 years ago.

Cohen's suggestion that it was those loud voices that stymied "reform" is likewise unsupportable; as Extra! reported back in 1993, corporate media were then solidly behind the Clinton administration's big insurer-friendly "managed competition" plan:
While the phrase "managed competition" appeared in 62 New York Times news stories in the six months following the 1992 election, "single-payer" appeared in only five news stories during that period--never in more than a single-sentence mention.

Establishment journalists thus silenced those single-payer voices in 1993, just as Cohen and her contemporaries silence single-payer advocates today, as a new FAIR study recently revealed (3/6/09).

Earlier (CNN Newsroom, 2/26/09), Cohen had argued that "if in time, Americans start to think what President Obama is proposing is some kind of government-run health system--a la Canada, a la England--he will get resistance in the same way that Hillary Clinton got resistance when she tried to do tried to do this in the '90s."

As noted above, a government-financed national health insurance program is broadly popular in opinion polls, so it's unclear why Obama would get "resistance" if "Americans start to think" he's proposing such a plan. (If insurance companies start to think that, on the other hand, then they're certainly likely to create resistance.)

And Hillary Clinton in 1993 was certainly not proposing a government-financed system like Canada's, let alone a government-run system like Britain's; her "managed competition" plan was explicitly designed to preserve a central role for private insurance companies. It's hard to square the suggestion that Clinton was proposing a government-based healthcare system with Cohen's later acknowledgment that single-payer advocates were not "on the same page."

CNN plays a significant role in the healthcare debate. The channel's other top medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, was Obama's first choice to be surgeon general, and was one of the leading critics attacking Michael Moore's pro-single-payer documentary Sicko (FAIR Action Alert, 7/11/07). Cohen should use her prominent journalistic role in the healthcare reform debate to broaden and clarify the debate, rather than confuse and narrow it.


ACTION: Please write to Elizabeth Cohen and ask her to include the single-payer proposal as an option in the healthcare reform debate with continuing popular support.


CONTACT:
Elizabeth Cohen, CNN
404-827-1500
elizabeth.cohen@turner.com

You might also point out that she should be reporting on the evil activities of insurance companies and HMOs instead of making false and ridiculous claims about the popularity of single payer.

Photo: brianwallace

 

We can not rely on politicians to create change. We need to fight for it. Here are some things you can do to fight for change.

1) Oppose "Abstinence Only" Scams
Militant Christian fundamentalists have been foisting what they pretend it "abstinence only education" on the public schools for years. These are basically anti-sex nagging used in place of legitimate sex education. Preaching this nonsense instead of teaching our youth about their bodies results in higher levels of unplanned pregnancies HIV infection rates. The National Partnership for Women and Families has an Action Alert calling on President Obama not to include this crap in the final version of his budget which he will submit in April.

Tell the White House "No More Abstinence Only Scams"

2) Support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and a Trans Inclusive ENDA
There are so many reasons to support this legislation. Making it harder for employers to intimidate employees into not joining unions is a basic matter of fairness. Organized labor is a strong ally of lgbt issues and the issues of other disenfranchised groups in our society. Strengthening unions is a matter of practical politics for queers, women, and people of color. Also, increasing unionization improves the quality of lives for union workers. Indirectly, it helps non union workers because it pushes up wages and benefits across industries.

Of course, there also is the issue of balancing the power between various classes in our society. A strong labor movement means that the rich don't have absolute power over our nation's politics.

The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) is federal legislation banning most employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid tried to get the gender identity protections taken out last sessions. But, gender identity is back for now.

Pride @ Work sent me an email asking people to fill out an Action Alert from organized labor supporting both the EFCA and ENDA. Here's Pride @ Work's take on the Employee Free Choice Act:

The Employee Free Choice Act was just introduced! Simply put, this legislation will allow employees to make their own decision about whether they want to bargain together - to advocate for fairer wages, benefits and working conditions - without the threat or fear of harassment and retribution and fear of losing their livelihood.

With no federal workplace protections, the LGBT community is already especially vulnerable on the job. Easier access to collectively bargained, inclusive contracts will benefit LGBT workers and their families immensely, especially during these tough times.

Support ENDA and EFCA Now!

3) Help People Facing Foreclosures
I'm amazed that there isn't a federal effort to stop foreclosures altogether for a few years, but this is a good step in that direction. Consumers Union is supporting legislation to help people keep their homes.

During its work this week on economic stimulus and the banking system rescue, Congress may allow struggling homeowners facing bankruptcy to restructure their mortgage payments and stay in their homes. This proposal won't cost taxpayers a cent, and is expected to save a million homes.

But some of the same financial institutions whose lending recklessness got us into this economic mess are fighting the change!

Right now, bankruptcy courts can modify all sorts of loans -- for corporations, commercial real estate, even vacation homes -- but can't do the same for families on the verge of losing their only home. The change would let homeowners get the same chance to restructure their loan and keep paying their mortgage.

Take Actions to Prevent Foreclosures!

 

One of the reasons why allowing conservative and rightist judges to sit on the Supreme Court is so awful is their lack of respect for the Establishment Clause of the US Consitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that the First Amendment does not merely prohibit the establishment of "a particular religion" or even "a religion," common propaganda claims of the militant fundamentalists. The First Amendment prohibits the "establishment of religion."

Voucher programs exist for the sole purpose of subsidizing religious schools, despite the wink and nod propaganda of the far right in this country. Vouchers have failed to improve educational performance, even in studies performed by voucher supporters. Given the amount of time religious schools waste on religious brainwashing, which reduces intellectual capacity, instead of education, this is hardly surprising.

Now, a bunch of luny Republicans want to continue to impose an unwanted voucher plan on the District of Columbia which DC doesn't want and never did. Congress should reject this nonsense and focus educational funding on education. Congress should also stop treating DC as a playpen for its most obnoxious and unproductive schemes.

Atheists shouldn't have to pay to subsidize religion. We have a right to live our lives as free from the oppression of religion as possible.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a 3/6/09 press release on the subject:

U.S. Senate Should Reject Ensign School Voucher Proposal, Says Americans United
Friday, March 6, 2009

Watchdog Group Says Washington, D.C., Program Forces Taxpayers To Fund Religious Schools And Diverts Attention From Public School Improvement

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has called on the Senate to reject Sen. John Ensign’s proposal to extend Washington, D.C.’s private school voucher plan.

The program, Americans United asserts, funds religious schools, diverts attention from public school improvement and has not raised student achievement.

“The sad truth is, this fight is not about helping kids in D.C. or anywhere else,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s about ideology. Some people just don’t like public schools and want to use vouchers to funnel public funds to religious and other private schools.

“The American people have rejected this approach over and over again at the ballot box,” Lynn continued. “The Senate should reject school vouchers as well. Our focus should be on improving public schools, not undercutting them through vouchers.”

D.C.’s federally funded voucher plan was foisted on the District of Columbia by private school advocates in the Bush administration in 2004. It was initially funded by Congress for five years as an experiment.

The program is due to expire this year, but some senators, notably U.S. Sens. Ensign (R-Nev.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), are pushing to continue it.

Ensign has put forward Amendment 615 to the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1105) that would have the effect of extending the program. The matter could face a Senate vote as early as Monday.

Lynn noted that some voucher supporters have resorted to extreme rhetoric. Yesterday, DeMint said during a news conference that most D.C. public school students end up joining gangs.

“If you send a kid to [public] school in D.C., chances are that they will end up in a gang rather than graduating,” DeMint said.

On March 3, Americans United sent a letter to every senator, urging them to vote against Ensign’s amendment.

“Senator Ensign’s amendment would open the door to the indefinite funding of the expired D.C. voucher program even though it has been proven ineffective, would harm civil rights and civil liberties, and would strip necessary accountability standards needed to fix identified problems that exist in the current program,” asserted the letter.

AU’s letter notes that reports issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2007 and 2008 show that the academic achievement of D.C voucher students is no better than that of students attending D.C. public schools.

In addition, a November 2007 report by the General Accounting Office criticized the program, finding that “accountability and internal control were inadequate.”

Rush Limbaugh's wholly owned political party gets more and more offensive every day.

 

I am so ashamed that I voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary. I should have stuck with Kucinich. I'm so proud of voting for Cynthia McKinney in the general election. The latter decision was better informed and far wiser.

Anyway, it looks like bloggers aren't the only people disappointed by Obama's decision to drag out the war on Iraq at least until the end of 2011.

From CODEPINK Press Release 2/27/09:

CODEPINK calls Obama’s announcement of timetable, residual troops in Iraq a “broken promise”
Americans must continue to push for change

WASHINGTON — CODEPINK Women for Peace is disheartened by President Obama’s announcement this morning for troop withdrawal by Aug. 2010, later than his campaign promise, leaving residual troops until December 2011.

Americans voted for Obama largely based on his opposition to the war since its start, and his promise to end the occupation in 2009.

“While the move toward withdrawal is positive, this timeline and leaving tens of thousands of residual troops sounds more like occupation-lite than an end to occupation,” said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK. “But compared to the past eight years of moving backward, at least there’s an atmosphere now where we can continue to apply pressure on the administration to push forward.”

CODEPINK women call on Obama and his administration to immediately withdraw all U.S. troops, including residual forces from Iraq. Instead, the U.S. government should increase efforts in diplomacy, humanitarian aid and refugee resettlement. Continued troop presence will only encourage more armed opposition within Iraq and will not force the Iraqi government and Iraqi factions to negotiate power. In addition, with the continued presence of U.S. troops, the international community will doubt the U.S. commitment to withdrawal and will wait to invest in diplomatic and reconstruction efforts.

From Iraq Veterans Against the War

IVAW Wants to See Obama Call for a Complete Withdrawal from Iraq

As an organization of Global War on Terror veterans and Active Duty service members, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is pleased that President Obama is taking important steps to bring our fellow service members home. However, his plan to slowly remove combat brigades over the next 18 months and leave a remaining 35-50,000 troops throughout 2011 is a plan for almost three more years of an unjustified military occupation that continues to claim the lives and livelihoods of our troops and innocent Iraqis.

President Obama speaks of a change in mission, from a combat role to a support role, but yet still leaves room for “conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions” with a portion of the transitional forces remaining combat-ready. He also does not include a timeline for removing the more than 150,000 private defense contractors and mercenaries still in Iraq, nor does he address the question of disallowing permanent military bases.

The ANSWER Coaltion was a bit more direct in its email:

With his speech today, President Obama has essentially agreed to continue the criminal occupation of Iraq indefinitely. He announced that there will be an occupation force of 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for at least three more years. President Obama used carefully chosen words to avoid a firm commitment to remove the 50,000 occupation troops, even after 2011.

The war in Iraq was illegal. It was aggression. It was based on lies and false rationales. President Obama's speech today made Bush’s invasion sound like a liberating act and congratulated the troops for "getting the job done." More than a million Iraqis died and a cruel civil war was set into motion because of the foreign invasion. President Obama did not once criticize the invasion itself.

He has also requested an increase in war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, and plans to double the number of U.S. troops sent to fight in Afghanistan.

President Obama has asked Congress to provide more than $200 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next two years, in addition to increasing the Pentagon budget by four percent.

Based on President Obama's new budget, the Pentagon would rank as the world's 17th largest economy—if it were a country. This new budget increases war spending. Total spending in 2010 would roughly equate to an average of $21,000 a second.

This is not the end of the occupation of Iraq, but rather the continuation of the occupation.

There is only one reason that tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq: It is because this is a colonial-type occupation of a strategically important and oil-rich country located in the Middle East where two-thirds of the world's oil reserve can be found.

Obama's speech was a major disappointment for anyone who was hoping that Obama would renounce the illegal occupation of Iraq. Today, the U.S. government spends $480 million per day to fund the occupation of Iraq. Even if 100,000 troops are drawn out by August 2010, that means the indefinite occupation of Iraq will cost more than $100 million each day. The continued occupation of Iraq for two years or three years or more makes a complete mockery out of the idea that the Iraqi people control their own destiny. It is a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and independence.

It is no wonder that John McCain came out to support President Obama's announced plan on Iraq. McCain was an supporter of former President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's war and occupation in Iraq.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—the architects of regime change in Iraq—never had the goal of indefinitely keeping 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They wanted to subdue the Iraqi people and exercise control with a smaller force. The Iraqi armed resistance prolonged the stationing of 150,000 U.S. troops.

Bush's goal was domination over Iraq and its oil supplies, and domination over the region. This continues to be the goal of the U.S. political and economic establishment, including that of the new administration.

Contact the President and Demand a Full and Rapid Withdrawal from Iraq!

Web: www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Phone: 202-456-1111

 

Photo: acroll

President Obama has nominated an Internet industry backer of Net Neutrality to be the next Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman. (From CNET 3/3/09 - Hat Tip to From the Left)

President Obama on Tuesday nominated Julius Genachowski as the nation's top telecommunications regulator, picking a campaign advisor who has divided his career between Washington, D.C., political jobs and working as an Internet executive.

Genachowski had been mentioned as a likely candidate for the Federal Communications Commission post, in part because he participated in the Obama campaign's Internet efforts and previously worked as chief counsel to Democratic FCC Chairman Reed Hundt.

"He will bring to the job diverse and unparalleled experience in communications and technology, with two decades of accomplishment in the private sector and public service," Obama said in a statement.

Genachowski is likely to continue the Democratic push for more Net neutrality regulations, which are opposed by some conservatives and telecommunications providers. He was a top Obama technology advisor and aided in crafting a technology platform that supported Net neutrality rules.

This is good news from an administration whose overall performance has been all over the map so far. It doesn't make up for President Obama's Clintonian discrimination against queers in Cabinet level appointments. It certainly won't absolve him from potential war crimes prosecution if he really does carry out his threat to drag out the war of aggression against Iraq until 2011. But, it is good news.

One word of caution on Genachowski. He works in the Internet industry. His industry is experiencing consolidation; companies in his industry will go bankrupt as in other industries; and many potential employers after his government service will be the same people who will be lobbying him against Net Neutrality. This is no time to declare victory. People who want a free Internet will have to keep fighting.

Note on the Budget: As usual, corporate media coverage of the Obama budget is mostly on the politics, not the policy. The actual policies embedded in that budget appear to be just as all over the map as everything else this administration has done so far. It invites further study, and selective activism to try to improve it in Congress. Liberals and progressives need to be very careful not to reflexively support or oppose this administration. At this time, it's a matter of putting pressure on the White House and Congress to improve.

 

 

I've been wondering about this, but I didn't have the balls/ovaries to write it first. Here's a shoutout to Advice Unasked.

But, croaks the Raven, I don't think that where it's at. It looks to me like a bargain was struck with the criminals of the Bush administration, just like the bargains made with other corrupt dictators who have been forced, finally, to leave office: defend us, let us retire, and we will go quietly. Frankly, I'm astonished. These people have already "left" public life. Unless they are punished, they will return again, or their next generation. I don't want to see another pointless war of aggression, I don't want another great depression, I want my civil rights back, I want all these things for future generations as well. There is also an ethical problem: this is corrupting. If the biggest criminals get off, what reason is there for the rest of us to toe the line? Corruption breeds corruption. And what are we going to do when the Arab/Islamic world decides that, under the Bush doctrines of enforcement of national laws internationally, they can deal out justice against these people within our own borders?

Deals with murderous dictators are nothing new in other countries. It certainly would explain a lot.


Image: George W. Bush addenta il collo della Statua della Libertà.
(George W. Bush bites Statue of Liberty's neck.)
Stencil. Authors: Soggett & Ego.
Via Bologna - Andria (Ba) - Italy
Photo: smeerch

 

RNC Chair Michael Steele did the unthinkable. He tried to win elections for the GOP.

By trying to distance the GOP from the voluminous Rush Limbaugh, Steele attempted to do what any competent professional would do in his job. The vast majority of Americans think that Limbaugh is worse than anything you could ever scrape off of your shoe.

I've read that Steele already has backed down to the lunatics who have been captured into an orbit of Limbaugh. Planet Limbaugh has conquered the GOP. However, the Rushtroopers have scorched the ground of the GOP in the process.

Poor babies.

 

Crossposted to Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus

A lot of financial news and blog articles are speculating on when is a good time to start buying stocks again. One factor they fail to consider is the Iraq War. President Obama's plan to continue the occupation of Iraq with at least 50,000 more US troops is an important consideration, one that should not be overlooked.

The war on Iraq is enormously costly in lives. The over 4,000 US dead are dwarfed by the over 1.3 million Iraqis killed. Another cost is economic. Iraq's economy has been obliterated by this war. The US economy has been severely damaged as well.

The illegal war against the Iraqi people is one of the causes of the financial crises we are facing. Logic insists that stopping the war is a critical step in getting our economy on a productive course. Yet, Obama and the politicians ignore reason in favor of pandering to corporate and wealthy campaign contributors who want to keep making money on the carnage.

Until the last US troops are out of Iraq, it is crazy to buy any stocks. The war's damage on our already precarious economy is reason enough, but there is something else to consider. The refusal of the political establishment to abandon business as usual and end the war shows that they think they can keep getting away with making the same mistakes that got us here.

As long as there are any US troops in Iraq, you can be sure that Obama and the rest of the politicians are not taking our economic situation as seriously as they need to.

 

62 Senators voted Thursday to launch a massive terrorist attack against the innocent civilians who live in our nation's capital. They voted support the NRA, the nation's largest terrorist group, by voting for the Thune amendment to the DC voting rights legislation which would flood Washington, DC with guns. This action was taken knowing full well that the result of the amendment becoming law would be the senseless killings, rapes, and robberies of District residents.

Here's the Roll Call Vote:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---62
Alexander (R-TN) · · · Barrasso (R-WY) · · · Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN) · · · Begich (D-AK) · · · Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT) · · · Bond (R-MO) · · · Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) · · · Burr (R-NC) · · · Byrd (D-WV)
Casey (D-PA) · · · Chambliss (R-GA) · · · Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS) · · · Collins (R-ME) · · · Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN) · · · Cornyn (R-TX) · · · Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC) · · · Dorgan (D-ND) · · · Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY) · · · Feingold (D-WI) · · · Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA) · · · Gregg (R-NH) · · · Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT) · · · Hutchison (R-TX) · · · Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA) · · · Johanns (R-NE) · · · Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ) · · · Landrieu (D-LA) · · · Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL) · · · McCain (R-AZ) · · · McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY) · · · Murkowski (R-AK) · · · Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR) · · · Reid (D-NV) · · · Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS) · · · Sessions (R-AL) · · · Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME) · · · Specter (R-PA) · · · Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD) · · · Udall (D-CO) · · · Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA) · · · Voinovich (R-OH) · · · Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA) · · · Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI) · · · Bingaman (D-NM) · · · Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH) · · · Burris (D-IL) · · ·Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD) · · · Carper (D-DE) · · · Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL) · · · Feinstein (D-CA) · · · Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA) · · · Inouye (D-HI) · · · Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA) · · · Klobuchar (D-MN) · · · Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ) · · · Leahy (D-VT) · · · Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) · · · Lugar (R-IN) · · · Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR) · · · Mikulski (D-MD) · · · Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL) · · · Reed (D-RI) · · · Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT) · · · Schumer (D-NY) · · · Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI) · · · Whitehouse (D-RI) · · · Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

None of these gun nut Senators are going to get a dime from me in campaign contributions. Strong gun control is my inalienable right as a gun crime victim. America needs to reject the terrorist propaganda saying that the Second Amendment applies to private gun ownership.

Sen. Harry Reid (Phonycrat - NV) has played a truly shameful and unAmerican leadership role in getting this terrorist attack through the Senate. America's only hope is that the Amendment will be wiped out in Conference committee.

It's bad enough that a Phonycrat like Harry Reid regularly abuses his position as Senate Majority Leader to push the heterosexist, misogynistic, and racist agenda of his Mormon cult. He always has been in bed with the gun extremists, showing a complete lack of regard for victims of gun crimes such as gay bashings, robberies, rapes, and murders. Reid is a sleazy Bush Republican who went along slavishly with the Bush agenda for eight years. He desperately deserves a primary challenge for so many reasons. If he wins the Democratic nomination, I look forward to the hope that I can give money to a Green Party opponent of his.

I did notice that our new New York Senator Gillibrand voted against this. I guess she is starting to realize just how outraged gun crime victims are at her past support of gun terrorism. One vote won't be enough to get her our support. She needs to get the guns out of her house for good, and she needs to work to get guns out of our streets, parks, and peoples' homes.

Another aspect of this that is so offensive is the racism. These rightist nutjobs think it is perfectly OK to meddle in DC's affairs merely because a majority of the population is black. This is a long tradition in the Senate, and Harry Reid is displaying his Mormon racism by taking such a leading role in this action.

 

There are two obvious reasons why the punditocracy overwhelmingly favors the rich.

1) Rich people own the media corporations.

2) Rich people own the major advertisers.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out another reason in its blog. Many of these talking heads are the rich.

Matthew Yglesias writes today (2/23/09) on the oddity of Gregory making a distinction between fat cats and people like himself. I can't find a published estimate of Gregory's salary, but his NBC colleague Chris Matthews reportedly makes $5 million a year (Washington Post, 1/8/09), as did his Meet the Press predecessor Tim Russert (Washington Post, 5/23/04), so Gregory's salary is probably in that neighborhood, give or take a few million. This is a hundred times the median family income in the U.S.--not counting Gregory's spouse's income; she used to be a vice president at Fannie Mae, making an estimated $3 million a year.

And you wonder why the corporate media sympathize so much with the banksters.