That Said ...

... I thought this was funny. No one can make a subtle dig at the GOP like President Obama. Never forget, the Grand Old Petty Party really did try to defund the President's Telepromptr:

Royal Pains

I’m watching the royal wedding while drinking my morning coffee, enjoying all of the pomp and ceremony and ooohing over Kate’s gorgeous gown and tittering over the Beefeaters (who always make me think of a bottle of gin) and thinking what beautiful children these two are going to have, and I just know I’m going to catch shit from people who think the royal wedding is a silly waste of time. Those people have been all over Twitter and the blogs the past couple weeks, telling everyone the country has more important things to worry about than some superfluous monarch's wedding, and while that may be true I just want to say to you folks: STFU.

I don’t know why we Americans love the British royals but we do. Maybe it’s a chance to live vicariously through our cousins across the pond, maybe it’s the fact that so many British ex-pats live here, maybe it's just our American love of celebrity. But I have no problem setting aside all of the angst and agita and sniping and griping which has consumed us 24/7 and enjoy a real-life fairy tale for a few moments. In fact, I think we need it. We need to turn off the noise and think happy thoughts for a little while.

You know what strikes me watching this spectacle? Seeing hundreds of thousands of people crowd the London streets cheering, waving their Union Jacks, just proud to be British citizens. They’ve got their problems in that country too, but it’s nice to see them turn it all off and enjoy a moment of solidarity. They're jumping in fountains, wearing funny hats, and expressing the pure joy of this historic moment.

Americans had a moment like that not too long ago. It was the inauguration of Barack Obama. Remember that? Remember the millions who descended on Washington D.C. to experience history in person? The millions more who sat glued to their television sets as the nation’s first African American president took the oath of office? Remember how proud we all felt that America had taken this extraordinary step, moved past its painful history and vowed to start fresh?

You know, it’s always been interesting to me that the Glenn Beck types want to bring America back to 9/12 -- the day after we were attacked, when the nation was unified, yes that's true, but it was in fear and sorrow. What does that say about them? If I had to pick a day it would be 1/21 when we were unified by hope and a desire for change.

Since then we’ve been dragged back into the same cesspool of sleazy politics and message manipulation and absurd attacks on the president’s legitimacy not to mention his policies. We've returned to business as usual.

Let’s hope the new royal couple fares better.

Check The Kerning!

[UPDATE]:

Ha ha ha ha ha! Hilarious! "Check the kerning" is a Bush-era internet meme, which apparently Birthers are too dumb to know. Hey, who says right-wingers don't believe in recycling?

----------------------------------
Okay, y’all happy now?

Of course not. This settles nothing. Why, there are still so many unanswered questions! There’s the whole mystery surrounding Obama’s supposed Connecticut Social Security number, or the vagaries of 1961 immigration law which disqualify Obama because of his mother’s age, or any one of a number of crazy half-assed theories one finds when they go down the birther rabbit hole.

But of course Serious People (like Anderson Cooper, for instance) simply must talk about it because, well, it would be irresponsible not to! And as we all know, Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz and the rest of the birther brigade are very, very serious people with nothing in their past to indicate they aren’t credible individuals.

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, how long before a story surfaces on WingNut Daily claiming the long-form birth certificate is a forgery? I give it, oh, about four hours. And hey, there's all that other stuff I mentioned that they can chew over, too. So no, of course we will still be hearing that the president is illegitimate, and frankly, bring it on. Because now we have even more ammunition to throw back at those folks.

And here's a question: when did the discourse in this country get so crazy? When did it become okay for respected news organizations to treat the craziest conspiracy theories the right can dream up as legitimate stories worth devoting air time to? For crying out loud, CNN sent a fucking reporter to Hawaii! Why is it when the left was questioning the rationale for the Iraq War invasion we were just a bunch of pot-smoking hippies with nothing credible to back up our claims of cooked-up intelligence?

Is this how empires fall?

[UPDATE]: And of course, it's all about Donald Trump. The man's ego knows no bounds.

[UPDATE] 2: Well, here's another conspiracy theory to chew over: it's the Mitt Romney death certificate coverup!

And while Romney has a valid Michigan birth certificate, there is also the question of a death certificate, officially stamped on his passport ("He is dead") by the French police after a lethal auto accident while he was a missionary there in 1968.

Oh, my! Something to look forward to in 2012. Somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that if Romney gets the GOP nomination, no one will make a fuss about him being dead. Because, IOKIYAR.

[UPDATE] 3: Wow, WingNut Daily surprised me. I gave them four hours to denounce the Obama long form birth certificate, but it appears they had already called it into question before I’d even finished writing my post:

If the document proves valid, it could answer the questions raised by those who have alleged he was not actually born in Hawaii. But it also could prove his ineligibility because of its references to his father. Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around the Obama’s eligibility for nearly three years, was elated at the turn of events.

"We're gratified that our work has begun to pay off," he said. "The certificate of live birth is an absolutely vital foundation for determining constitutional eligibility of any president. We look forward to reviewing it like so many other Americans do at this late date. But it is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama’s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life."

Sure, there's so much secrecy when you keep pulling paranoid ideas out of the clear blue sky and people look at you strangely when you talk about them.

Jeeeeesuz. Your "relentless investigative campaign" has just been destroyed in the matter of 10 minutes, but of course with this much invested in it, don't expect it to go away -- ever. These people will never, ever give up. After all, the president is still black. Nothing will change that.

The Politics Of Fad Diets

The GOP’s “tax and spend liberal” label notwithstanding, President Obama is apparently America’s biggest tax cutter in 60 years:

According to the Tax Policy Center, Federal taxes are lower than at any time since 1955. Obama has now reduced taxes by more than any president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

According to the Orange County Register, “For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it’s well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s.”

So where are all the fucking jobs and economic growth that’s supposed to shower down upon us like manna from heaven? And how come no one ever challenges the righties on their steadfast belief in tax cuts as economic stimulus? Every time a Bob Schaeffer or Tweety or George Stuffinenvelopes interviews a GOPer about this, we get the same old line about tax cuts stimulating the economy and no one ever says, “well, it hasn’t yet!” I just don’t get it. It’s become almost ingrained in the national psyche that right wing voodoo economics works, when in fact it’s a fairy tale.

You want to know why a big swath of America votes against its own self-interest? It’s something every snake oil salesman, self-help guru and fad diet author knows: tell people what they want to hear and they’ll buy it every damn time. It doesn’t even have to work, as long as the people really, really want it to work. People want to think "the secret" to winning the lottery is to repeat some prosperity affirmation over and over. People want to think they can lose weight eating bacon and eggs and eschewing the toast and fruit. And people want to think the key to kickstarting the economy is to not pay taxes or invest in the country at all, but instead take all the goodies and let some invisible, magical force make everything alright, somehow.

This is also why right-wing Christianity is so compelling: people want to believe that Jesus preached self-reliance and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, they want to justify ignoring the human and environmental toll our standard of living exacts. We don't want to change, because we're human beings and we're more afraid of change than anything else.

Doug J has more ....

.... as does Andrew Sullivan:

The much bigger problem with the GOP plan is its view of taxes. Even though we have historically low income tax rates for high-earning individuals, even though revenues have collapsed in the recession, even though we have empirically discovered that big tax cuts have not generated more economic growth, the GOP still insists on reforming taxes not to raise revenue but to reduce it. This is where the whole thing gets surreal. The very Laffer untruth that sank America into debt in the early 1990s s one still being peddled against all the relevant evidence to guide us through the next few decades. In my view, if we maintain that ideological fantasy, the US will become a banana republic in short order.

Yes, dear. Thanks for noticing. This is why we call them “Banana Republicans.” Again: the GOP is no longer the “Daddy Party.” They’re the “tell the chumps whatever they want to hear” Party. Weave some feel-good fantasy to keep the kids happy so they can go off drinking with their buddies and gambling at the Wall Street casino.

It's not surreal, sweetie. It's pathological.

Dropping Pretenses

Well, at least they are now admitting that this is not about budgets or fiscal responsibility. It’s about breaking unions, breaking Obama and winning the 2012 election:

This was just the final step in removing any doubt about the true nature of this fight. There was the announcement that Crossroads GPS, an independent campaign group founded by former George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove, among others, launched a $750,000 cable television ad buy blistering President Obama and public sector unions, with the Wisconsin battle as the hook and clearly painting it as being about breaking the unions. (As a side note, the ad contained assertions about union pay that even their ostensible source—a libertarian Cato Institute—said were misleading.)

Then there was Scott Fitzgerald, the state senate GOP leader, admitting to Fox News that the battle was about crippling the unions. He said:

“If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.”

Presumably that relates to fixing the state budget somehow. (And as an aside: Really? A great American drama is being played out before us and one of the characters is named Scott Fitzgerald? Awesome.)

It’s been fascinating to watch this political striptease, as prevarication after prevarication is stripped away, laying bare a naked political power grab. Poll after poll after poll showed Americans in general and Wisconsites in particular opposed Walker’s plan—and most especially his union-busting proposal. It was almost as it these polls focused and distilled the issue to its core.

Yes, this is what we Lefties have been saying all along. When we tried to tell the Teanutties that they were being played by corporate interests bent on a power grab, they said oh no! Not us! We really care about government spending!

Yeah, right.

So while Wisconsin is center stage for this class struggle, make no mistake: the battle is being waged everywhere. Here in Tennessee, and in Ohio, and in Michigan and Virginia and everywhere else. It’s not about budgets or the size of government. It’s about political power, specifically taking it away from the people and giving it to the wealthy corporate elite. It’s about making sure workers no longer have a voice and the Democratic Party no longer has a major fundraiser. That’s what this has always been about. Pure, unadulterated political power.

I mean hello, people. What does it say that the Wisconsin Republicans are running to Washington D.C. to collect their money from a big-time D.C. lobbyist, BGR Group? Doesn't that just say it all right there?

And it’s about President Obama. POTUS has been taking a lot of heat for backing away from a campaign vow to walk the picket line to support unions. It’s funny because the right is hilariously trying to claim the Wisconsin recall effort has been organized by the White House, when Obama can’t distance himself fast enough from the biggest event to affect American workers of his presidency.

Oh, I know, he needs to worry about Libya and the budget debate and there’s a trip to the UK coming up and blah blah. He doesn’t want to make it look like he’s involved in a state issue like worker’s collective bargaining rights. Well, sorry dude, but you are involved because this is all about defeating you in November 2012. The White House needs to wake up and smell the coffee. This is about Obama, the Wisconsin Republicans have said so. It’s about the 2012 election. It’s about breaking the president and breaking the Democratic Party. It’s about politics, it always has been. So wake the fuck up and put some skin in the game. You can’t pretend you’re not involved when you’re one of the main reasons this is happening in the first place. This is about you. This is about the Democratic Party.

Get your shit together, Democrats. They’ve come for you. What are you going to do about it?

Obama’s First 2 Years Were Very Good

Death of another Republican talking point:

While voters may have been unhappy, President Obama has quietly maintained his position as one of the equity market’s most well loved Presidents. As shown in the table below, the 47.6% gain in the DJIA since he took office ranks as the third best first two years for any President since the start of the 21st Century (FDR 90.5% and Coolidge 52.6%).

Note the story should read "start of the 20th Century," as well. Anyway, so much for that “most anti-business President in U.S. history stuff.” The chart:

Courage & Anger

Frank Rich’s column yesterday, “Gay Bashing At The Smithsonian,” brings to mind an issue which has troubled me for some time. And that’s the issue of courage.

Rich discusses the removal of the late artist David Wojnarowicz’s work from an exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. He writes:

When his mentor and former lover, the photographer Peter Hujar, fell ill with AIDS in 1987, Wojnarowicz created a video titled “A Fire in My Belly” to express both his grief and his fury. As in Haring’s altarpiece, Christ figures in Wojnarowicz’s response to the plague — albeit in a cryptic, 11-second cameo. A crucifix is besieged by ants that evoke frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on.

This is the piece that was originally included in the Smithsonian’s exhibition, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," which is advertised as “a serious examination of the role sexual identity has played in the creation of modern American portraiture.” The National Portrait Gallery yanked “Fire in My Belly” from its exhibit in early December after the Smithsonian caved to a manufactured piece of outrage which I daresay few Americans even heard about.

Back to Rich:

Like many of its antecedents, the war over Wojnarowicz is a completely manufactured piece of theater. What triggered the abrupt uproar was an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.

[...]

It took only hours after Donohue’s initial battle cry for the video to be yanked. “The decision wasn’t caving in,” the museum’s director, Martin E. Sullivan, told reporters. Of course it was. The Smithsonian, in its own official statement, rationalized its censorship by saying that Wojnarowicz’s video “generated a strong response from the public.” That’s nonsense. There wasn’t a strong response from the public — there was no response. As the museum’s own publicist told the press, the National Portrait Gallery hadn’t received a single complaint about “A Fire in the Belly” from the exhibit’s opening day, Oct. 30, until a full month later, when a “public” that hadn’t seen the exhibit was mobilized by Donohue to blast the museum by phone and e-mail.

The museum caved. They caved. Why?

Time and again we see groups (and politicians) cave in the face of such obviously manufactured political theater. Where is the courage? Who thinks capitulation is a winning strategy, that it does nothing more than ensure future fake campaigns?

Why was Shirley Sherrod asked to resign so quickly last summer? Why was Van Jones thrown under the bus? Why do our Democratic leaders and institutions cave to the right wing noise machine, time and time again?

Why do they act so afraid that some pundit somewhere is saying something mean about them?

The fact that Republicans are allowed to do the same (or worse) without any pearl-clutching in the media proves how politically motivated these “fauxtrages” are. It’s all about framing, fear-mongering, indulging in stereotypes and retreading that well-worn path allowing the majority to pretend it is a persecuted minority, thus redirecting anger to a more politically expedient target.

Yes, it pisses me off. And with all of that swirling around in my head I turned the page and read Ishmael Reed’s op-ed piece in the same issue of the New York Times (expanded upon at blogs like my second home, The Swash Zone). Apparently, progressives calling for President Obama (and other Democrats) to show some backbone in the face of unprecedented GOP obstructionism need to STFU because we simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a black person in America:

One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.

What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

Um, here’s a news flash for you: President Obama has already been dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. Or haven’t you been listening to Glenn Beck, the very same right wing commentator who cost Van Jones his job? Were you paying attention when Ben Stein came out and called then-candidate Barack Obama an angry black man on Fox News in 2008? No? Well, we progressives were, and we countered those accusations every time. Where were you?

Look, the “angry” label is nothing new, nor is it unique to black intellectuals. Maybe you weren’t paying attention when Republicans called Hillary Clinton “too angry” to win a presidential election in 2008. Karl Rove called Al Gore “one angry dude.” Howard Dean was too angry to be president in 2004 and here he is screaming after a primary win to prove it! We’re “the angry left,” and voters “don’t elect angry candidates,” as former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman famously told ABC News. (For some reason anger isn’t a negative for the Tea Party, though -- despite their guns and Town Hall shouting matches and hanging representatives in effigy. IOKIYAR.)

I get that there is a strategy among those in power exploiting cultural stereotypes and stoking fear of the “angry black male” to oppress black advancement in this country. That's the same reason we hear women are too emotional and gays are pedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists. We all have our baggage and yes, some people’s baggage might be heavier than others. But that doesn’t mean we capitulate to it. Caving to the whims of the hate machine which makes these erroneous claims does not make them go away. It enables them!

This is standard issue right wing framing. Liberals have been labeled “angry” (even “too angry”) for decades, and guess what, we are angry. We were angry when protestors rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and we were angry when we protested the Vietnam War and we were angry when we burned our bras in the 1970s and we were angry when we protested apartheid in the 1980s and we were angry when we protested the WTO conference in Seattle in 2000. Hell we were so angry over the stolen election in 2000 and subsequent Bush presidential misdeeds that we created a bumper sticker about it, which the Tea Party has conveniently co-opted.

It’s okay to be angry. Angry people get things done. I just never understood why being angry was supposed to be a bad thing, anyway. Just because the RNC says it is?

So no, I’m not going to tell Democrats not to be angry because Tweety might have a sad or Joke Line may wring his hands about frothy-mouthed liberal bloggers. Getting angry is okay, if you are fighting for your principles.

This is where courage comes in. Getting back to Ishmael Reed’s op-ed, I have to say I was mighty offended when I read this:

Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

Well damn, there’s a stereotype for you! Here’s a news flash for Mr. Reed: not all white progressives are used to getting it all, either. And I’ll be damned if I’ll be lectured on stereotypes by someone who can’t even recognize one when it pops out of his own keyboard.

Stand up and show some backbone, Democrats. Don’t cave to the right wing noise machine. Don't agree to a political approach which neuters liberal outrage, and only allows conservatives to get angry. Every time you do so progress takes a step back. Every capitulation emboldens the opposition. It's OK to be angry and it's even better to use that anger to harden your resolve.

And I guarantee you that the Republicans are going to say mean things about you. You can take that to the bank. You know what? They're going to say mean things anyway.

The Problem With Pragmatism

Thinking about the scold we Lefties got from President Obama the other day, and the scorn he got from us in return, and the criticism bloggers and journalists are heaping upon each other as they pick a side, it all seems to boil down to one thing: When it comes to policy-making in modern-day Washington, you either think something is better than nothing, or you think nothing is better than something.

If, like President Obama and some of our Democrats, you think something is better than nothing, then compromises on the tax bill and healthcare reform and the stimulus package and Afghanistan and GITMO are acceptable, pragmatic actions. But if you take the long view, then such pragmatism does more harm than good. Sometimes, nothing is better than something.

Or, to put it another way: if you have a blister on your thumb, then amputating your arm is definitely a radical, foolhardy move. Unless you’re a masochist, you will opt for a Band-Aid instead. But say you’re Aron Ralston, and you aren’t dealing with a blister but instead are trapped beneath a boulder. In that case a Band-Aid is useless and foolish; amputating your arm to save your life is the pragmatic, albeit drastic, solution.

The trick in politics is knowing when you have a blister and when you are trapped by a boulder. And some of us progressive-types are saying the Democrats are trapped by a boulder right now. What’s at stake isn’t simply a piece of legislation here and there or even an election or two, it’s the entire legacy of the New Deal. And perhaps the sooner everyone wakes up to that reality, the better.

Three weeks before President Obama threw a bucket of cold water on the liberal base, James K. Galbraith articulated the conundrum that is the Obama presidency in a speech ominously titled, “Whose Side Is The White House On?”

The historian and economist said:

On the topics that I know most about, the administration is beyond being a disappointment. It’s beyond inept, unprepared, weak, and ineffective. Four and again two years ago, the people demanded change. As a candidate, the President promised change. In foreign policy and the core economic policies, he delivered continuity instead. That was true on Afghanistan and it was and is true in economic policy, especially in respect to the banks. What we got was George W. Bush’s policies without Bush’s toughness, without his in-your-face refusal to compromise prematurely. Without what he himself calls his understanding that you do not negotiate with yourself.

[...]

The president deprived himself of any chance to develop a narrative from the beginning by surrounding himself with holdover appointments from the Bush and even the Clinton administrations: Secretary Geithner, Chairman Bernanke, and, since we’re here at Harvard, I’ll call him by his highest title, President Summers. These men have no commitment to the base, no commitment to the Democratic Party as a whole, no particular commitment to Barack Obama, and none to the broad objective of national economic recovery that can be detected from their actions.

This is all correct, and there’s more ... lots more. Go read Galbraith’s entire speech. He outlines point-by-point how the Obama Administration failed by advocating weak policies, by campaigning as a man of the people then siding with the banks and Wall Street.

The question is, what do we do now? Where do we go from here? Galbraith and others believe we are now lodged behind a massive, conservative boulder, and Band-Aids -- pragmatic, legislative compromises -- do more harm than good. If the Democratic Party is going to continue to exist as a political force, then they need to start showing they stand for something. That may mean some legislative failures to score some ideological wins.

Stupid? Maybe, if you’re talking about some legislative initiatives. But the country faces huge challenges right now. Big battles require big actions. And with every compromised, pragmatic vote, Democrats saddle themselves with Republican baggage. They lose the argument. George W. Bush launched his disastrous, budget-busting war of choice in Iraq, but Democrats voted for it too, and there we are. Learn that lesson, Democrats.

In two years no one will remember that the Republicans were being really mean on tax cuts. They’ll just remember that when the Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate and the White House, they gave millionaires a tax cut that isn’t offset by spending cuts. So the Republicans will also remind everyone that Dems added 900 bazillion jillion dollars to the deficit, because that’s how our narrative works. Republicans rule the media, and I promise you we’ll suddenly be a nation of fiscal hawks again when it comes time to spend money on things like Social Security and Medicare and social safety nets.

That’s how it works when you have one political party bent on destroying the greatest achievement of another political party.

Here’s Galbraith’s take:

What is at stake in the long run? Two things, mainly, in my view. First, it seems to me that we as progressives need to make an honorable defense of the great legacies of the New Deal and Great Society — programs and institutions that brought America out of the Great Depression and bought us through the Second World War, brought us to our period of greatest prosperity, and the greatest advances in social justice. Social Security, Medicare, housing finance — the front-line right now is the foreclosure crisis, the crisis, I should say, of foreclosure fraud — the progressive tax code, anti-poverty policy, public investment, public safety, and human and civil rights. We are going to lose these battles– get used to it. But we need to make an honorable fight, to state clearly what our principles are and to lay down a record which is trustworthy for the future.

Beyond this, bold proposals are what we should be advancing now; even when they lose, they have their value. We can talk about job programs; we can talk about an infrastructure bank; we can talk about Juliet Schor’s idea of a four-day work week; we can talk about my idea of expanding Social Security and creating an early retirement option so that people who are older and unemployed or anxious to get out of the labor force can leave on comfortable terms, and so create job openings for younger people who, as we’ve heard today, are facing very long periods of extremely aggravating and frustrating unemployment; we can talk about establishing a systematic program of general revenue sharing to support state and local governments, we can talk about the financial restructuring we so desperately need and that we’ll have to have if we are going to have a country which has a viable private credit system and in which large financial power is not constantly dictating the terms of every political maneuver.

We are not going to get these things, but we should have a clearly defined program so that people know what they are. And then, frankly, as was said earlier today, said most elegantly by Jeff Madrick, in the long run we need to recognize that the fate of the entire country is at stake. Its governance can’t be entrusted indefinitely to incompetents, hacks, and lobbyists. Large countries can and do fail, they have done so in our own time. And the consequences are very grave: drastic declines in services, in living standards, in life expectancies, huge increases in social tension, in repression, and in violence. These are the consequences of following through with crackpot ideas such as those embodied in the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission, as Jeff Madrick again outlined, such notions as putting arbitrary limits on the scale of government, or arbitrary limits on the top tax rate affecting the wealthiest Americans.

Yes. Yes, yes and more yes. Dear God, Democrats, but yes.

As the old addage goes, if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. Dear God, Democrats, quit falling for anything! Stand for something! You may not get it but you will have gained something else: your spine. Your right to Leadership. And you will have defended your legacy.

You will need these things moving forward. Galbraith’s speech is sobering, even depressing. He does not paint a picture of lollipops, puppies and rainbows. He says, indeed, that “we are heading now into a very dark time.” I believe he’s right.

Someone -- I don’t remember who, I think it may have been a commenter over at Balloon Juice -- pointed out that what people are really angry about is the realization that Washington is irreparably broken. Obama came to Washington promising to change the way things are done and he has failed miserably. With both houses of Congress and the White House, people hoped that partisan gridlock and party-over-country politics were history.

That didn’t happen because it was already too late. We can’t fix things the old-fashioned way. We need to wake up and smell the oligarchy, adjust our sails, and move forward accordingly.

You Will Eat Your Shit Sandwich And You Will Enjoy It

Did you watch President Obama’s news conference on the tax cut deal today? The part that really got me was where he showed how truly pissed off he is that The Left isn’t praising him on the healthcare reform bill. It slid out during the Q&A; you could really see that he expected chocolates and rose petals on healthcare reform, and is truly surprised that the Professional Left isn’t singing his Hosannahs. He actually seems to be holding a grudge about it.

I’m talking about this part:

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate during healthcare. This is the public option debate all over again.

So I pass a signature piece of legislation – but because there was a provision in there they didn’t get – that would have affected just a few million and we got insurance for 340 million – that was a sign of weakness and compromise. If that is the standard by which we are measuring success we will never get anything done.

I watched it on TV and here’s how it sounded to me:

So I go to all this trouble to bring The Left everything they ever asked for, and because they didn’t get this one teeny tiny weensy little thing they’re all, like, “loser!” and “asshole!” And so that’s the thanks I get! For sticking my neck out! What a bunch of whiners!

That’s how I heard it and let me say, it pissed me off. Because the “public option” wasn’t this teeny tiny weensy little tchotcke that would have looked nice on the mantle, it was the WHOLE ENCHILADA that would keep the healthcare bill from being a sop to bloated, for-profit corporations. The public option was supposed to be the policy that helped the healthcare bill become real reform, by lowering costs and bringing viable competition to the health insurance market.

And it was also supposed to be the “compromise” position, with the Holy Grail being single payer. So when you start out at the negotiating table with your compromise position as being the bauble you happily ditch, well, that tells us you don’t really understand our position.

And here we are again, with a backroom deal over tax cuts to bazillionaires. Let me interject: I don’t recall Obama going to this effort to negotiate the public option and sell it to Democrats in Congress, in fact, I seem to recall him standing on the sidelines during the entire healthcare debate twiddling his thumbs while Congress did the heavy lifting. Dude, you never even tried.

So now your little fee-fees are hurt because we Lefties haven’t sufficiently sung your praises about healthcare reform all these months later? ? Aww. So sad! Sounds to me like you never really understood our position to begin with, what we wanted or why we wanted it.

Honestly, I’m not sure how many times Obama can diss his base and then wonder why we aren’t sufficiently impressed. It’s like he doesn’t understand why the Democrats keep losing elections. Here, I’ll make it simple for you: give us a win, for Chrissakes, and we will show up on election day, knock on doors, make phone calls, and do all the crap we did to give you the White House in the first place! Give us something to be proud of, to stand for. We will throw all of the chocolates and rose petals at your feet we can. But don’t, in the name of all that is holy, hand Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck giant tax cuts and wonder why The Left isn’t calling you the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'm pretty sure I know how this whole thing will play out. The Republicans will slam President Obama as fiscally irresponsible, since these tax cats aren't paid for and add $900 billion to the deficit. Sure, we know no one gives a crap about deficits, but I guarantee you that in the next budget debate or election we'll suddenly be a nation of fiscal hawks all concerned about the deficit and Obama will get blamed for spending like a drunken sailor, just like he did in the run-up to the midterms. And when this round of tax cuts are set to sunset, the righties will portray Obama and the Democrats as wanting to pass a tax increase. Seen this movie before.

Then again, Congress could put on their big-boy pants and tell the President to shove it on his backroom deal. But I don't hold out much hope for that.

I'm tired of being told to suck it up.

Dude

I mean, seriously? This is what you guys got from last night?

• CNN’s Kieran Chetry:

"First of all, Jon Stewart called the leader of the free world ‘Dude,’ which was kind of a surreal moment...”

...to which NPR's media critic David Bianculli replied:

“President Dude might have shown a little more respect…”

• Wall Street Journal:

Should Jon Stewart Have Called the President ‘Dude?’

• Washington Post’s Dana Milbank:

Dude. The indignity of a comedy show host calling the commander in chief "dude" pretty well captured the moment for Obama.

Sure, because calling the President a Nazi, Socialist, racist, Fascist, etc. is so much more respectful.

God our media discourse is so stupid. C'mon, Democrats. Read my post from this morning about entertainment. This is what gets the media's attention. Use it.

The Very Model Of A Modern U.S. President

Via Balloon Juice:

The Lefties Who Took Down Obama

Peter Daou actually has a good piece up about the progressive bloggers accused of taking down the Obama presidency.

There’s a lot bile directed at folks like Glenn Greenwald, Digby, Marcy Wheeler, Jane Hamsher and even Daou himself these days. I don’t agree with these folks all of the time, and Hamsher seems to have gone off into some territory that I can’t fathom, but it’s clear that criticism from these and other lefty bloggers has been a thorn in the side of the White House for some time. When the president’s chief of staff calls progressives “fucking retards” and then the Vice President tells us to “stop whining,” it’s clear that somebody’s fee-fees have gotten hurt on the way to the midterm elections.

I think a lot of the Democratic Party assumed The Left was just, ya know, an ideologically liberal version of The Right. Which is so not the case. During the Bush years The Right were all about “clap louder” and anyone who disagreed with the president even the tiniest bit was the worst sort of traitor and a cheese-eating surrender monkey who spit on the troops and wanted America to fail. Ah yes, good times, good times.

That script was read everywhere from the pages of the Weekly Standard to right wing blogs to the Drudge Report to CNN to NBC Nightly News to the Sunday bobblehead shows. I vented a lot of spleen writing letters to news directors who I’m sure decided I was a crackpot but really, hearing liberals impugned on a daily basis in our mass media is what got me involved in politics to begin with.

So I’m sure the Obama Administration was really disappointed that when they took over, they didn’t get the same unthinking, unblinking warm hug from their base that the Republicans received. But see, this is what separates us from them. We have principles, and they have politics. The shit we say matters to us really DOES matter to us!

Unlike, say, the Tea Party, which claims to be all worked up over a tyrannical government’s overreach and civil liberties, yet none of those assholes has said one word about the Anwar al-Aulaqi case, just as they didn’t say one word about the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. I mean, this is the stuff these people should be waving misspelled signs over. Not your health insurance company no longer allowed to drop you because of a pre-existing condition. How about the U.S. government assassinating a U.S. citizen without due process? How does that fit into your view of the Constitution? If it does, you’re a fucking moron and I don’t have time for you.

So anyway, this is what Daou has to say:

From gay rights to executive power to war to the environment, the left increasingly believes the Obama White House lacks the moral courage to undo Bush’s radicalism. If anything, the Aulaqi case is an indication Obama will go further than Bush to “prove” his strength.

As I wrote last week, using policy to prove anything to anyone on the right is a wasted exercise.

I’m trying to imagine why Obama the Constitutional scholar would claim the state secrets privilege on something like this. I don’t think it’s just to look tough. Maybe he’s had the crap scared out of him and thinks he needs to actually be tough -- un-Constitutionally, totalitarian tough. Maybe when one joins that elite club of U.S. Presidents you do stuff like this because you can. I mean, I really don’t get it, but I don’t think “I want to look like a badass” quite covers it.

But it’s the kind of thing right wingers don’t seem to give a shit about. So once again that leaves the left to take up the real battle for civil liberties, justice, and the Constitution. And by the way, y’all can join in anytime, because in case you haven't noticed, the President and Vice President don’t seem to care what we think on our side of the aisle.

Some things really do matter to us. I personally don't care if the president is a Christian, Muslim or none of the above. I don't care if he likes Grey Poupon on his burger or can't throw a pitch or bowl to save his life or doesn't wear a flag pin. But I do draw the line at the president saying he can order a hit on anyone he likes and he doesn't have to tell anyone about it since it's a "state secret."

They Will Never Like You

Jonathan Bernstein's alarm bells go off in response to rumors that President Obama will replace Lawrence Summers “with somebody from the business community--i.e., a current or former CEO” in order to “disarm critics.” Bernstein writes:

But getting back to the main point here: this is a remarkably stupid plan, if true. It will not "disarm" critics who say that Obama is reflexively anti-business, any more than having Bob Gates at Defense "disarmed" critics of Obama's approach to terror -- indeed, actually expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and killing a lot of terrorists didn't slow down those who were intent on claiming that Obama was some sort of secret bin Laden sympathizer.  It doesn't work like that.  Critics will say what they will say, and it mostly doesn't matter, and at any rate there's nothing you can do about it.  What you can do, however, is have a well-run White House and do your best to have a well-run government.

This cannot be stated often enough, loud enough, or broadcast widely enough.

Let me point out something very obvious which Bernstein missed: the "critics" which the Obama Administration is supposedly trying to disarm are conservative ones. Apparently no one gives a crap about left wing critics. I know, y’all are shocked.

And yes, this is incredibly, stunningly stupid. Dear, sweet Democrats: conservatives will never, ever like you. NEVER. EVER. Quit trying to “please” them with your policies. Just do your shit and be done with it.

Bernstein writes:

Now, if these reports are simply a nod to an important constituency on the way to choosing whoever is the best available man or woman for the job, well, no harm done.  But if the administration is really more concerned about the short-term reaction to the selection -- how it plays in the press, rather than how it will help the president govern as well as possible -- then it's both a terrible mistake and a sign of real screwed up priorities.  It will certainly be interesting to see which it is.

Oh, I’m pretty sure we know which one it is. I think we’ve seen politics trump policy pretty much repeatedly, on everything from GITMO and terror trials and the anemic stimulus to the bungled healthcare "reform" and Wall Street "reform." And this is the great failure not just of President Obama but the Democratic Party in general.

Look, people: You cannot govern under a fear of criticism. The Republican Party wants back in power. They twisted the president’s Nobel Peace Prize into a negative. Conservatives criticized the president partaking of Sunday communion. Does that not tell you something?

Rush Limbaugh will NEVER like you! Sean Hannity will always say mean things about you! Mitch McConnell will always cast aspersions on your motives and character. This is as sure as the sun rising in the East each morning. And if there isn’t something real these people can criticize, they will make shit up. Hell, they’ll make shit up anyway. So quit trying to please the very people whose entire relevance as a political force is based on hatred of you. President Bush did whatever he wanted because he was resolute, and resolute trumps wrong every single time. Learn a lesson here, people.

During the primaries my biggest concern about Obama was that he wouldn’t have the spine to fight off conservative criticism and fulfill his campaign promises. My biggest concern about Hillary Clinton was that Clinton Derangement Syndrome would dominate our politics once again -- the “Clinton is a serial rapist” and "they-killed-Vincent-Foster" conspiracy crap. Turns out I was right about the former and wrong about the latter. The conspiracy crap is just as bad if not worse than it was in the Clinton years, but the Obama Administration has shown itself completely unable to deal with it.

Obama Dollars

[UPDATE]: Welcome to Dowling Duncan followers. To my non-American readers, please know that this post is dripping with sarcasm. The American political situation being what it is, you should know that our conservatives suffer from Black President Derangement Syndrome, coupled with idol worship of Ronald Reagan, whom they have been unable to get on the American money for decades. So, no "whinging" just snark.


This ought to generate sufficient outrage among the Teanuts to shove that New York mosque story off the front pages:

That brings us to the imagery, and here Dowling Duncan hatched a curious concept: Images directly relate to the value of each note -- and offer insight into America’s heritage, to boot. So since Obama is the nation’s first black president, he’s the face of the one-dollar bill.

ZOMG Obama on the one-dollar bill? When Reagan isn’t even on our money yet??!!!! Well what do you expect from a bunch of tea-drinking fancy pants Limeys and what the fuck are they doing messing with our money, anyway? Trying to make it look like that candy-colored Monopoly money they use in Yurp?

Hilarious.

Well, everyone can relax. It’s part of the Dollar ReDe$ign competition. But Dowling Duncan’s Obama idea has the most votes so far .... you never know!

Calling Bullshit

Today I caught several morning news stenographers anchors breathlessly reporting the latest political “controversy,” which is President Obama’s statement about that mosque thingie in downtown Manhattan. I’ve already written about the mosque here, written about how there’s already a mosque near Ground Zero, it’s been there since before 9/11, blah blah. I’ve since learned there are also a bunch of synagogues and a bunch of churches in that area, plus porn shops and lord knows what else on this so-called “hallowed ground.” The entire thing is so blatantly manufactured in the Frank Luntz Little Shoppe Of Bullshit that you’d have to be truly braindead or a member of the American media to take any of it seriously.

Anyway, the GOP wants to make this an election issue, which is how you know it’s utter bullshit because everyone knows the only election issue worth paying attention to right now is the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs. But of course the GOP says “jump” and the media asks “how high?”

Seriously, I can’t take another election season dominated by silly, emotional, unimportant issues. The media needs to wake the fuck up and stop hurting America. No one gives a crap about a mosque in New York City. How do I know this? I know this because the GOP is trying to make it an election issue. If people really cared, they wouldn’t be flogging this dead horse all the way to the November finish line.

And why do they do this? Because they have absolutely no fucking clue what to do about jobs, the tanking economy, and the rest of the huge mess they left the nation in. If they had a fucking clue they wouldn’t be trying to distract your attention with the shiny-sparkly mosque thingie over there. They’d be presenting their bold plan to kickstart our economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, their sad little plan is more tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation, plus another war in the Middle East for good measure -- the same crap that got us into this mess.

So: different year, same old crap. But dear American media, just because the GOP is having one of its periodic hissy fits, that doesn’t mean you guys need to play along. Seriously, there’s something about having a Democrat in the White House that sets our media off. They’ve got “Democratic President Derangement Syndrome.” Suddenly perfectly ordinary things that presidents do and say -- like, oh, I dunno, maybe defending the First Amendment and defending the rights of private property owners -- are deemed very odd and “controversial.”

It’s very puzzling.

Pullitzer to the reporter with the cojones to point out that the GOP wouldn’t be making an election issue out of a stupid issue like this if they weren’t so desperately bereft of any real ideas on how to solve America's problems.

Memory Hole, Obama Edition

Remember when right-wingers like Glenn Beck were in a tizzy over all of those Obama “Czars”?

Remember when our glorious Liberal Media was so worried about how Obama was doing “too much, too soon”?

We heard the “doing too much” line a lot. I mean really, really a lot.

So just curious how you folks now Monday morning quarterbacking the President on his failure to clean house at MMS and anticipate the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history would have reacted if he had come in and done exactly what you are now saying he should have done 18 months ago.

And that’s not even getting into the issue of secret holds on Obama nominees (and some not-so-secret ones.) Or the fact that President Bush “burrowed” industry-friendly appointees at the Interior Dept. into career civil-service positions.

So you folks whining about how Obama should have magically come in and swept out all the corrupt industry cronies at Interior need to shut your gobs. And yes, Rudy Giuliani, I’m looking at you.

There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for on this oil spill but let's remember the narrative of the past 18 months, shall we? The same people yammering about death panels and FEMA concentration camps and birth certificates and "Czars"--and some of you idiots are still whining about the Czar thing--would have turned any housecleaning at Interior into some kind of Socialist-Sierra Club conspiracy bent on turning our resources over to the United Nations or some such.

Our narrative in this country is so stupid. For months we heard nothing but how Obama was doing too much, oh my word, it was all just too much. Now you assholes want to say he didn't do enough? Just zip it.

Time to move on.

Vision Problems

There was good and bad in President Obama’s Oval Office speech tonight.

The good: the President made clear he understands the magnitude of the problem we face capping that gusher in the Gulf. I’m convinced, finally, that he understands the long term effects of the oil spill. He “gets it.”

He also made clear he understands the urgency of our need to leave behind our carbon-fueled ways and transition to a clean energy economy. He made clear he understands the magnitude of that challenge, he recognizes that we have failed in this task too many times in the past, and that we are running out of chances. He “gets” that, too.

But what I didn’t hear, what I truly wanted to hear, was some kind of stated vision for how we will manifest this desperately needed change. I didn’t hear the words “Apollo Project for energy,” I didn’t hear the words “national priority,” I didn’t even hear a call for us all as Americans to actually do anything. While he said we all have a role to play, he didn't articulate what that is.

I wanted a call to action and I didn’t get it. I want to know that we as a nation are harnessing the best and brightest minds to come together and figure this energy thing out. I want to know that we are doing something, that the government is leading the way, that the doors of industry, technology, policy-making and the halls of higher education have been thrown open and every sector of our public life will be focused, laser-like, on making this transition finally happen.

I wanted a battle plan--not for cleaning up the oil spill, but for getting over our fossil fuel addiction. I didn’t get one.

You know, we spent $22 billion in today’s money to develop the atomic bomb. That was considered a national priority. More than 30 laboratories in three countries were involved, all to develop a massive killing mechanism.

In 1961 a president told Congress he had a vision of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. From that vision was launched the Apollo Program, perhaps the greatest achievement of the modern era.

We can do big things, but we need a big vision and we need a leader to give us this challenge. The fact that President Obama did not do any of these things worries me. It’s as if he’s taking a backseat, hoping Congress will do the dirty work -- it’s the healthcare bill all over again. He wants something done, but he hasn’t said exactly what, he hasn’t given specifics or deadlines. He hasn’t presented his vision.

I know President Obama has that vision. I have seen hints of it in the past, in previous speeches, and during the presidential campaign. Why oh why is he not sharing his vision with us?

Our clean energy future presents some unique challenges. Unlike the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project, there are very powerful, wealthy and firmly established forces fighting every modest step made in that direction. This means our clean energy messaging needs to be very clear, very profound, and very powerful. It’s not enough to say “The time to embrace a clean energy future is now.” We need to know what that means, what it will look like, and what it will take to get there. We need to know what those first steps will be and what are the benchmarks. We need to be sold on a vision so we can share it.

Mr. President, we need leadership. The battle isn't just in the Gulf of Mexico. It's in the Houston offices of ExxonMobil and the Wichita, Kansas offices of Koch Industries. You will need us to carry your vision forward. Please share it with us.

Like President Bush before him, President Obama is apparently determined to miss the opportunity he’s been handed to initiate some serious “get-off-the-oil-tit” policies and get this country out from under Big Oil’s thumb:

Mr. Obama said he would hold both the government and BP accountable. But he did not retreat from his plan to expand offshore oil drilling and in fact portrayed the commission as a means to make that possible.

“Because it represents 30 percent of our oil production, the Gulf of Mexico can play an important part in securing our energy future,” the president said. “But we can only pursue offshore oil drilling if we have assurances that a disaster like the BP oil spill will not happen again.”

Hey, you know what would ensure that a disaster like the BP oil spill never happens again?

A ban on offshore oil drilling.

Seriously, it's the only thing that will work. So why even talk about "safe" offshore oil drilling? If it were safe we wouldn't have a disaster on our hands right now. It's not safe.

I remember how after the 9/11 attacks, the nation was shell-shocked and everyone was donating blood by the gallon because we all wanted to give, we wanted to do something and nobody could think of anything else to do. I wanted to plant a Victory Garden, I was ready to give up sugar and nylons and ration gasoline and all the rest.

A smart president and Congress who had their eye on the future not their wallets would have said: now is the time to conserve energy. Now is the time for us to pull together and use public transportation and raise (or lower) our thermostats and start making the transition away from the policies that forced us to do business with people who hate us. The policies that saw us go to greater and greater extremes to secure oil for multinational corporations who might share some of it with us.

A smart president and Congress would have begun our nation’s transition to renewable energy, urged every municipality to implement strict conservation-oriented building codes, raised fuel efficiency standards, and all the rest. We all would have done it, too. Because we all understood that as long as we consume oil--any oil--we are participating in a game that includes terrorism.

Instead we were told to go shopping and support a war in a country that contains the world’s third largest proven oil reserves.

So here we are, nearly nine years later, and we have an ecological disaster down in the Gulf of Mexico, the magnitiude of which we are only just beginning to grasp.

A smart president and Congress who had their eye on the future not their wallets would say: now is the time for renewable energy. Now is the time for us to begin the transition away from the dangerous policies that destroy the ecosystems on which the entire planet depends, so a few can profit. Now is the time to say never again will we put the needs of one industry above the needs of the planet that sustains us--and the needs of the people and economy that depend on a healthy environment. Industries like fishing, shrimping, oystering, tourism. Never again will we allow the powerful to exploit resources shared by us all, when our food, water and air are at stake and when viable alternatives exist.

But no. We seek "assurances that a disaster like the BP oil spill will not happen again" so we can all go along as before. Pay no attention, move along.

Times like these call for greatness. Sadly, our nation sorely lacks such things. I think of Franklin D. Roosevelt, how he rallied the nation to pull together after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. How a nation weary from the Great Depression still managed to pull together, roll up their sleeves, and fight the threat from Germany and Japan. Women went to work, men went to war, we gave up creature comforts and rationed our gasoline, and bought War Bonds. I wonder if we'll ever see that kind of effort again.

We’ve had so many opportunities. The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 and subsequent hostage crisis. After a few months we shake these warning signs off and carry on as before, because no one has had the fortitutude to make us do otherwise.

I don't know if Obama is playing some kind of political game here or not. But we don't need politics and we don't need games. We need leadership.

I found this prayer request from Chief Arvol Looking Horse, Present Chief and Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe of the Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Nation of the Sioux. It's a prayer to all people of all religious traditions around the world. Please read it and consider adding your voice to this call.

Chief Arvol writes:

The dangers we are faced with at this time are not of spirit. The catastrophe that has happened with the oil spill which looks like the bleeding of Grandmother Earth, is made by human mistakes, mistakes that we cannot afford to continue to make.

As we pray, we will fully understand that we are all connected. And that what we create can have lasting effects on all life.

We humans seem awfully slow to learn our lessons. We need some divine intervention here.

Finally Stepping Up?

This took way too long:

The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

That decision is related to this story from last week.

I am getting a little tired of all this: of the U.S. Coast Guard enforcing BP’s media blackout on the Gulf Oil spill and all of the other “mother may I, may I pretty please try to avoid environmental catastrophe?” attitude the Feds seem to have toward BP. I’ve been saying for a week now that Lisa Jackson doesn’t get it. Nobody at the White House seems to get it.

Here’s what I want: I want you to take over this cleanup. I want accountability and transparency, and I think the people who caused the disaster who are now facing the grim reality of billions of dollars in liability costs are probably not the folks who are going to provide that. There’s a teensy bit of a conflict of interest there.

I want the EPA and Fish & Wildlife and the Coast Guard and Commerce and the State Department and every other agency with a stake in the Gulf of Mexico to tell BP to stand the fuck down and get out of the way because their fuck up is now threatening a massive region that will in all probablity reach beyond our borders. And at this point, the “free hand of the market” would dictate that BP’s survival depends on covering up and passing the blame and denials. Not trying to fix anything.

So come on, President Obama. Show some fucking leadership and do your job. Time for the government to take over, and send the bill to BP.

Teaching Kids How To Assassinate The President

[UPDATE]:

Teacher now placed on leave, may be fired.

------------------------------------

Yes, that would be Alabama, where a geometry teacher decided assassinating President Obama would be the perfect way to teach 9th graders angles and parallel lines:



A Jefferson County teacher picked the wrong example when he used assassinating President Barack Obama as a way to teach angles to his geome­try students.


Someone alerted autho­rities and the Corner High School math teacher was questioned by the Secret Service, but was not taken into custody or charged with any crime.

Sexton said he generally doesn't discuss threat cases, but confirmed his of­fice investigated the inci­dent. No federal charges followed the probe.



The teacher was appar­ently teaching his geometry students about parallel lines and angles, officials said. He used the example of where to stand and aim if shooting Obama.



"He was talking about angles and said, 'If you're in this building, you would need to take this angle to shoot the president,' " said Joseph Brown, a senior in the geometry class.

Apparently the teacher has not been fired though he’s not talking to reporters, either. 


This is, after all, Alabama, where assassinating the country’s first black president is no doubt a fantasy harbored by many of the state’s fine upstanding citizens. For example, this parent:

Caroline Polk, the parent of a ninth-grader at the school, said she doesn't believe the teacher ought to be fired.



"We all make mistakes, and we should be able to learn from our mistakes," she said. "What he said was just wrong and inappropriate. Everyone's got their own opinions, but we have to be aware of our surroundings. At this point, it just needs to be handled in a way that it won't be repeated."

We have to be aware of our surroundings? That’s “real America” for ya, where discussing assassinating the president is a legitimate opinion that you, ya know, just need to keep to yourself when in polite company. The way you don’t talk about those dirty brown people who are ruining everything for everyone else. You know, in order to be politically correct and all.

Jeeeeeezus. What the hell is wrong with those people?

But you know, the best part about this whole story is going to be the inevitable false-equivalency that right-wingers will draw, once St. Rush has had time to hit the Great Gazoogle and find some small town teacher who said a mean thing about President Bush that one time. I’m sure that story is out there, and I’m sure it will be exactly the same as teaching kids where to stand to shoot at the president of the United States.

More from Shaw Kenawe.