In This Age Of Dickensian Enforced Austerity, Obama Fans Say Schedulegate Is a "WIN"!

This must mean only one thing: Lawrence is back! Yay.

Meanwhile, opposite Larry with his brand new West Wing episodes, we get a dose of harsh reality from Keith, who opened his show last night with a timeline of the White House staff snafus on scheduling the boss's speech, saying the President "punted." Unless they've changed the rules of the game, a "punt" is never a "win" ... maybe a tie, at best, with advantage to the other side, that gets the ball back.

Amid all the anticipation of what the President will say in his "jobs" address to Congress on 7 September, correction, 8 September, not to conflict with the Great Republican Debate, a parade of freaks and feast for political junkies, the President gets to go opposite the two past winners of the Super Bowl instead, and against the rosy forecast of ZERO jobs in August. We can only hope he won't say we'll have "jobs in our time."

Since nothing the President proposes will be adopted by Republicans —whose treasonous strategy is to use the economy to inflict more pain on Americans as a cynical anti-American scheme (disaster capitalism Republican "globalists") to compel voters still eligible to cast a ballot to make more irrational choices — the consensus among progressive political commentators is that the President should "go big" and "bold." (Note to self: prepare to be disappointed, once again.)  The question is, defining what "big" is in this era of imposed austerity on the poor and working middle class and largesse on the Oligarchy of 400+, the vaunted "job creators" in China, India, and the Pacific Island states where child labor is a way of life. The President's media publicists (Lawrence, et al) are laboring feverishly to anticipate another triumphalist "win" for Mr. Obama, with several rosy versions of the West Wing ready to go, depending on what the President says. Nuanced propaganda from self-described "liberals."

Clarence Page, one of the last of the old-time honest "journalists", who is based in Chi-Town and therefore knows President Obama better than buffet nibblers going way back to Mr. Obama's Illinois legislative days, was skeptical. Watch him school Michael Smerconish (a reliable independent voters barometer) and D.C. Fantasia-based Sam Stein on what it all means for the President's prospects:

When President Obama loses Clarence Page he is entering a critical risk zone for his re-election prospects, a sad litany of self-inflicted caves, regardless of what Lawrence's presidential elections astrologer had to say.

President Obama runs the serious risk of no longer being taken seriously by the public, after successive capitulations to the GOP, that could be tuning out and tuning in to its favorite panis et circenses entertainment, NFL Football. The President runs the serious risk of being the second coming of Jimmy Carter, whose "malaise" speech in which he didn't actually say the word blamed Americans for our economic woes. "He says our consumerism, our materialism have really gotten in the way of this problem." Contrast that with George W. Bush telling Americans to go "shopping" after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Bush did not harm his re-election by tapping the American people's bottomless reservoir for comfort junk food advice.

Indeed, Carter lost the American people, and his re-election, following that speech, I believe, because he was perceived as blaming ordinary Americans for events beyond their control: an Arab oil embargo and the economic recession plaguing his presidency. That's the Obama template so far, not FDR or Truman, and credit a right wing radio host for drawing the parallels. Laura Ingraham is actually doing Obama and his publicists a favor by anticipating the political risk to the President. There are other parallels, too: Carter retreated to Camp David to mull over his speech. President Obama went on a "listening" bus tour to hear from ordinary Americans. Then he consulted with billionaire Warren Buffet and presidential historian Michael Bechloss on what approach to take in his anticipated "jobs" speech. In each case, the impression left is of presidential gravitas surrounding this policy speech akin to a State of the Union address.

I sure hope the President pulls an FDR or even a Truman. Considering his temperament and wrong-headed conciliatory approach to Republican bullies — no different than the schooloyard type; they will smell weakness and pounce — it's more likely he'll pull a Jimmy Carter, with a twist: bemoaning the fact that he's proposing all these Republican ideas and proposals and they're just saying NO. In which case he will have doomed his presidency. Tell me I'm wrong, Idiot Punditocracy. I really hope I am.

AS IF ... As if President Obama would (he could, with his oratorical skills) pull an FDR, both in substance and impact. Thanks to Michael Smerconish for unearthing this gem:

"THERE'S ALWAYS HOPE." ~ President Obama, in a recent presser.

Noam Chomsky Decoding Our Political System

Professor Chomsky isn't the kind of guy who would be headlining the guest lists of Georgetown cocktail parties for the Washington establishment and media elites, ya think? Curiously, he's even been blacklisted by the so-called "liberal media." Given how accurate the professor's political prognostications made back in 2009 are now, two years hence, one would think professor Chomsky's analysis of the current state of our politics and government would be in great demand. No?

Just imagine what fun it would be to have professor Chomsky doing color commentary for MSNBC on the upcoming Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library. Seriously. Wouldn't it be great? I'll bet your social media tweets would light up the internets, most positively to the sound of heads exploding in  Rightwingville: Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly ...

Dissin' The Reverend Al ... And MSNBC's Fake Liberal Bias

The Reverend Al debuted as an "official" MSNBC host yesterday flipping some critics who had called him "stiff" and "robotic" by vowing to "say what I mean, and mean what I say." That's the sensible Big Eddie approach, who went through some of the same growing pains transitioning from radio to TV. Better to let Eddie be Big Eddie. Same for the Reverend Al. He'll find his stride.

Which brings me to a rather hilarious New York Times zing (not quite hit) piece on the Reverend Al. It was written by Alessandra Stanley who does "The Culture at Large" beat for the Times. The impression I got from Alessandra's article was that (a) she is not an MSNBC viewer, (b) she has an anti- (as opposed to non-) liberal bias, and (c) maybe she should be covering the wine and cheese beat or the "literal" dog and pony shows at Madison Square Garden rather than political media. Because when it comes to politics and its media beat, Alessandra is out of her depth. Here are a few of the amusing assumptions Ms Stanley makes about what she calls the Reverend Al's "cable news pulpit:"

"[W]hat he means to say is in lockstep with every other MSNBC evening program, making the stretch between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. a nonstop lecture on liberal values and what is wrong with the Republican Party."

Excuse me!? A "lecture" on liberal values? About what "is wrong with the Republican Party"? First of all, Alessandra, to the extent MSNBC espouses "liberal" (I, and the MSNBC audience, would call them "American") values; if not MSNBC, then who? The Times? There's only so much Paul Krugman can do and say. Oh yeah, and the Times editorials, when saying sensible things, must be pushing "liberal values."

Second, Ms Stanley, in case you haven't noticed, MSNBC hosts and guests are as bitingly critical of the Democratic Party as they are of the GOP. If there's more Republican Party criticism, that's because Republicans lie much more than Democrats (that's an empirical fact — I'm talking about policy, not personal scandals). Further, they tried to shut down the government, brought us to the brink of default, rejected President Obama's "Grand Bargain" which, pay attention Ms Stanley, liberals and progressives viewed as total capitulation to Republicans on Tea Party values, reject science, from global warming to evolution, incessantly mix religion and politics in truly disturbing ways, and are embarked on a radical right wing anti-American agenda in the states — barely covered by the Times — a grand right wing experiment to eliminate the New Deal, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to unions and collective bargaining. Every single poll of the "American people" — another Republican talking point lie wildly enhancing the narrow base supporting their policies — indicates large majorities of Americans reject this radical right wing Republican power grab.

If not MSNBC, then who, Ms Stanley? CNN? CNBC, which spawned the decidedly non-liberal libertarian populist Dylan Ratigan, who has a penchant for sophistry and generalizations about all "politicians," as if both parties have equivalent sins? Ratigan and Moron Joe are simply Republicans in libertarian clothing. (Libertarians are Republicans less the religious and Neo-Con bellicose ideology. Period. And yeah, they want to get laid and hang out with Dylan, too.) Yet they anchor shows on MSNBC. Ratigan idolizes reactionary Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who said President Obama's "intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him, as an African-American male" who received "tremendous advantage from a lot of these programs." And Coburn was trying to say something nice.

It amazes me that this Southern wingnut gets a platform on MSNBC. But he has it to spout his nonsense and lies, from Moron Joe to Ratigan to Matthews, and everywhere else ... although when the clock strikes six (on the East coast) the bullshit stops at the program's edge, and Coburn likely goes "into the zone." Or Rachel will do something awesome, like her priceless impression of a ditzy "emotional" woman, which is how Coburn condescendingly characterized her. (I don't know why that segment was mysteriously disappeared — it's the single most hilarious thing Rachel has ever done.)

I'm not so surprised that a Southern senator would be such a backward antedelluvian, even in the 21st century, nor that folks who live or work in Manhattan (Ratigan and Moron Joe) should accept this backward thinking as the "new normal." Because, well, they're not liberals. Talk about flyover territory — this is invasion of the wingnuts in Midtown Manhattan, where Fox makes its home, coexisting with MSNBC, NBC, and the Times, in evident cross-pollination. Chuck Todd (another conservative mole, certainly a member of the Idiot Punditocracy) let his guard down, making a snarky remark about the "liberal elites" in the D.C.-New York corridor. From where I stand, the "liberals" at MSNBC are embattled, surrounded on all sides by wingnuts, in their own private little Alamo.

Ms Stanley could be one of those Ratigan groupies who believes there's altogether too much liberal bias at MSNBC — maybe Krugman said an unkind word to her about something stupid she wrote? —like this:

MSNBC long ago cast itself as the liberal counterpoint to Fox News.

Excuse me!? Let's do a reality check here. For all of its faults, MSNBC is a legitimate news channel. Fox is not. Fox is a propaganda mouthpiece for the right and the Republican Party. Significantly, it is MSNBC policy to source its attributions — right there at the bottom of the screen — so if they make the occasional mistake, they'll own up to it right away as part of normal news reporting. Fox flat-out makes stuff up. It's well documented. Their anchors take marching orders, and talking points, from Roger Ailes. Just the other day, Keith ran a Worst Persons segment of Fox anchors up and down the lineup saying the exact same words about President Obama's vacation: "I don't begrudge" the President taking a vacation, but blah-blah-cheap shots. It's astonishing to actually see Fox propaganda broken down to its component parts. It's like a word map; they use certain words repetitively to pound the viewers' subsconscious. Is it any wonder that Fox viewers are the least informed of all? For practical political purposes, they're brainwashed zombies.

Fox employs a stable of Republican politicians and operatives mixed with pea-brained leggy blondes masquerading as "anchors." The MSNBC suits tried going the Fox route — because someone, probably meddlesome Marbles Mouth, said they needed a Republican "perspective" — by hiring GOP hack Michael Steele, an utter trainwreck. Here in a sense MSNBC reminds me of the Democratic Party: a bunch of wussies playing on the enemy's territory. If they think this will help ratings — WhiteHouseThink — they're flat-out wrong. From a competitive angle, Steele is proving himself to be a Fox asset. He's havin' them all for lunch, just by getting the time to spout Republican talking points behind enemy lines. Even the staid and dull Ed Rendell can't put up with Steele's bullshit, and ends up getting into an argument. As I noted before, it's "Firing Line" revisited. Great move, suits.

Everyone's favorite fill-in anchor, sweet Melissa, was punished for being too nice to Steele. When she plaintively suggested some variation on 'why can't we (Democrats and Republicans) all get along', Steele threatened to send her kids "some literature." We're not talking Maya Angelou poetry, mind you, but rather Republican propaganda. Isn't it just like Republicans to think nothing of indoctrinating children early? Melissa was heard audibly groaning in the background. Live and learn, Melissa. I rest my case.

Now let's compare lineups to see just how much of a "counterpoint" to Fox MSNBC is. 'Moron Joe' is charitably considered by some the thinking person's 'Fox and Friends'. I wouldn't, but it's a question of degree, I suppose. Fox has all morons and wingnuts. MSNBC has them too ... and Mika, who happens to be a smart, classy lady. But she can't carry the show. Then there's Chuckie — we know about him. Andrea is a nice lady, but hardly a liberal. She's married to old-time objectivist Alan Greenspan.

The best that can be said about Andrea, and even Chris Matthews, is that they represent the D.C. corporate news "establishment." Cenk Uygur, the high ratings rising star replaced by Sharpton, spilled the beans on MSNBC's "establishment" (read that, "corporatist") credentials. Cenk's independence and harsh, but fair, criticism of President Obama made the MSNBC suits uneasy. Now we have the "lean forward" crowd (even the President used the slogan in a serious and different context in a recent speech — if it was a coincidence, it was still bizarre) giving the President a pass. Hell, I get it. It's hard to be critical when the President calls Big Eddie "Schultzie" and has everyone over to partake of delicious White House treats at the buffet table. (Credit to Big Eddie for criticizing President Obama anyway; but it's hard not to pull one's punches when you drink from the White House punch bowl.)

NBC/MSNBC have close ties to POLITICO, which is the epitome of inside-the-Beltway connected corporate media. The liberal outliers at POLITICO, WaPo, and of course The Nation/Mother Jones, are at a distinct numerical disadvantage which they make up with brilliance. Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes (who is getting his own MSNBC gig — good move, suits) are peerless, but rarely seen on Andrea Mitchell. Andrea reflects the Beltway consensus, via POLITICO, which is conservative, elitist, corporatist groupthink. Chris Matthews tries hard, to his credit, to break out of the Beltway gravitational pull, but it keeps dragging him back in.

Indeed, these "liberal" analysts — adding éminences grise Howard Fineman, Gene Robinson, and E.J. Dionne — are golden. What Alessandra calls a "lecture" on liberal values, the viewers will call the truth. The truth hurts, Alessandra, especially when you're predisposed against it. Because it isn't only about liberal values, but the truth about what these Republicans are doing to our country. Here are some of Alessandra's quibbles with MSNBC:

And in the evening at least, MSNBC is less a news provider than a carousel of liberal opinion — potential conflicts of interest are swept aside in the swirl of excitable guests.

Unfortunately, so is conflict. There is almost no real debate on any of these evening shows: a conservative is brought on and put on the spot, then in a different segment two people who agree with the host on a given issue answer the host’s questions, usually, with words like “you’re so right.”

Two words: Michael Steele. This guy has really turned otherwise thoughtful discussions into partisan pow-wows. 'Nuff said. Aside from that, Alessandra is full of shit. Show me where there's "a carousel of liberal opinion" as opposed to analysis and commentary. There is a difference. And there is a distinction to be made between "political analysts" and policy experts. Rachel generally features the latter, unless she's strictly talking politics. The same goes for Lawrence and Big Eddie.

Ms Stanley seems to be arguing for some sort of equivalence in presenting both sides of the argument — as if ... as if the Republican hard right positions are anything but insane. Alessandra reminds me of the clueless Judy Woodruff of the PBS corporate News Hour trying to make sense of the insanity and extremism of the Tea Party.

If I were to quibble with the Reverend Al show, it's the quantity of wingnuts they bring in — from the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis, who later whines no fair, three against one! Bwaaaah! [insert infant bawling soundtrack], to Tea Party Reps. and the roadkill yellow stripe members of some atrocious political yuppie movement called "No Labels." Not a fan of the format which assumes that, somehow, opinions of the right and far right aren't adequately represented. This is a carryover from Cenk's show, who I think was badly influenced by Ratigan, and I hope it changes.

Tell you what, Alessandra: The moment MSNBC has Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman on to talk politics and current events, then we can revisit; with wine and brie. In the meantime, complaining that some guest actually agrees with the host's observation is an absurd non sequitur. Make up your mind, Ms Stanley. Do you want conflict and "excitable" (hmm ... is this code or something?) guests, or general consensus and good analysis? Some interviews end in consensus, others do not. That's simply the nature of debating the issues. Not all MSNBC segments are of a debate format; in fact most are informational, because there's none of it on Fox, and less at the Times with articles like Ms Stanley's. And what are these "potential conflicts of interest"? Be specific, Alessandra. You must be referring to Fox, where presidential aspirants and political operatives are paid "political analysts." They give the honest ones, at MSNBC, a bad name.

In politics and associated media, there are always second and third acts. Ms Stanley keeps bringing up the Reverend Al's way back past for no discernible reason other than to try and embarass him. Here she finally gets specific, but strikes out anyway:

On Monday, Mr. Sharpton followed the patented formula, bringing in two experts who agreed with him that recent efforts in North Carolina and other states to stiffen voter-identity requirements and restrict early voting would mostly affect those minorities and younger voters who turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama in 2008. Mr. Sharpton called it a “poll tax by another name.”

It’s an interesting issue, and not one that other MSNBC talk shows have addressed with the same degree of passion, but it would have been helpful to viewers to also learn how proponents of voting restrictions justify the legislation.

No it wouldn't, Alessandra. What do you take the viewers for — idiots like you? We already know what their counter-arguments are: They're based on sowing fear — fear of the "illegal immigrant" somehow defrauding the voters, fear of blacks and latinos getting the vote, wrapped around the basic catch-all "voter fraud." There is no counter-argument. The statistics indicate voter fraud has been negligible to none. It's a naked power grab by Republicans. We're waaaay ahead of you, Alessandra. I don't know about "passion" but Rachel Maddow has done exhaustive, comprehensive stories on this very topic, which I've seen no other network cover, nor, dare I say, the Times. (I believe I check [google] more often than Ms Stanley who clearly is fibbing when she says the issue is "not one that other MSNBC talk shows have addressed.")

Finally, to claim liberal bias for a network whose Primetime hosts are, to varying degrees, in the tank for center-right President Obama — is ridiculous. The Times' standards are slipping, strangely.

A Scene From Dick Cheney's Memoir: Outing Valerie Plame

Goodnight Irene, I'll See You In My Nightmares

As subhuman germs like "meteorologist" Rush Limbaugh sneer that Hurricane Irene was "overhyped," and wingnut propagandists at the Daily Caller spew orgasmic splashy front page crapaganda about Rick Perry, millions of people in the path of Irene all along the Eastern seaboard are coping with nature's destruction. The deaths from Irene, though minimized by the rapid response and coordination of government, are rising as states from North Carolina to Vermont deal with the devastation.

Meanwhile Texan cretins like Rick Perry deny science and global warming, when all indications are that a Category 1 hurricane causes RECORD destruction not only from wind damage but from RECORD rainfall and floods. The Passaic River in NJ has overflowed its banks at levels far higher than ever before. Brooks in Vermont have turned into raging rivers. But libertarian candidate Ron Paul wants a return to the good old days of 1906 when San Francisco, lacking building and fire codes, was destroyed by a massive earthquake and fire, and 1919 Corpus Christi, Texas, in Paul's district, destroyed by a hurricane that came without warning from nonexistent government agencies like NOAA and the National Weather Service, or its Hurricane Center.

In Ron Paul's America, an earthquake and hurricane destroyed two great American cities, with scant resources being mustered by the federal government. People were left to their own devices, and died by the thousands, without warning. Those that did survive the initial onslaught received no federal disaster recovery assistance from a dedicated disaster relief agency like FEMA. Sure, let's all return to the Gilded Age of the 1900s. That's just fine and dandy with Ron Paul:

Ron Paul's America — A campaign commercial. (This newsreel of Market Street in San Francisco was filmed a few days before the Great Earthquake of 1906.) Most of the buildings were reduced to rubble if not destroyed by fire. The old historic clock tower in the distance withstood the devastation and remains standing today. The death toll has been estimated at 3,000 or more. Only six years ago today, under Republican George W. Bush and 'Helluva job Brownie' Hurricane Katrina claimed 1,700 lives. We're making slow progress — as long as we keep Republicans out of office.

Khaddafi's CREEPY Obsession ...

This was the best version of the story, if only to hear our endearingly geeky Chris Hayes recite Khaddafi's lovelorn teen prose: "Leeza, Leeza, Leeza, I love her very much" ... Aargh.

\

Was Khadaffi a "30 Rock" fan, too? Eat your heart out, Moammar, wherever you may be in this cruel, cruel world:

Quotable: Gail McGovern, Red Cross CEO, On Hurricane Irene

"It's going to be huge. From a time perspective this can take weeks, maybe even months, to respond to."

Is it just me, or is this statement totally unacceptable? Understand, I'm not blaming Ms McGovern — she is simply providing solid information based on the realistic assessment of, apparently, our limited capacity to respond to Hurricane Irene.

My question is this: To what extent is Ms McGovern's unacceptable assessment governed by the ignorant Tea Party luddites wagging the dog and Republican House Leader Eric Cantor, who shamelessly sucks up to them, insisting that any emergency response spending will have to be offset by corresponding budget cuts elsewhere? Private NGOs like the American Red Cross, for all their good works, do not by definition have the capacity and resources of the federal government. Haven't we learned anything from Katrina? It's for responding to catastrophes of this scale that government exists.

When will this Teabagger madness end?

This is the richest, most powerful nation in history. That we cannot respond to a potential natural catastrophe more timely than the response time to the Haiti earthquake, or the Japanese earthquake/tsunami, is to concede that the crazies holding our government hostage have succeeded in turning the United States into a helpless, poverty-stricken banana republic.

America And Genocide: The Good, THE BAD, And The Ugly

Back to the nasty, aka, government, politics, and fascism ... by any other name, it's still the same. In the checkered, dastardly history of U.S. support for genocidal dictators, none is more craven than U.S. involvement in the destruction of Chilean democracy culminating in the 1973 military coup that toppled socialist president Salvador Allende and installed in his place the fascist monster, General Augusto Pinochet. New revelations have surfaced: A tape of Nixon and Kissinger openly discussing political assassination, a reference to Chile's senior military commander, General Rene Schneider, who was loyal to President Allende in that he was a constitutionalist and a patriot who believed in civilian rule. General Schneider was murdered in a botched CIA-backed kidnapping. Here's an excerpt from the tape:

Kissinger: CIA’s too incompetent to do it. You remember—
Nixon: Sure, but that’s the best thing. [Unclear].
Kissinger: —when they did try to assassinate somebody, it took three attempts—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —and he lived for three weeks afterwards.

 Kissinger effectively is a prisoner within his own country; small consolation for those of us who believe he should be charged and tried for crimes against humanity — but should he travel to any country that is a signatory to extradition treaties, he will risk immediate arrest and indictment for war crimes and may well end up a defendant in a Spanish Court (whose citizens were murdered by Pinochet) or the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.

Now we learn there was a bit of a counting error concerning the extent and enormity of Pinochet's crimes. This is from the BBC:

A Chilean commission investigating human rights abuses under the former military leader Gen. Augusto Pinochet says there are many more victims than previously documented.

Commission director Maria Luisa Sepulveda said they had identified another 9,800 people who had been held as political prisoners and tortured [between 11 September 1973 and 10 March 1990, when Gen Pinochet was in power].

The new figures bring the total of recognised victims to 40,018.

The survivors will get lifetime pensions of about $260 (£157) a month.

An earlier report by the commission recognised 27,153 people who suffered human rights violations under military rule.

The official number of those killed or forcibly disappeared now stands at 3,065.

Chile has placed a price for the torture inflicted on its citizens by Pinochet: $260 monthly. That's $260 more than the U.S. compensates innocent victims of waterboarding, as both the Bush and Obama administrations have declined to own up to the international crime of torture committed in our name. It would explain why Kissinger, Cheney, and Bush are protected from criminal investigation and litigation.

Consider these sobering statistics: The number of Chileans murdered by Pinochet stands at a conservative 3,065. The number of people killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks is 2,753. On the day democracy died in Chile, September 11, 1973, a date which will live in infamy in Chilean history, Chile's population was barely larger than New York City's, fewer than 10 million people.

Sports Magic: Brazil's Amazing Golden Boys

This past weekend Brazil captured the FIFA Under-20 World Cup beating Portugal 3-2 in overtime, in a thrilling final. Brazil wasn't even at full strength because its precocious 19-year old phenom, Neymar, has already cracked the top national team. No matter, this team was deep with talented kids. Watch No. 20 Negueba flip the ball over the man marking him, in a play of uncommon panache that is called a "hat" or a "sheet" — as in floating a sheet over a bed when making it. It's rarely seen because it's considered showing up the other team. But kids will be kids.

Watch the goals of the campaign below (excusing the video quality, but I couldn't find better). A festival of great goals, crisp passing and teamwork, showcasing the best football in the world. All the kids were great, but No. 11 Oscar in particular impressed me the most. Oscar scored a "hat trick" against Portugal, notching all three of Brazil's goals. He was a joy to watch, gliding effortlessly over the pitch, hitting his passing targets with pinpoint precision. I thought, 'this kid is really good!'

Then he scored his third goal, which clinched the championship. There's an imaginary window, about the size of the strike zone in baseball, that floats just outside the goalkeeper's reach and below the far corner goalpost. That was Oscar's target. He had the ball on the right wing and noticed Portugal's keeper was only slightly off his line, anticipating a cross. Oscar launched the ball, then fell back still in his follow-through motion, arms swinging freely, as he looked up to admire his masterpiece-in-progress. He laid it in perfectly, past the goalkeeper's desperate outstretched arm. Oscar is seen admiring his shot from afar, then the ball comes into the frame. Nothing but net. The deadly arc of the ball reminded me of a Michael Jordan fadeaway three-point shot at the buzzer.

Man, what a beautiful game.

Living PROOF That Corporations ARE PEOPLE!

This astonishing video FINALLY validates the Supreme Court's assertion that corporations are PEOPLE just like you and me. Watch and listen closely as Mr. BANK OF AMERICA approaches Willard "Thurston" Mitt Romney Rick "The Professor" Perry, author of Fucked Up!, introduces himself, and promises his support:

The Great D.C. Quake REDUX: Tweet Of The Day

HAT TIP to @emptywheel ...

America And Genocide: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

FIRST, THE GOOD: The people of Libya stand poised to secure their freedom from the dictator who held his country in chains for forty years. As one jubilant Libyan man on the streets of Tripoli said: “My life begins today. FREEDOM.”

When this uprising began and Colonel Khaddafi threatened a blood bath against his people as the world stood idly by, I posted these words on March 17:

Meanwhile, In Libya …

A genocide looms as Khaddafi's forces rally and President Obama dithers.

The very next day, President Obama, who had rallied NATO — principally Britain and France — to this cause, announced America’s humanitarian intervention. I posted this:

The Obama Doctrine

President Obama established today what is possibly the only legitimate use of UN-sanctioned military force: Intervening in an internecine conflict to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in which largely defenseless civilians are slaughtered by a dictatorial or rogue state authority. The international community, as represented by the UN and led by the United States, has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to use all necessary power to prevent atrocities against civilians. PERIOD.

This is the 21st century, and we, as civilized people, should not tolerate a horrific repeat of the atrocities that happened in Bosnia, Rwanda, and northern Kurdish Iraq. Military intervention on humanitarian grounds rests on a solid legal and moral foundation of international law dating back to the Nuremberg Trials.

I think I made a pretty good call. Most importantly, President Obama made the absolute right call, in every respect. There was a lot of hand-wringing and a split among progressives about this military intervention. Some of my progressive friends blew a gasket, arguing we were now engaged in three wars simultaneously, while the right wing suddenly discovered long neglected constitutional prerogatives and thundered that the President should have sought Congress’s approval before acting.

Unlike Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, time was of the essence. President Obama had to act swiftly to avert an imminent slaughter of civilians in Libya. Some of the rationalizations offered by my friends on the left were, frankly, stunning in their insensate absurdity. Conversely, we should recognize it’s always essential to question military intervention. Understood. We simply had a difference of opinion. President Obama acted correctly. And those of us who supported him were right.

The President’s decision-making was flawless. His diagnosis of the Libyan uprising and its dynamics in the larger context of the Arab Spring was less tortured than that of his critics, probably because it hinged on saving lives. It was a no-brainer. Mr. Obama went with his gut, overruling Bob Gates and the Pentagon’s misgivings (which, ironically, paralleled progressive concerns) of a quagmire and mission creep. Justice and freedom broke out in Libya as a result.

President Obama did what presidents do best in such situations, which was to consult with his allies and decide on a plan of action: The U.S. would carry out the initial sorties (no ground troops were committed) and then hand over major military responsibilities to our European allies, Britain and France, acting under NATO’s operational umbrella. The Pentagon and certain progressives were skeptical; Dennis Kucinich made silly noises about impeaching President Obama … but it worked. It was a sound plan. Most significantly, it established a number of important precedents for future military interventions:

• First, President Obama successfully established the framework for a UN-sanctioned doctrine of military intervention in humanitarian crises, which he should proudly own as the Obama Doctrine. Credit where credit is due. Never again will the international community stand idly by, helplessly, in the face of genocide as occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kurdish Iraq.

• Second, by encouraging our NATO allies to take a more proactive role in military interventions that occur in their backyard so to speak, especially of a humanitarian character, President Obama laid the groundwork for our departure from the solo cowboy interventionism of the Bush years. We’ll never get a handle on reducing the Pentagon budget unless we encourage our allies to take the point in certain situations and build up their own military capabilities.

The notion that our European allies aren’t fully capable militarily is nonsense; it’s a red herring intended to perpetuate a false dependency and keep our domestic war machine — Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex — at full capacity. The truth is, we cannot bankroll foreign wars with borrowed Chinese money and leave the Pentagon’s budget inviolate as Republicans aim to destroy Medicare and Social Security. Something’s got to give, and it should be our bloated Pentagon budget.

• Finally, by keeping our “footprint” in the Libyan uprising small, the President avoided the negative blowback of possible U.S. casualties and the inevitable blame game for so-called “collateral damage” — innocent civilian casualties of the fog of war. He demonstrated confidence in the French and the British — derided by Republican politicians — and was fully rewarded by our allies for taking the political heat. Not to belabor the point, given post-colonialist sensitivities, but the French and Brits can do military interventions as well as anyone. They've got a couple centuries of history on us.

In the last analysis, President Obama realized this Libyan conflict was one that should be owned by the Libyan people. NATO and the U.S. would offer logistical support and air cover to level the playing field and avoid atrocities by Khaddafi’s military. But ultimately, it was important that this conflict, and victory over the dictator, be the Libyan people’s win. This is a very significant foreign policy win for President Obama, as well. It's one for the history books as a lasting positive legacy of his presidency.

Breaking News: EARTHQUAKE Strikes East Coast

I hope there were no injuries. Preliminary reports are, thankfully, there were none and structural damage to buildings was minimal.

Now for the fun part: The epicenter was on or about Washington D.C. — perhaps even inside the Beltway ... Could the Almighty be expressing his upset over the goings-on in our nation's capital? Stay tuned for color commentary from Pat Robertson.

This is the Huffington Post's front page. See that red star in the center? It's the seat of our government and home to the Beltway Media. Oh my. On a serious and hopeful note, it appears our civil defense response is going pretty smoothly.

P.S. - Oh, and the President was playing golf on Martha's Vineyard when the earthquake struck. As the Church Lady would say ... "Isn't that special!"

Postcript To What's The Matter With Obama

It's not just me. But it should be instructive to readers of this blog that my policy-centered fulminations on President Obama's "kowtowing" to his opposition, particularly the Tea Party, whose candidates totalled far fewer than half the votes we gave the President — if anyone wants to talk "mandate" or what "the American people" want — independent of prominent progressive voices of criticism are in sync with a growing consensus among liberals and progressives.

Moreover, I've been no starry-eyed lib who "needs to grow up" and awaken from "recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda." This is a variation on the Melissa Harris-Perry theme that President Obama is not "Superman." But I am in complete agreement with Stephen Kaus, who writes in the Huffington Post:

Liberals understand that Obama is not going to enact an economic policy by fiat; that something has to actually pass. But all this kowtowing to the need for a long term deficit fix at the cost of ignoring the spending necessary for jobs, indeed not even advancing the cause of a second stimulus, has made the President not only look like he has pre-settled, but that he has been pre-rolled.

The time for compromise is OVER. The time for fighting for a DEMOCRATIC, AMERICAN POLICY AGENDA is NOW. That is, if the President and his clueless advisers harbor any hopes for his re-election. Ultimately, it's about President Obama using his mothballed bully pulpit to redirect the terms of the debate to the American people's turf. Odds, anyone? I have my doubts the President's up to it. Partisan political combat doesn't seem to be in his character.

Word is, President Obama is consulting with Warren Buffett before his big jobs speech. A millionaire talks to a billionaire regarding us other 99.9 percent of the American population. No offense to Mr. Buffett. I'm a fan. But if this isn't an appropriate metaphor for the Obama presidency and the times we live in, I don't know what is.

P.S. Could we please have more of the informed and insightful Ms. Guthrie on MTP and less of Mr. Gregory? He could do the third hour of the Today Show.

Forget it, Stephen. Haven't you heard? The untouchable David Gregory is the High Priest of the Idiot Punditocracy. As I've written here before and reiterate, Gregory is a disgrace to his profession. But it's nice to know that liberals outside the Beltway are noticing. Thom Hartmann (who is immunized from the Idiot Punditocracy) said listening to Gregory makes him walk out of the room; the guy's too upsetting. It's a typical reaction for progressives.

Drew Wensten's Devastating Critique Of Obama's Presidency

The rising voices of criticism of President Obama from his supporters, among liberals, progressives, and prominent African Americans are growing too loud and too urgent to be ignored, even by the President's staunchest supporters. I counted myself in that camp, in those initial days of promise, and still do, frustratingly so, for reasons that are obvious to any thinking supporter of this President. On the balance sheet of pros and cons, the most important considerations being Supreme Court appointments and holding on to the few gains we have made — health care reform such as it is, preserving the rights of gays to marriage and open military service, of women to family planning services — those critically important policy agenda items outweigh all else and demand the President's re-election.

Which is infuriating to progressives who feel we must oppose the President as vigorously as we defend him from his adversaries on the right who would destroy his presidency. When the Tea Party prevented John Boehner from taking the so-called "Grand Bargain" President Obama had offered them, progressives from Senator Bernie Sanders on down the line exhaled an audible sigh of relief. The Beltway Media that, let us be clear, is an arm of the corporate ruling class and counts itself among the top two or three percent highest wage earners in the nation praised this raw deal to the heavens. Only the other day, President Obama was back at it in a network interview, lamenting that the Tea Party had rejected his total capitulation "Grand Bargain," which in his mind was a "fair and balanced" deal. All the same, John Boehner said he got 98 percent of what he wanted. He wasn't too far off the mark.

The fire sale could still come from the President's unconstitutional "supercommittee." Progressives are counting on Senator Patty Murray to stand strong — not so much John Kerry, who is salivating over being the next Secretary of State, a plum which the President is dangling in front of him, and least of all Max Baucus, who is the President's ideological twin in the Senate. So the President can count on two votes to sell the American people down the river on deep spending and "entitlement" cuts. Which pits Senator Murray behind the eight ball since all the President needs is for one Democrat to flip to make significant elements of his Grand Sellout come to pass. Which didn't stop the Republican extremists from viciously attacking Murray's appointment. Just on general "principle" because they have so thoroughly neutered this President.

Still, the President can count on a large pool of uncritical support among African Americans, who have been hardest hit by this deep economic recession, and his friends in the media who have chosen to push back against the formidable right wing forces arrayed against him. Even so, if not for Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz reporting from the front lines in Republican-controlled states, ordinary people whom Mr. Obama has effectively abandoned to the wolves, would not have anyone to carry their voices nationally. The President has been MIA on this just cause. Oh, he'll utter a few bromides about how terrible the people's plight is and then crawl right back into his defensive crouch.

The extent to which the pro-Obama media has held him largely unaccountable is unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless. On one level, I can understand it: When you break bread with the President, hang out with his closest advisers, have cocktails with Valerie Jarrett, it's difficult then to turn around and criticize this President. At some point — soon — they've got to step it up and do their jobs. This country is in trouble and they have a responsibility to come to grips with this presidency in a more realistic way. Just saying.

To be fair, some of the President's biggest early supporters in the media are taking a more critical approach. Jonathan Alter is one; Frank Rich, who said Mr. Obama was too "passive" is another. But for each one of these criticisms, there is a Melissa Harris-Perry (whose insights I very much enjoy) to make the obvious but wrong-headed assertion that Mr. Obama is not "Superman."

With all due respect, Melissa, this Nixonian notion that the President (for our narrow purposes) is a "pitiful, helpless giant" is relatively new in our political discourse, perhaps generational, and completely off the mark. It plays right into the hands of the right in this country whose aim is to cripple the power and effectiveness of this President, in particular. Read your history, Melissa, okay? You don't even have to look too far back, just to the LBJ presidency to take note of how LBJ generally got his way with Congress or anyone else who opposed him, and thoroughly enjoyed the hand-to-hand combat.

Speaking of Superman, we actually did have one as President. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ironic isn't it, because FDR was a paraplegic. Every president brings some particular "baggage" to the White House. Each has particular challenges which they must overcome. The great ones use these challenges as incentives to take that bull by the horns, and tame it. Those who do not tend to focus on the limitations of the office until it becomes a paralyzing self-fulfilling prophecy and sinks their presidency.

Progressives who are infuriated by this President conceding to the other side the terms and conditions of the debate and narrative which got him elected without spelling out the competing narrative (nice try Rachel, but it's mealy-mouthed nonpartisan bullshit) are beginning to realize that we've got to take this fight to the right ourselves — this President is missing-in-action and is likely to remain so for the duration. Come what may, we must hold the line against the unprecedented assault of the oligarchy and its right wing storm troopers to destroy the New Deal, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, even attacking a citizen's right to vote, striking down labor laws and the rights of unions to organize and bargain collectively — with President Obama's apparent collaboration. Unions, he said, must "sacrifice."

Which brings me to this MUST READ essay by Drew Westen, appropriately titled "What Happened to Obama?" Mr. Westen is professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” He brilliantly lays out the frustration felt by many Obama supporters with his presidency. We thought we were voting for a transformational president; what we got instead was a transactional leader whose conciliatory and conservative approach to the office is not what these times demand. The injustice in this nation is growing by the day, Mr. President. Bobby Kennedy said it beautifully:

Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” ~Robert F. Kennedy, Day of Affirmation Address, University of Capetown, South Africa, June 6, 1966.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way Out Of The 'Bunch Of Grapes' Bookstore

It's in idyllic Martha's Vineyard where President Obama happens to be vacationing. He was spotted in the bookstore carrying a stack of books, one of which happened to be the Aldous Huxley dystopian classic, Brave New World.

Oh my.

News of Mr. Obama's purchase touched off something of a viral eruption on the internets, across the ideological spectrum. The snarky right wing blogosphere which smears first and asks questions later, was quick to feed its commercial paranoid delusions of the President as a scary black Kenyan socialist out to re-engineer our liberties away. Here's a typical offering from the libertarian right that equates universal healthcare with sacrificing one's liberty — to die of terminal cancer in the gutter. (What's the difference between the Tea Party and libertarians? Libertarians are college-educated Teabaggers who want to get laid and hang out with Dylan Ratigan and his harem of lovelies.)

Interesting that the president would chose [sic - it's "choose"]  for relaxing vacation reading, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley‘s famous 1932 novel. Maybe he has never read it, or maybe he wanted a refresher read.

In either case he may find some similarities between Huxley’s seemingly ideal but actually twisted dystopia and the destination to which his own stultifying governing policies would lead.

[...]

I do hope the president gets Huxley’s basic message: that the unacceptable price of government-controlled universal happiness will be the absolute sacrifice of our liberty — in exchange for an insipid “happiness” that is anything but.

You’re feeling a bit nervous?

Here – take a soma.

Obamacare anyone?

Have a nice day!

But others should know better; like the Gray Lady's frivolous "flame-head flamethrower" Maureen Dowd, who found her column's hook when President Obama chanced upon a town called Alpha, Illinois (seriously) then was fortuitously seen purchasing Brave New World at the 'Bunch Of Grapes' bookstore. (MEMO to President Obama: Next time order the book through a proxy — Valerie Jarrett? — and make sure it arrives in plain brown paper wrapping.)

As our libertarian pal explains:

Embryos are mass produced conditioned to belong to one of five official castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon. ... The Alpha embryos are destined to become the leaders and thinkers of the World State and view only MSNBC-TV.

Gee, now that's a cheap shot; everyone knows the future "leaders and thinkers of the World State" watch Fox and the caste system predicted in Brave New World is already a reality. Just ask Warren Buffett. He said all this "class warfare" talk is old news to keep the Tea Party zombies riled up. They've already had a class war and, Buffett noted wryly, "my class won."

Here's Maureen Dowd on President Obama:

There were no pictures allowed of him at the Vineyard Golf Club, only shots of the president shopping for books with his daughters. He was seen in the Bunch of Grapes bookstore on Friday holding “Brave New World.” Maybe he was brushing up on dystopias and alphas.

There's only one problem with all this kerfuffle over the President's Brave New World purchase. It wasn't for him. The LA Times reports that "[i]t was unclear which books Obama ultimately purchased at Bunch of Grapes, but “Brave New World” was most likely for his 13-year-old daughter, Malia. The book is required reading for eighth-grade students at Sidwell Friends School, where she attends.

Oops. To which I can only say:

BIG BROTHER DOES NOT APPROVE of Malia's school assignment. So here's a little assignment for those myopic (read that, lazy) commenters who jumped the shark on the President's book purchase — no excuses for Maureen Dowd who should have (?) some of the best researchers and fact checkers in the business just down the hall ... refresh your observational skills by figuring this out:

Rick Perry, Porn Peddler — GASP!

This is not a joke, Teabaggers and Perry aficionados.

The wannabe president with the foul mouth and a smaller-than-Bush brain owns stock in Movie Gallery, a video rental company that distributes such multiple-volume (apparently encyclopedic) porn titles as Teens with Tits Vol. 1, Teen Power Vol. 4, Teens Never Say No, Big Tit Brotha Lovers 6, Bisexual Barebacking Vol. 1. The American Family Association boycotted Movie Gallery, but had no problem partnering with Perry in the "Jesuspalooza" extravaganza FAIL rally held by Perry in Houston before tossing his hat in the ring.

When questioned on August 17, 2011 about AFA’s awareness of Perry’s stock in Movie Gallery, one Cindy Roberts in the AFA press office gasped, "Why, I had no idea!"

Oh Ricky ... Pick up the phone, why dont'cha. You got some 'splainin' to do, HOMBRE TESUDO.

Entertaining Fluff ... Piers v. O'Donnell

Christine O'Donnell is one of Bill Maher's more Machiavellian comic creations. It would have been perfect if Christine had the right-back-at-ya "audacity" to ask "charming" Piers, "What did you KNOW about the Murdoch-News of The World hacking scandal, and WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT, you big ol' RUDE BULLY BRIT!?"

TEA PARTY Remedial Ed: BUSTED!

As we were saying all along about the Tea Party ... I guess it took a study to make it official. Although the McGovern parallel is overstated — the progressive movement was motivated by an idealistic impulse that ended our involvement in Vietnam, fought for rights that are taken for granted today,  expanded our consciousness toward stewardship of the environment, and stood for peace and economic justice. If you're gonna go down fighting, you might as well do it for purposeful things.

Progressives stand for saving the planet, and our country, leading a rising tide of justice and prosperity. The Tea Party are the very antithesis of the progressive movement. They would destroy rather than build up this country; retrench into bigotry and theocratic rule rather than open the door of opportunity and religious tolerance; deny the science of global warming; defend polluting, job-destroying corporations as "people" against the Jeffersonian rights of the common man and woman.

No, there is nothing to compare the Tea Party to the progressive movement that backed George McGovern for president in 1972. But if one were to suggest the death of the Tea Party as McGovern's Revenge ... we'll take it. For, long after the schlerotic Teabaggers are consigned to the dungheap of history, succeeding generations of progressives will yet be around to carry the flag ever forward.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.

MEMO TO RACHEL: Lest you "treat" us with more dead airtime by trotting out MSNBC train wreck reclamation project Michael Steele to feed us more specious GOP political hack talking points, try looping the best-yet Steele interview on MSNBC, with the Reverend Al: STEELE — "You guys ... (SIGH) ... SI-I-I-I-GH ... (DEEP SIGH.)" Say your brilliant piece, Rachel, then loop Michael Steele sighing DEEPLY into the microphone when it's his turn to speak the talking points.

Re: WWHD ...

Nice try with the straw woman argument, Rebecca. Um ... Bill Maher is a comedian and political satirist — that's what he keeps insisting whenever someone pops out of the woodwork to smear him with that lower form of life nametag that says "political analyst." Besides, I'm sure Hillary hasn't been a wilting flower in the Obama administration ... that was part of the deal. So we still get "two for the price of one" with different outcomes. The real question isn't "what would Hillary do?"— It's how can a Democratic president tack to the right of Bill Clinton and still be a Democrat? How convenient to stand up for His Barackness by telling his critics to STFU already.