Feed on

Boohunney is a longtime reader and commenter from the Great State of Georgia. She’ll be checking in occasionally.

Dear Cheryl:

I MUST respond to your social media rant that having a gas hog is an ‘merican right offline.

In the past, freedom was not free. And it wasn’t meant to fill cars up with gas or for commodities. It WAS about freedom. In WWII people had to recycle, grow victory gardens, men were DRAFTED (and BTW, I am FOR reinstating the draft), gas was rationed (OMG! In our lifetime they talked about it during the embargo in the 1970’s.) Textiles went to the military first, so dungarees were expensive and the patches that were on your own clothes were worn with pride. People volunteered. Women rolled bandages and were members of the Red Cross.

I could go on. But, it seems to me ‘mericans think being supportive of FREEDOM is buying a magnetic yellow ribbon from China for a huge old hunky gas hog and wars are fought to keep a few folks rolling in dough.
Just sayin’.

With all due respect,


P.S. Bowling with Sherri Stately Ayers next week? Call me!

Dancing with them what brung ’em

Dave Johnson continues to do incredibly good work. I wish someone would offer him a high-visibility job somewhere:

This new election-funding system has our candidates trolling for billionaire and corporate dollars instead of coming up with policies and positions that serve the people. Did you think Republicans were talking about billionaires as “job creators” because it would get them votes? No, it is because vain, wealthy, greedy billionaires like to be described that way, and those politicians are trying to get them to loosen their wallets. Even if they lose the election they are looking for rewards — lucrative jobs — later.

Even if they aren’t trolling for billionaire bucks, they still dare not offend. These super PACs are in the business of running nasty, negative ads, and lots of them. Politicians want them on their side and not on the other side. So they are much, much less likely to oppose policies that favor the billionaires and their big corporations.

Did you think the country needs an oil pipeline that runs from our northern border all the way across the country to Gulf Coast ports, to help Canadian oil companies sell to China? No, this is about politicians getting big checks from oil companies.

President Obama OK’d a super PAC. A week later he comes out with a proposal to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 25%. Coincidence? And Obama’s tax-reform plans pale in comparison to what billionaire-and-corporate-backed Republicans are proposing. Both parties are proposing rewriting the tax codes to favor the billionaires and their giant corporations.

Go read the whole thing.

The predictable president

Charlie Pierce sums up the compulsive compromising of the Obama administration:

There was never any doubt that, in a great many instances, Barack Obama was going to accommodate and compromise because that’s the way the man’s built. He took a dive on telecom immunity in July before he was elected. That should have been a caveat emptor moment for everyone.

While running for his first term as president, on a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, FDR said:

“It was the heyday of promoters, sloganeers, mushroom millionaires, opportunists, adventurers of all kinds. In this mad whirl was launched Mr. Hoover’s campaign. Perhaps foreseeing it, a shrewd man from New England, while in the cool detachment of the Dakota hills, on a narrow slip of paper wrote the historic words, ‘I do not choose to run.'”

I can’t recall Barack Obama’s ever saying anything that direct or harsh in 2008, either about the incumbent, or about the situation in which the incumbent was handing over the country to him. (I don’t recall him saying anything that harsh and direct about anything or anyone, ever.) The moment of that election desperately needed — hell, demanded — an FDR, but there was no FDR on offer. Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that’s the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard. Not good, but entirely predictable.

So what now? There are some signals that the president is realizing consensus is impossible with an opposition made up primarily of Bible-banging pyromaniacs, and that, anyway, consensus is not always a desirable goal in and of itself. (His reflexive proposal to cut the corporate tax today, however, is not a good sign. He’s bidding against Mitt Romney on Romney’s home turf, on an issue that will not resonate with any great mass of Democratic voters at all.) His chances of being re-elected are better than they were a year ago, but it’s still going to be a long pull up a dirt road to get to 270 electoral votes. Once in that dreary effort, I’d like to hear all the eloquence that made him a star edged with the faintest amount of vitriol, just a dollop of scorn to liven it up. The country deserves that. A little more consensus and we might all go down together.

I love this song!





And the foreclosure crisis.

The chickens come home to roost

Matt Taibbi on the Republican debate.

So long Marianne

Bill Callahan covers Cohen:

Take courage

Andrew Bird:



8 pm eastern | 5 pm pacific |Virtually Speaking A-Z: This week in liberalism. | Stuart Zechman and Jay Ackroyd discuss current evens from the perspective of movement liberalism.| Plus What Digby Said. And post-show notes. Follow @Stuart_Zechman @JayAckroyd Listen live on BTR. Beginning midnight, listen here.

9 pm eastern | 6 pm pacific |Virtually Speaking with Jay Ackroyd |Jay talks with Zunguzungu’s Aaron Bady about David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Follow @zunguzungu @JayAckroyd Listen live and later on BTR.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »