The GOP's non-solution -- we need to call their bluff!

...............................
The GOP’s Cynical Bluff
By Tina Dupuy | July 19th, 2011

GOP leaders in Congress don’t want a balanced-budget amendment. The party which rails against government bureaucracy is counting on government bureaucracy to prevent them from successfully changing our founding documents. It’s perfect because they don’t actually want to amend the Constitution – well, not in a serious way. Maybe in a drunken, overly-clever, 1:30 AM in a Hill-adjacent dive bar kind of way: “The 28th Amendment should outlaw blue food on Wednesdays…that’d be hilarious!!”

Now the debt ceiling, originally a WWI cap on bonds the government could issue (back when Congress insisted on actually paying for wars), is the catalyst for yet another insincere call to pass a constitutional amendment. Since 1962 Congress has raised the debt ceiling 69 times with no pageantry and little protest. Basically, the debt ceiling is a stupid wonky antiquated law we should scrap altogether.

But instead of a reasonable discussion about the health of our finance laws, the minority party (loosely) controlling one-half of one of the three branches of government is demanding two-thirds of the Congress get together to propose an amendment for then three-fourths of state legislatures to ratify BEFORE allowing the country to pay its creditors in the next few days. This can be summed up in one word: cynical.

It’s like insisting we touch down on Neptune before we land on the Moon again: It means you want to appear to be advocating “big ideas,” when, in fact, you don’t really want to go to either destination and despise travel in general. And since you know Neptune will never happen, you can be for nothing while appearing to be enthusiastically for something – albeit something impossible.

It’s cynical. It shows contempt for governing and a presumption that American’s are too ignorant to catch on.

If Republicans were serious about their newest go-nowhere proposal, they’d quietly try to acquire support from Democrats while trying to gather a consensus from their constituents. Just ask anyone alive during the Equal Rights Amendment debate in 1972. They will tell you how amending the Constitution is a lengthy, drawn-out, overwhelming campaign, and it was meant to be so. The GOP isn’t interested in this process.

Neophyte Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) favorite go-to non-solution is “constitutional amendments.” He’s a self-described libertarian. His admitted scorn for government showed when he proposed repealing the 14th Amendment to eradicate alleged “anchor babies.” This was an idea to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S., thus creating more illegal immigrants. Paul now says he’ll filibuster raising the debt ceiling until a balanced-budget amendment is passed. He told ABC News in June, “We will vote to raise the debt ceiling if we get a balanced-budget amendment.”

With the deadline of Aug. 2 rushing down, Republicans flooded the Sunday morning talk shows this week with a show of solidarity in – you guessed it – cynicism:

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) on CBS’s Face the Nation: “Why in the world isn’t there the votes for a balanced-budget amendment in the U.S. Senate? That’s the question Americans ought to be asking.”

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The only plan on the table that’ll keep us from default and will keep us from falling to a negative rating is the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan.” Then he followed with the dubious statistic, “Now folks can say that it’s outrageous to balance our budget, but over 70 percent of Americans think we need to.”

Over on ABC’s This Week, Raul Labrador (R-ID) magically added to the popularity of the GOP’s pet proposal: “Eighty percent of the American people want us to have a balanced-budget amendment. I’m not sure why the President is standing in the way of that.”

Why is the President standing in the way of this sham demand? “I think it’s important for everybody to understand that all of us believe that we need to get to a point where eventually we can balance the budget,” President Obama said at one of the many press conferences on the debt ceiling. “We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do that; what we need to do is to do our jobs.”

Speaking of jobs, that’s what the GOP ran on: jobs. But once sworn in, they’re nothing more than ineffective congressional seat-fillers on the public’s dime.

We as citizens need to call their bluff. They don’t want to amend the Constitution.

Their real goal is the pyrrhic victory of making the President fail because they think the GOP will rise from the country’s ashes.

© Copyright 2011 TinaDupuy.com, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
...............................

Exclusive Bill Clinton Interview: I Would Use Constitutional Option To Raise Debt Ceiling And "Force The Courts To Stop Me"

The National Memo
Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:03am —
Joe Conason


Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.

Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”

Lifting the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made,” he added, “so you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”

Having faced down the Republican House leadership during two government shutdowns when he was president -- and having brought the country’s budget from the deep deficits left by Republican presidents to a projected surplus -- Clinton is unimpressed by the GOP’s sudden enthusiasm for balanced budgets. But he never considered invoking the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says “the validity of the US public debt shall not be questioned” – because the Republicans led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich didn’t threaten to use the debt ceiling as a weapon in their budget struggles with him.

According to Clinton, the Gingrich Republicans thought about that tactic before rejecting it -- and Treasury officials who served under Clinton commissioned legal research on the president’s power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. While some legal scholars believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires Congress to fund the debt that results from its appropriations, and therefore empowers the president to raise the debt ceiling, others vehemently disagree.

Like President Obama, Clinton is a former law professor who once taught the Constitution, and he understands that the extent of presidential power remains highly controversial, whether the issue is waging war or increasing the debt.

“Here’s what happened, as I remember – but let me back up a second,” Clinton said. “I have read accounts of that time where people at Treasury have been interviewed, and they say they did look into [the president's authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval].” As for the Republicans, “they did think about doing that" -- withholding approval of a higher limit -- "and I knew they were thinking about it.” But the question ultimately did not arise for Clinton, he says, because his opponents in Congress decided “they didn’t want to get caught” in a position where they appeared to be repudiating the debt incurred by their own party’s two previous presidents.

“The reason that raising the debt limit is so unpopular is that people think you’re voting to keep [increasing] deficit spending, instead of voting to honor obligations that were already incurred,” he said. “I think [the Gingrich Republicans] figured I’d be smart enough to explain to the American people that they were refusing to pay for the expenses they had voted for when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were president. And that would make ‘em look bad.”

Obama could offer precisely the same explanation in the present circumstances, where most of the current debt can be traced to the profligate military spending and tax cuts of the last Bush administration. Just as the nation’s debt had tripled or quadrupled between 1981 and 1993, in the dozen years of Republican rule before Clinton’s first inauguration, as he points out, so the second Bush administration plunged the budget from surplus to deep deficit before Obama spent one penny on economic stimulus or anything else.

Although Clinton says that if he were in Obama’s place he would raise the debt ceiling without legislation – “if it came to that” -- he believes the crisis will be resolved before August 2. “It looks to me like they’re going to make an agreement, and that’s smart.”

Tammy weighs in again

..............................
myolivercat

Now, since you were so hasty and didn't research your information before you did your news brief, and caused all the negetive reactions, ... It might be of some compassion if you atleast update with some words of compassion to this woman and her family and friend ! !
Just imagine the horror she must have gone through and even more so if, she was very low income....
I for one do care if, she is going to be okay physically, as well as, emotionally .......

Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com

The news briefs were written with the information provided by law enforcement. The reporter didn't cause the negative reactions, he reported the news as he received it. The autopsy on the infant was only completed today.

in reply to myolivercat

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/19/1729386/newborns-death-probed.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1SbRRDR8Q
..............................
Now of course we all know that myolivercat (aka GinaMD) isn't any paragon herself when it comes to commenting!
..............................

500 miles, 500 miles.....

The annual trip to Otter Crest, south of Depoe Bay, OR, is but a memory to the Kardnoses.  Just a suggestion - if you're looking to make a local excursion and have a few days, drive Highway 101 South on the Oregon coast.  Oh...and don't forget to buy saltwater taffy.

GOP voters not as hardcore as Boehner, et al., say

........................................
Would voters forgive Republicans for agreeing to tax hike? Most would, poll suggests
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Jul 14, 2011

Congressional Republicans are standing behind their pledge not to raise a penny in taxes as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, at least one new poll suggests that most Republican voters might forgive them for giving in for the sake of saving the deal.

Most respondents stressed that they would prefer spending cuts over tax increases as part of the deal currently under negotiation between Republicans and the White House. But the level of opposition to tax hikes is not nearly as strong as Republicans make it out to be, according to a new Gallup poll.

Just one in five voters said they want the debt deal to include spending cuts only--the path outlined by House and Senate Republicans who say they will refuse any plan that raises taxes. More surprisingly, just 26 percent of Republican voters said they wouldn't support a deal if it included tax hikes.

Of course, Gallup doesn't have a monopoly on tax polling. House Republicans can point to numerous other surveys over the past few years that show strong opposition to tax increases. A Bloomberg poll in June, for instance, showed that 55 percent of respondents thought spending cuts and lower taxes were the best way to spur the economy. Only 17 percent said they supported increasing spending levels, and 61 percent said they would not be willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit.

House Speaker John Boehner has said for months that "the American people don't want us to raise taxes," and the party will likely hold its ground even if it means jettisoning a debt-reduction deal. For those who think they'll crack, there is precedent to suggest that they're not bluffing: When the parties were embroiled in negotiations about whether to extend the Bush-era tax rates last December, the Republicans wouldn't budge, and a deal was made. (Although it's looking increasingly unlikely that they'll see a successful conclusion this time around.)

But the newest Gallup poll does drive home a point that perhaps GOP leaders aren't focused on: While most Americans prefer taxes don't go up, they won't necessarily take to the streets if increases are part of the package deal.
........................................

Giuliani: GOP, quit dwelling on gay marriage

....................................
Giuliani to GOP: ‘Get the heck out of people’s bedrooms’
Posted by Chris Grygiel on July 17, 2011.

Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York City, on Sunday advised his party to halt its vocal opposition to gay marriage.

“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”

Last month New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriages. Of that vote, Giuliani, who is mulling a 2012 presidential run, told CNN: “I think it’s wrong, but there are other things that I think are wrong that get decided by democratic vote. I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on this subject of gays and lesbians and whether it’s right or wrong in politics.”

In 2009 in Washington state the Legislature approved, and voters later upheld, an “everything but marrige” bill which greatly broadened the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples here. State Sen. Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, told seattlepi.com last week that Olympia was going to “make a serious effort” to legalize gay marriage in the Evergreen State.

....................................

Amurica Fuk Yeh

The Reason for ThurstonBlog

It's been awhile since I've really gotten on the editorial soapbox, but today is as good a day as any.

I'm going to start by suggesting that anyone who is not aware of why ThurstonBlog came of age, some 40,000 pageviews ago, check our archives and look at December 2009.

Frankly, nothing has really changed at The Olympian, other than a few people have moved on.  It's still management by chaos and crisis and there isn't enough common sense to see the forest for the trees.  Pre-Tammy McGee, they had Aaron Mason.  Mason, like McGee, wasn't reading the text of the forums and was only relying on "complaints".  Both make the mistake of publically getting into the fray, as opposed to quietly moderating from the background. 

Looking at December 2009, you'll see that The Olympian forums were being shut down, due to abuse of the complaint link, on a daily basis.  I opened up ThurstonBlog as a dialog option.  This morning, from 98507's blog, I see that they are back to the same place, with a slight twist.

Nothing has really changed and never will.  Oh...by the way....anytime The Olympian would like to respond to ThurstonBlog, all they need to do is apply for an account, just like they would require of a reader.

Tammy on the offensive AND the defensive

.......................
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/14/1723860/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-an.html#ixzz1S7abluLh
----------

Moderator Tammy started out the day by deleting one of glenn’s comments on the “Village” LTE, and to her credit, she DID respond with her reasons when called on it. However, I think that if she’s decided that "cedar" needs to be blocked, why doesn't she block some of the real offenders (glenn, GunnarWade, Suze, RedForeman, etc.), too/instead? If she blocked the offenders who "start" the problems, i.e. the above list plus some others, she shouldn't have to worry about anybody continuing along an objectionable path.

----------
cedartree
One last message from cedar: I have been blocked from the forum, so the right wing can have it almost completely to yourselves. It's just as well; it was a huge time-waster, and nobody's minds were ever changed. It seems that Tammi never shared my sense of sometimes caustic humor, and the abuse button kept being hammered by your compatriots.

-30-

in reply to glenn
----------
rosetta_stoned
Here's a tissue, Mr. 'Moderate'.

For the record, I don't believe in 'reporting' comments. I'd just as soon everybody see the nonsense put out there, and decide for themselves.

in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
I agree. I'd just as soon see what people have to say, unedited. Gives some insight into their thought processes when you can see their most extreme rants.

in reply to rosetta_stoned
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
Your thoughts are duly noted, but not everyone wants to read through 3 pages of comments that add up to not much more than verbal volleyball between people who basically hate each other because they disagree, so the comments will continue to be deleted when they are offensive.

in reply to OlyKay
----------
GunnarWade
If you have been blocked from the forum, how is it that you are able to still make comments?

in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
Here is a tip: there is an unlimited supply of email addresses and names and passwords in the world.

I will not be returning after this morning, and will be out of town for some time.

in reply to GunnarWade
----------
Friendlyfoe
That's too bad Cedar, I liked the biological perspective that you often brought to this forum. Keep that good sense of humor on your sleeve throughout the journey!

in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
They may -- lockstep pushing the "report" button -- keep you from your First Amendment rights, but they can't keep you from voting. Got to have SOME rational people voting.

in reply to cedartree
----------
Astuteone
I was with the writer until he threw in the gay community. What do they have to do with this?
----------
fedup
Yeah, I have to agree with others on here. If it is about seniors then keep it about seniors. Being a senior has nothing to do with what they (or anyone else) does in their own bedroom!

I really think sometimes that the government is pushing for the creation of a "Unisex" race of people. Nope, can't say or do anything for fear of offending another person! Everyone forgets the fact that real equality comes from hard work and not hand-outs.
----------
glenn
Well, I guess we have an ultra sensitive gay advocate trolling the comments sections trying to censor the challenges to their ultra sensitivities. Security in their gayness is equivalent to a f_rt between two tea leaves. If you're proud of what you are and secure in what you are, then you won't run around trying to stiffle any perceptions of unacceptance. I'm glad I'm NOT them. Obviously they haven't accepted themselves yet.
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And when you start attacking "them" as people, is when you start getting your comments deleted. If you don't agree with someone, fine, but don't attack them as people. Say what you have to say without being offensive. "Security in their gayness is equivalent to a fart between two leaves." What does this mean, anyway? You thought the sarcasm was funny? Well, maybe it is to you and one of the other readers, but it's not funny to everyone. It's offensive, and if you can't make comments without being offensive, then don't comment. Don't like me? I don't care. I'm not here to be your pal, and quite honestly, I've gotten roughly 10 emails in two days calling me names and accusing me of being on the side of either the left or the right.....depending on who is attacking me. These comment threads can either be populated by mature adults attenmpting mature conversation, or comments will be deleted and/or threads closed.

in reply to glenn
----------
cedartree
If you took your job seriously and fairly moderated these forums, I don't think people would be as angry with you. But you allow all the right wing folks to call other people communists and socialists and marxists all day long, and to make fun of our president as if it was one long and funny game.

But to quote you out of context, you said "I don't care."

in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And here is an excerpt of an email I received this morning:

"This is all uncalled for, the Libs say and do as they please, many of us have noticed that lately."

So, who's right? All I can do is delete the comments that insult, or make fun of other people. Everyone has a right to comment, but most on these threads anymore, treat the comment threads as their personal battle ground. It's offensive to many other people who wish to have a conversation here, and can't for fear of being personally attacked.

in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
And yet, the ratio of insulting right wing comments to liberal comments is probably five to one, yet you constantly eliminate the liberal comments in a MUCH higher percentage than that.

It is easy to blame someone else for your problems, but I think that your approach to moderation is a big part of the problem.

in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
OlyKay
Cedartree, while the more insulting and vicious comments are from the right, typically, it could also be that they are the ones pushing the "report" button on any moderate or left comments, and so those are the ones Tammy -- doing her job -- ends up reviewing.
When I get attacked -- and I do both from the far left (I'm not pure enough, I guess) and especially from the far right (because I'm left of Atilla the Hun) -- I'd just as soon leave the attacks up on here since they show the mentality of the folks doing the attacking.
Anyway, she may just be responding to whoever hits the "report" button the most.

in reply to cedartree
----------
Jon_YAYA
Mocking the President and calling each other names is an American tradition with a long and glorious history. What do you think our soldiers are fighting for?

I do see the right wing doing more mocking and name calling than the left, but doesn't that make sense? When you're not that bright and the facts are not on your side, what else do they have?

in reply to cedartree
----------
Bioya
Another triumph for censorship. Glenn's comment was a rebutal to the blatant attempt to push the gay agenda by Patrick Babineau. Why wasn't the article censored for dishonesty and blatant bias? What open minded individual will push the trap door button of censorship on my article, for being open about someones attempt to be underhanded about a controversial subject. The sands of time are falling for the news papers of America because of this type of censorship while they allow their bias to flourish in their editorial and news articles. Until the left is successful in their attempts to control the internet too, your version of open dialogue is doomed to failure and inclusion on the trash heap of former leftist newspapers. Why not put an abuse button on the papers editorials and opinions if you want to be open minded and honest.
----------
Jon_YAYA
Newspapers have endorsed certain political candidates and agendas for hundreds of years. This is not something new. Don't like the left wing slant? Go read one of the 150 newspapers owned by NewsCorp, they'll tell you just what YOU want to hear.

in reply to Bioya
----------
MarcusWoodson
I don't understand the gay reference either.
----------
MemoryMan
Gay people get old, too. Whether you want to call it orientation, lifestyle, determination, identity or what ever, they get old, they get cancer, they get dementias, they have strokes, and they need help. Prejudice against elders in Olympia, gay or otherwise, is subtle and mostly superficial for show. There is a definite bias for :"the children, " at the expense of seniors. Don't think so? Go down to the Olympia Senior Center, staffed by a non-profit and not the city, and take a tour. Seniors taking care of seniors privately is a norm. Of Course, you can be like city council members who come down only when running for office.
.......................

Voters still blame bad economy on Bush more than Obama

......................................
Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy
By Holly Bailey

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.

Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.

Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.

But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.

The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.
......................................

Do dumb you wonder how It breathes

From an opinion piece on the retirement of the Space Shuttle:

GunnarWade

Obama the space cadet has destroyed our space program.

Houston, we have a problem!

and ten minutes later...

GunnarWade

This means America will now have to hitch a ride into space with the Chinese or the Russians.

Wait.................didn't Obama want to get our good muslim (sic) friends involved with the space program too?

Maybe we'll hitch a ride with al-qaeda (sic) or the taliban (sic) someday.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/14/1723858/a-sad-moment-in-history-when-we.html#ixzz1S6XaRZq1

For Old_Reliable

Rest In Peace Buddy

Another happy reader...

sage1 says:

July 13, 2011 at 7:59 pm

I see how it works. "progressives" get to make off-topic comments, and that is okay and allowed. Right thinking people do not. I guess I need to make "progressive" off-topic comments from now on....
Here is another symbol for you....

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/12/debt-argument-leaves-us-out/#ixzz1S3S5hAY0

and here is another symbol for you

Comment on it here (closed thread on The Olympian)

MELISSA SOUZA; Tumwater | • Published July 13, 2011

Conservatives would have us believe they are pro-life, yet their behavior suggests just the opposite.

Conservatives say they care so deeply about the sanctity of life they would legally ban all abortions. Yet, they have no problem forsaking millions of the now born to be raised in the abyss of poverty, with all the related social maladies. This is evidenced by the billions in cuts the Republicans are now insisting upon in Medicaid, WIC and other services to the poor so they can funnel the savings to the wealthiest people and corporations in America.

The conservatives care so deeply about the sanctity of life that they have built the most extensive network of prisons in the world. And they wallow in the death penalty as a deterrent to crime while defunding social programs to educate and rehabilitate offenders so the cycle of poverty and criminal behavior can end.

Yes, conservatives are pro-life.

And let’s not forget conservatives’ quest to defund President Barack Obama’s health care plan and privatize Medicare and Social Security. Again, conservatives are pro-life, yet they have no problem in causing the deaths of 50,000-plus Americans each year through a lack of health care. And they want to privatize Medicare and Social Security so a business entity, with no moral compass, can capitalize on our old age and poor health. Yes, conservatives are so pro-life.

The real conservative agenda is to decentralize, deregulate, privatize, and defund. Is this the kind of pro-life democracy we want?

 http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/13/1722612/conservatives-dont-care-about.html#ixzz1S2pwd61b

39,780 7:54 PM 7/13/2011

Closing in on 40,000 pageviews!

Of course, as you all know, none of the Conservatives in Thurston County ever read our little blog.

Hope the righties are happy

..........................................
Conservatives don’t care about the poor
According to the "Most commented" section, this LTE had 88 comments, but not now.  Obviously some of the commenters got out of hand with the usual result that all existing comments were removed and new comments can't be posted.  Thanks, Olympian, for taking the lazy way out again!
..........................................

Old Man IV

Visitors also can expect their favorite Lakefair traditions, such as the Navy’s command cutter Old Man IV.

If for some strange reason you want to read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/12/1722389/another-sign-of-south-sound-summer.html#ixzz1RzhiEJno

Rumor has it the vessel is loaded with manure and powered by blind faith.

Although I'm sure this must be one of "someone's" kids...

So.... which one is the Republican and which is the Democrat?

............................................

I wonder if this is "someone's" idea of Adam and Eve???

It's Monday and you could use a laugh.

Go back to Shelton

RedForeman

I used to live in Olympia and this stuff is the reason I moved and opened a business elsewhere. The Olympia city council is a bunch of lefty nutballs who've tied the hands of the local police and downtown Olympia is a cesspool of panhandlers addicts and drunks. Everytime you turn around the Evergreeners are protesting something, blocking streets, destroying property or tagging something. Olympia has become the shame of Washington state and it is because of Evergreen and the local politicians.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/10/1739559/the-elusive-face-of-anarchism.html#ixzz1RrMebzXv

For a person that left Olympia, Red sure didn't leave Olympia

I think Tammy and The Olympian have bigger problems.....

sage1 says:

July 11, 2011 at 6:53 pm

I wonder if Tammy McGee knows who KARDNOS really is, or is he still banned from posting there and he is just crying about it somewhere. They probably have LH's IP address, but he might have snuck in somehow. Maybe Tammy needs to be informed?

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/08/why-did-so-few-fly-the-flag/#ixzz1Rr8Qrtas

InDepends Voltaire, hiding behind AnonTheGreat's Olympian moniker is now my ass wipe on The News Tribune.  I'm sure he has a hotline to Tammy McGee (about as much as I do).  Meanwhile, The Olympian is really taking it on the chops about the "Anarchist" story and related editorial about Overman's faux pax.  If I could be the biggest problem that The Olympian has, I'm sure Tammy, Jerry and George would be happy campers.  I'm not really sure why Ass Wipe would bring up Tammy McGee on The News Tribune, seeing that she works for the B grade paper down south.

Since you like symbols.....

Gotcha, Joey!

............................

• Old_Reliable

  I will boycott all businesses advertising in The Olympian, and urge others to do so as well.

  • 5 hours ago
• prophet_atlantis_1

  But didn't you tell us before you don't buy stuff in Olympia anyway?

  • in reply to Old_Reliable
  • 2 Likes

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/10/1719209/photographer-will-face-discipline.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1RlEEvvIm
............................

Anarchist article comment section

........................................................
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
Readers:

This story is going to raise tempers, and I am asking that all of you who wish to comment, do so in a mature and respectful manner. If the comment thread on this story goes south, you will force us to close the thread. I would rather not do that.

Everyone has a right to express an opinion. It's not about what you say, it's about how you say it.

5 Likes
----------
GinaMD
Tammy .... Thank you for this comment.

What you have just conveyed to all is actually the whole point of this article.
--- A point to all, who have a stance that conflicts with that of others....

It is not the view point that is rejected . -- It is the manner in which it is expressed !

We are all human and certainly , not perfect. At a given point anyone of us may over react with later regrets..

in reply to Tammy McGee
5 Likes
----------
alawabidingcitizen
" It's not about what you say, it's about how you say it."

Chills.

in reply to Tammy McGee
3 Likes
----------
slowdownspeedy
Tammy, you do realize that actively moderating the comments for this story shows that the paper has the ability and resources to moderate all stories - potentially stripping any Safe Harbor protections the paper had claim to. The Daily Olympian could now be liable for comments made that are illegal (e.g. fighting words), instigate violence (e.g. "2nd Amendment remedies" or "take a billy-club"), or are defamation in nature.

Now that you've shown that you can moderate the comment section beyond built in filters, I'm curious to see what happens next time glenn or Suze goes all threatening on a poster.

in reply to Tammy McGee
1 Like
----------
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/10/1719188/the-elusive-face-of-anarchism.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Rk95u3jN
........................................................

Contrary to the mistaken belief....

..That we are some kind of a "hate blog", I'd like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the family and friends of Betty Ford.

Betty Ford was a lady of grace and eloquence, who was respected by all, regardless of political stripe. Her openness about her addiction and breast cancer was trailblazing in the 1970's..(both subjects were very much "taboo" at the time), and her candor about speaking to these issues saved the lives of millions of people..

Rest In Peace, Mrs. Ford..

You done good!

Mean-spirited swipe at President Obama

.................................................
Romney’s cheap shot at Obama
By Stephen Stromberg

ABC News reports on Mitt Romney’s latest swipe at President Obama:

The president’s time has been spent playing golf and campaigning; he should be spending his time and energy on getting Americans back to work and fixing this economy.

Yes, that’s all the president has done.

Leaving aside Romney’s dig about campaigning — since the president and Republicans have been squabbling over whether senators should have a week in their home states after the Fourth — I’ve always found the “why are they golfing when [fill in the crisis] is happening?” line to be not merely cynical but also mean-spirited. It was so when Michael Moore pretended to make a point by using footage of George W. Bush hitting a golf ball after discussing terrorism with reporters. It’s at least as unfair to criticize this president for taking a couple hours on the weekend to hit the links — especially because one of Obama’s most recent golf partners was GOP House Speaker John Boehner.

Critics such as Romney make it seem as though the president’s choices were, “find that button hidden in the West Wing that, when pressed, fixes all bad things,” and “go golfing,” and Obama chose the latter.

I want the president to take a few hours off in the seclusion of the back nine every now and then. Being president is really hard, in part because there isn’t an easy button. For that reason, presidents have been playing golf practically since the Articles of Confederation. Even some of the good ones. I imagine that they will continue to play the game for years yet. And that critics seeking a cheap point will attack them for it.
.................................................

President Obama should end the debt showdown

...............................................
Invoke the 14th — and end the debt standoff
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Published: July 5

On its current course, the United States is four weeks away from defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history. If that happens, businesses will fail. Financial institutions will fail. Home values will decline. Mortgage rates will skyrocket. Spending and investment will all but disappear. Social Security checks will stop being mailed. Everything from military pay to food inspection will be compromised, if not fully cut off. The millions upon millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed will be joined by millions more.

Across the world, America’s second financial collapse in three years will drag down already fragile economies in Europe, Latin America and Asia, potentially creating a “worldwide depression,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described it. In short, we would be thrown back deep into economic turmoil — only this time with even fewer tools to crawl our way out.

In theory, this is unthinkable, and it will be remedied by reasonable political parties making reasonable concessions across the negotiating table. But Republicans have been negotiating in bad faith, unwilling to compromise even an inch on their extremist and absolutist positions. Some are no longer willing to come to the table at all.

With that backdrop, President Obama may find that there is only one course left to avoid a global economic calamity: Invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional option is one that the president alone may exercise.

If the Aug. 2 deadline arrives and no deal has been made, Obama could use a plain reading of that text to conclude — statutory debt ceiling or not — that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills. In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation, one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying.

There are reasons why such a solution is less than ideal. There ought to be some concern about executive overreach; the very idea of the president deciding which laws are and are not constitutional has disturbing ramifications. And to the extent that the goal of the move is to prevent market panic, it remains an open question as to whether it would succeed. But market panic will surely come with the failure to reach a deal altogether. The consequences of default are simply too severe — and too long-lasting — to take this option off the table. It may not be ideal as an elective choice, but as an option of last resort, it is a necessity.

If Obama does choose to move forward, he will be doing so on strong legal footing. In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has “the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.” The final word still may lie with the Supreme Court, but in the interim, the president need not wait for its opinion. “As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution,” said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. “In fact, he is sworn by oath not to enforce it,” added Friedman, author of the book “The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution.”

It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block.

President Obama should commit to exercising this obligation — as a last resort. And he should commit publicly, as soon as possible.

Doing so will give him the leverage he lacks in the debt-ceiling negotiations. Right now, Republicans’ willingness to let the economy default, consequences be damned, gives them enormous leverage. But presumably, if a deal is not reached by the deadline, and the president is forced to exercise his constitutional obligation, Republicans will get nothing at all. Not the trillion dollars in cuts already agreed to. Not the additional trillion in cuts they are seeking. The threat, alone, of invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage.

Most would agree that taking such a step would be out of character for a president who has avoided this brand of confrontation. But great leaders adapt to adverse circumstances, and this is no exception. The president doesn’t just have a political and legal obligation here; he has a moral one, too. A default would be wrenching for the poor and middle class, stripping families of their jobs, their homes and programs they depend on for survival. A debt deal, negotiated entirely on Republican terms, would be devastating too — for everyone who isn’t a hedge-fund manager or private jet owner.

That leaves the president with two choices: He can give in to unthinkable Republican demands or he can choose, instead, to exercise his constitutional authority, end the debt-ceiling standoff and craft a new budget deal, defined, finally, by shared sacrifice.
...............................................

Monkey see......

From MSNBC's website - INDIANAPOLIS — When 18-year-old Tyell Morton put a blow-up sex doll in a bathroom stall on the last day of school, he didn't expect school officials to call a bomb squad or that he'd be facing up to eight years in prison and a possible felony record.

From the site that shall not be mentioned on ThurstonBlog -

When 18-year-old Tyell Morton put a blow-up sex doll in a bathroom stall on the last day of school, he didn’t expect school officials to call a bomb squad or that he’d be facing up to eight years in prison and a possible felony record.

Then there is this.....

SadujTogracse says:

July 6, 2011 at 10:20 pm

sage1, better beware Kardnos is "telling" on you by copying and pasting your comment onto another website!!! LMAO
It really doesn't get more pathetic than that.

Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/05/the-political-cycle/#ixzz1RQobA6qG

Actually, what is more pathetic is using a source for your blog that you claim is biased.

Don't stop too quickly, Anon, it will run up your ass

sage1 says:

July 6, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Reads like a personal attack to me.
"KARDNOS says:
JULY 5, 2011 AT 5:24 PM
"Soundlife says:
July 5, 2011 at 3:25 pm
"get rid of the ruinous Cheney/Bush tax cuts. Do that and we will be in "good" shape within two years"
Obviously you know nothing of economics, and are simply another shrill for the extreme left.
------------------------------------------------------

Soundlife says:
July 5, 2011 at 4:40 pm
newscrap my degree is in Economics so I look at our government's budget issues with a grounding in Economics, not blind loyalty to either of the major ridiculous parties.
------------------------------
Which Soundlife should we believe?"
Moderators?


Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/05/the-political-cycle/#ixzz1ROJX93S0

Cleaning the gene pool

..............................................
Motorcyclist crashes in helmet law protest, dies
By Barbara Goldberg | Reuters – Mon, Jul 4, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A bare-headed motorcyclist riding in protest of New York state's helmet law crashed, struck his head on the roadway and died from his injuries, state police said on Sunday.

Philip Contos, 55, was riding among a large group of motorcyclists staging an organized protest ride in western New York near Syracuse against the state law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets.

The Parish, New York, resident crashed on Saturday on Route 11 in Onondaga, New York, and was pronounced dead later at a local hospital, state Trooper Robert Jureller said.

"The doctor felt that the death could have been prevented if he simply had been wearing a helmet," Jureller said. "He hit the brakes, lost control, was ejected and struck his head on the road. He suffered a skull fracture."
..............................................
Some of the comments on the article:
"I nominate this guy for Darwin awards."
"What do you call a motorcyclist with out a helmet? Future organ donor."
"Being hard-headed didn't seem to help."
..............................................

Bachmann-- an advocate of "wifely submission"

..........................................
The Kind of Religious Test We Could Use
PAUL WALDMAN | Jul 1, 2011

Well here's an interesting question, from Libby Copeland at Slate:

In a speech at a mega-church in the Minneapolis area back in 2006, Michele Bachmann explained her decision to pursue tax law. It wasn't her choice, exactly. God had already told her to go to law school; God had also told her to marry a fellow named Marcus Bachmann. Now Marcus told her "to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." This was not a particular desire of Michele's ("Tax law? I hate taxes!"), but she was certain God was speaking through her husband. "Why should I go and do something like that?" she recalled thinking. "But the Lord says, 'Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"

For non-evangelical Christians, this sounds ludicrous: How can a woman who believes in submitting to her husband's will aspire to be president of the United States? Is she going to have to ask Marcus' permission every time she wants to throw a state dinner?

State dinners aren't really the point (I'm sure Mr. Bachmann would happily recuse himself from that kind of decision-making), but it is reasonable to ask whether the potential First Gentleman would have veto power over any substantive decisions. Before anyone cries religious bigotry, let's consider why this kind of question is perfectly legitimate.

It's legitimate because Michele Bachmann will happily tell you that her religious faith, and her particular interpretation of what that faith demands, are not only a central (perhaps the central) part of her identity, but an enormous influence on how she views the world, including questions of public policy. That being the case, voters have a right to know all they can about what the substance of that faith is. If she's an advocate of "wifely submission," then that absolutely bears on what kind of a job she'd do as president. Imagine that a different candidate said, "I've got this mentor, who was my economics professor in college, and I pretty much do whatever he tells me. In fact, I feel that God demands that I do whatever he tells me." We'd naturally want to know who this professor is, what his views are, and whether it's really appropriate to be giving him such a large role in the functions of our government.

In other words, you can't have it both ways (as many candidates try to). You can't say that religious faith is incredibly important to you and to what kind of president you'd be, and expect religious voters to support you in part because of your strong faith, but simultaneously say that people shouldn't ask questions about exactly how that faith will operate as you do the job of president. In fairness, Bachmann hasn't refused to answer that kind of question. But it's only because she hasn't yet been asked.
..........................................

Yeah, since you two are such GREAT patriots....

GunnarWade
It's great to see Tumwater celebrate a parade of Americanism and patriotism.

You'll NEVER see Olympia celebrate other than a parade of diversity and perversity.


Old_Reliable
I noticed over the weekend that there is about three times the American flags in either Lacey or Tumwater, as there is in the "Capitol City", Olympia.

That tells it all, folks.


Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/04/1712310/tumwater-crowd-loves-a-parade.html#ixzz1RCWkSxHe

===========================

For one, Joey, all it tells us is that you can't count.

Please post the statistics. Please give us an accurate count of the number of flags in Tumwater and Lacey versus the number of flags in Olympia ...

(I won't even comment on the ATROCIOUS grammar....from the BOTH of you...)

And Gunnar, please tell all those kids that participate in the Lakefair parade that they're "perverse"....

Secondly, you two would have been the first ones throwing rocks at the Irish as they got off the boats at Eliis Island during the potato famine...or beating up the Chinese immigrants that laid the foundations for our railroads in the 19th century...

You two make me want to vomit......

Any resemblence between either of you and a patriot is not only co-incidental...



It boggles the mind.......


Sheesh, is that ALL you two can do???


HATE??????

It's like a sucker's bet.....

As the resident statistician for ThurstonBlog I have determined that the Right Wing Fuckheads actually spend more time on this site than I do.

So Joey walks into a confession booth

Exhibitionist parenting

.............................................
Time for Oratorical Contraception
By FRANK BRUNI
Published: July 2, 2011

ELECTIONS routinely start with candidates’ pledging more debates than they’ll ever really consent to, committing to a positivity that sours faster than unrefrigerated milk and promising to listen as much as they talk, a congenital impossibility.

For the 2012 presidential race, I’d like them to make a different vow — and actually keep it.

How about everyone’s agreeing to shut up about their kids?

In its infancy (pardon the term), this campaign season has already become excessively showy with exhibitionist parenting. Just last week President Obama asserted that Congressional Republicans, playing brinkmanship with the deadline for raising the debt ceiling, should emulate his daughters, Malia, 12, and Sasha, 10. The girls regularly finish their school assignments a day in advance — or so their proud finger-wagging papa crowed. We await an Andrew Breitbart investigation into the claim.

The president’s boast came hard on the heels of the first lady’s southern Africa tour, from which seemingly every picture and television clip had the girls on splashy display. With the cameras rolling, they even read aloud from “The Cat in the Hat,” a little Dr. Seuss for the savanna.

It was adorable, yes, and inspiring, sure, but also confusing, like their subsequent deployment as metaphors in the protracted budget showdown. Are the girls off limits, as the Obamas have repeatedly (and commendably) insisted? Or are they in play when the stakes are high, victory is uncertain, the president’s frosty image could use some warming up and there’s easy, convenient political theater to be had? That’s one of the problems with converting progeny into props. It has a facile, cheap tinge.

At least the president shows more restraint than many of his Republican challengers, who used the opening minutes of their presidential debate a few weeks ago to engage in a kind of reproductive arms race, each of them one-upping the other on the fecundity front.

Rick Santorum mentioned his seven children. Michele Bachmann followed up by plugging her five children and her 23 foster kids, making the latter sound like permanent charges rather than the temporary lodgers they were. Mitt Romney ticked off five sons, five daughters-in-law and, lest he let Bachmann lap him, 16 grandchildren.

Then Ron Paul outpaced them all. Instead of giving a count of his own kids (five), he tallied roughly 4,000 lives that he, as a physician, had helped usher into the world. Go, babies, go.

Jon Huntsman wasn’t on hand, but a week later he answered his rivals’ verbal ploys with a visual one. He and his wife rounded up six of their seven children for an endless trek across a verdant lawn to the podium set up for his presidential announcement. As the Huntsmans marched in a photogenic phalanx, each step was like a mantra: family man, family man, family man.

Of course a big part of what all of these Republican candidates are doing is trying to appeal to anti-abortion voters. But they and other politicians, including both the Democratic and Republican members of Congress who brought up their offspring during last week’s fiscal wrangling, are also sending the message that they can be trusted to whittle down the debt, shore up the country and otherwise safeguard the future precisely because they have a direct biological stake in it. If they breed, they lead, or so their self-promotion holds.

That’s ludicrous. Progeny aren’t proof of caring and farsightedness, qualities manifest in politicians who never procreated — George Washington, for example. This Founding Father fathered none. He nonetheless proved eminently capable of the long view.

How many children someone has says nothing about how well he or she will govern, and the tableaux of family bliss that candidates choreograph regularly prove to be fictions. During the 2008 presidential election, which was unprecedentedly awash in little kids, John and Elizabeth Edwards made the most extravagant show of a tightly knit brood, transplanting their two youngest, Emma Claire, then 9, and Jack, 7, from the classroom to the campaign bus, a rolling romper room. Need I even finish this paragraph?

Because so many politicians make such a studied pose out of their parenthood, it’s fair to point out that jumping into the fray of a national campaign and hauling the clan into an unforgiving spotlight don’t necessarily do children any favors, especially if they’re young. For all that candidates chatter about building a better tomorrow for their kids, they may be building a worse today.

It’s funny how much things change. Not so long ago female candidates had to deflect charges that they’d be distracted by the responsibilities of motherhood, or that they would be shirking them. Now they’re presented as paragons of multitasking: Ms. Bachmann and the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and of course Sarah Palin, who graduated from self-described hockey mom to self-anointed Mama Grizzly. She is mother, hear her roar.

But let’s take a look at her cubs.

Last week she joined the book tour of her daughter Bristol, who previously sold the news of one of her two failed engagements to Levi Johnston to Us magazine; elected “Dancing With the Stars” over, say, a college education; disappeared briefly to have surgery to reshape her jaw (for medical reasons, she contends); and will haul her and Mr. Johnston’s 2-year-old son, Tripp, into a reality television show, sure to be a profoundly formative experience for him.

Tripp’s welfare was no doubt foremost in her mind when she wrote the book, “Not Afraid of Life,” which eviscerates Mr. Johnston and encourages the world — and Tripp — to see him forevermore as a date rapist of sorts who ended her virginity after feeding her so many wine coolers that she blacked out. True or not, that’s going to be an awfully heavy piece of baggage for their son to carry around. And it’s an awfully troubling example of Palin family values.

Having kids isn’t the same as doing right by them, and candidates who seek credit for parenthood are also asking to be judged by the results. That may be the best reason of all to keep them far from the trail.
.............................................

What me, racist? Never!

wildcat67

And BO has done a changes? Michelle didn't take a trip to Spain or Africa? The N in chief only cares about the brothers who want to whine and sit on their butts.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/02/1709506/letter-of-the-month-rich-get-richer.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1R0DBRmIM

Subtle.

More of the usual entertainment by the righties

*******************************************
Otis_Campbell
"They bring law school minds to a subject that requires practical experience."

What the heck is that even supposed to mean? The majority of the court are Right Wing hacks who have no problem pleasing you with rulings on a host of issues in which neither you nor they have any "practical experience".

"Does anyone believe Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen a day when violent images of the worst sort ought to be protected by the First Amendment?"

How about this... Does anyone believe Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen the day when an empty shell in the shape of a man like you, Cal, would be given a forum to propagandize for the benefit of oligarchs, demonize the poor, cheer-lead illegal wars and defend the use of torture while also having the temerity to lecture us on your umbrage at offensive video games.

Bizarro World.

4 Likes
*******************************************
Astuteone
Does anyone believe Thomas Jefferson could have forseen that one political persuasion, the liberal left, would almost completely dominate and control all forms of the news, newspapers, TV, and magazines, to the detriment of our nation?

in reply to Otis_Campbell
3 Likes
*******************************************
slowdownspeedy
Don't you love Democracy? Deal with what the majority says or get out of my country.

in reply to Astuteone
1 Like
*******************************************
suzedoosie
So correct and well said.

in reply to Astuteone
*******************************************
sidrat38
"Does anyone believe Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen a day when violent images of the worst sort ought to be protected by the First Amendment?"

Gee, I don't know, Cal..

Maybe you should ask one of his slaves??

2 Likes
*******************************************
suzedoosie
More evidence of the declining morals in America, no leadership what so ever.
When the politicians have no morals what else can we expect?
Garbage in and garbage out.
There are many wonderful video games out there that don't rely on violence.
Cal is absolutely correct, this is not a perfect world and a lot of parents, especially single mothers could use occassional help from the state on these issues.
These extreme violent movies are not in the best interest of adults let alone children.
Thomas Jefferson would turn over in his grave!
Fine letter Cal.

3 Likes
*******************************************
Old_Reliable
Watch as they protect porn and violence and seek to stifle Christians.

2 Likes
*******************************************
slowdownspeedy
Relax old man. Just as I have the right to slaughter pixels, you have the right to pray to what ever fairy tale book you want. The same Amendment that protects violent video games also protects your silly little religion.... unfortunately.

in reply to Old_Reliable
*******************************************
glenn
Yesser, you have the right to be Godless and insult people that actually believe in something. You must be proud.

in reply to slowdownspeedy
2 Likes
*******************************************
slowdownspeedy
Not proud, but entertained. While the comment section around these here parts have become a strong-hold of the Religious Right, there's still fun to be had.

Anyways, if your faith is so solid, the words of a godless heathen shouldn't bother you. And yet you took the time to comment... hrm.
*******************************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/02/1709507/ruling-shows-justices-real-world.html#disqus_thread
*******************************************

Braaahh

A man went into a confession one day.

"Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned," said the man, as he knelt down.
''What have you done?" asked the priest.
"Well, Father, I housed a refugee during the second world war."
"Why , that is not a sin my son," replied the priest.
"No, you don't understand," replied the man. "I made him pay rent."
To which the priest replied, "Well, that certainly wasn't very charitable, but I wouldn't really say it's a sin."
"Then, Father, may I ask your opinion of something?"
"Of course," said the priest.
"Should I tell him the war is over?"

How Did We Get Here?

As I ponder the meaning of our Independence Day, I think about the vision of our Founding Fathers and Mothers. I think about the waves upon waves of immigrants who came to our shores, seeking the promise of a new life, with greater opportunities; how all those cultures enriched our own culture.

I think especially about the sacrifices of my parent's generation (the "Greatest Generation") as they faced the scourge of the Nazis, and how their efforts enabled my generation to "question authority" in ways that led to the Civil Rights movement and the end of the Vietnam War. In so many ways, we tried to match the courage of our parents. We helped to build a more just world where even the least among us could share in the wealth that is America.

Today, I wonder: how and where did we lose that courage? How in God's name did we get to the point where we're intimidated by know-nothings with teabags stapled to their hats?

Today, we're in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If we learned anything from those times, we should have learned that cutting spending only makes things worse. Sure, we need to take a long-term look at our fiscal structure, so that we can eventually dig ourselves out of the debt created by two unfunded wars and the colossal Medicare drug benefit giveaway.

BUT TODAY IS NOT THAT DAY.

We got through the Great Depression by putting people to work in massive public works programs. Contrary to popular Conservative opinion, our build-up to WWII had little to do with the recovery (at least, according to Robert Reich and several other respected economists). In other words, we spent our way out of the Depression.

And we can do it again. Many economists today believe that the failure of the recent stimulus program was that it wasn't big enough. We need a bolder vision. We need President Obama to live up to his earlier promises of infrastructure and alternative energy spending. We need to fix our roads, bridges, and schools. We need to put more computers in those schools. We need to bring the internet economy to every hamlet.

We need to tell our Conservative brethren that, despite their total lack of empathy, an economic recovery belongs to ALL Americans.

And we need to start today, by telling them that allowing America to default on its loans is an act of treason, and will be treated accordingly.

Spawn of Palin

By Luke Broadwater

10:54 a.m. EDT, July 1, 2011

Remember how Michele Bachmann said the media wants to start a catfight between her and Sarah Palin that involves mud wrestling?

Well, who needs the media when we have Bristol Palin?

In an interview with PopEater, Bristol decided to get the match under way.

How did she attack Bachmann? Did she criticize her economic policies? Her views on social issues? No. Worse. She accused Bachmann of ripping off her mom's style.

"I think she dresses a lot like my mom," Bristol said. "But a lot, a lot of women have done that the last few years. I do think it's odd, you know, seeing people with red blazers with their hair up with glasses."
Bristol added a giggle before continuing her thought about Bachmann, a Congresswoman from Minnessota. "I don't know if she's wearing glasses but you want to be hummmm, do you think that people don't notice you're dressing like my mom?"

Uh oh. Accusing someone of being unfit to be president? Acceptable opening move. Accusing someone of style plagiarism? Now, that's just mean.

This could escalate quickly. I mean, this could really get out of hand fast.