Am I the only lefty who thinks it was a bad idea for President Obama to ask Congress for a resolution authorizing military action in Syria? (Over Syria?) I am not asking if the military action itself is a bad idea, I just don't think the President should have gone to Congress about it.
What do ATK's 1.6 million liberal readers and 2.3 conservatives think?
As Smitty knows, the White House has a policy that says that any policy proposal placed on the White House website that receives the support of 25,000 people, will receive consideration and a response from the White House. This summer the White House released the recipe for its Honey Porter and Honey Ale after beer brewers petitioned the White House for its release.
Recently a bunch of nerds gathered the support of over 34,000 people in asking the federal government to begin the construction of our very own Death Star.
The White House did not disappoint. Well, they might have disappointed people by shooting down the death star concept, but at least the denial was a very creative Star Wars-laden response.
Read it here.
Get off your dead ass and go vote. Now!
While I clearly endorse Obama, those readers in Michigan should vote NO, actually vote HELL NO, on Proposal 5 and 6. Do NOT turn us into CA with restrictions on raising taxes and please don't preserve a billionaire's bridge monopoly.
Go now.
Still here?
Go vote.
Here at ATK we haven’t been posting much election stuff this year, which is a shame because during Presidential elections we typically have great traffic and a good time ridiculing conservatives.
As you may have read, a few of us gathered a week or so ago to help Smitty brew his own, all-grain version of the White House Honey Porter, which is to be followed up by an extract version of the White House Honey Ale.
The New York Times has beat us to it, enlisting the help of a Brooklyn, New York brewer who brewed the Ale. The NYT followed up with a positive review.
I look forward to Smitty's improved, all-grain version made with his favorite grain, hops and the sweat and love of ATK.
UPDATE: Over at Streak's Place, our friend is also brewing and bottling the Porter. Too bad we live a half-country away and cannot do a back-to-back taste test.
One of my favorite writers, Glenn Greenwald, is now at the Guardian. He continues to grill the current administration on issues dealing with civil liberties, war and terrorism. Unfortunately, outside of blogs and media outlets that deal primarily with civil liberties, the MSM really isn't interested in talking about these things. For that matter, most people don't really seem all that interested. His latest OpEd discusses the administration's strange secrecy practices, which seem to be let secrets out when it may help reelection and don't when it might hurt. I understand that there are legitimate security concerns, but it does seem odd to allow a Navy SEAL that was on that raid to publish an account of the mission, while John Kerry tells reporters asking about it to, "shut up and move on." Even more disturbing is how this administration has gone after whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate (double all of the previous administrations combined). Greenwald referenced a Mother Jones article that does a good job of highlighting some of the recent abuses. Is this healthy?
Read more...In the most imporant news of the day, it has been reported that the White House now brews its own beer!
According to the DesMoines Register, not only does the White Brew two varieties of beer, they carry it with them on the Presidential tour bus.Moments ago, Mitt Rmoney (R-Flip flopper) just chose Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Tea Party) as his running mate. So, can a Presidential candidate pick a running mate who wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program and not lose senior votes? Is Florida now an easier win for Obama?
This just reeks of a campaign that cannot shore up the support of its base.
Let's kick off this campaign season a bit late and let me know your thoughts.
The Rick Perry Scary:
The Heathen Response:
Washington Post: "Obama attacks Republican economic theory: ‘It’s never worked’"
...Obama delivered a searing indictment of Republican economic theory, setting the stage for the coming presidential campaign. Summoning the image of a populist Theodore Roosevelt — in the same town (Osawatomie) where Roosevelt delivered a famous speech on economic fairness in 1910 — Obama deployed the language of right and wrong, fairness and unfairness, in a lengthy address that aides said he largely wrote himself.
The theory of “trickle down economics,” which holds that greater wealth at the top generates jobs and income for the masses below, drew some of Obama’s harshest criticism.Link to WaPo. Read more...
I don’t normally like linking to the Huffington Post, whose articles and guest columns, often drafted by celebrities, seem to just promote knee-jerk stereotypical opinions of the left. I saw this article linked by a bookface friend and had to make fun of the content.
It seems that Hillary Clinton supporters (AKA a cult.) are donating $20.12 to her to get her to run for president against President Obama.
Hey HCR-lovers: She lost!
Why would any legitimate progressive want her to run anyway? Because Obama is less progressive? I don’t think so.
Maybe it is not fair to judge HRC by her husband's policies, but it is a measure we cannot ignore. Let me remind her supporters that her husband (and HCR) was unable to get health care reform done. BC signed the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, which partially led to the banking crisis of today. He also promoted the anti-government policies of the Republicans, signed onto their welfare reform proposals and bought into the foolish, Wall Street-driven trade policies that have helped decimate the middle class. He also signed the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
As I have posted before, I cannot think of a single progressive policy he accomplished.
Let us also remind everyone that as it started to become clear she would likely lose the primary election, she started running the “white people will vote for me” campaign as a last ditch effort to pull it out. Why the hell is she even Secretary of State?
If I want another Clinton in office, I will vote for Romney.
I voted for Obama and think that he has done some significant things. I also think that he has failed in some regards and as time goes by, he is reminding me more and more of Jimmy Carter, in that he is a decent person and not a great president.
This op-ed is a week old, but I still think it makes some great points. First of all, I agree that he portrayed himself as someone that would correct some of the Bush era infringements on liberty. While I understand that for many voters, this isn't a top priority and with the economy struggling, he has his work cut out for him. That being said, I don't understand why he has expanded many o Bush's worst programs. The author doesn't pull any punches:
It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.
This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.Read more...
If I were Obama's speech writier, my outline below would be my first draft of a speech on a jobs agenda, without going too much into the details of the plan itlself. If he asked you, what would you tell Obama to say tonight Thursday night?
Set the stage without saying the name “Bush”.
• Remind everyone what brought us here. Years of deregulation, tax cuts on the wealthy and corporation’s left us with a 2007 recession and a 2008 banking collapse that lead to the worst economic conditions since the great depression.
As the economy grows slowly and Obama's approval numbers decline, I have read Democrats wistfully dream of days gone by and the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Some have wondered out loud what the hell Obama has accomplished as they look back at the good ‘ol days of Bill.
It got me thinking. The economy sure rocked during the 90’s, which led to balanced budgets. There was cheap gas, SUV’s everywhere and tech stocks were rising. Yeah, the economy was great, but what else did Bill accomplish? Social Security wasn’t shored up, health care wasn’t reformed and the environment wasn't protected. What the hell did Bill accomplish other than get reelected? Maybe I have a short-term memory, but I cannot think of anything.
Can you?
When your conservative friends start chatting you up about the big-spending Obama administration and all the debt he has rung up, at the same time waxing poetically about the good old days, during the fiscally responsibly Bush administration, I urge you to whip out laminated versions of the following two charts. I think they illustrate who is really responsible for the majority of our deficit and debt.
I really did not think Obama or his campaign would have the balls to do it, but they are actually “selling” t-shirts making a funny out of the whole birth certificate nonsense.
From a WaPo op-ed author, The Spirited Atheist, a personal favorite addition to the WaPo's "On Faith" feature, her piece on the death of Osama bin Laden:
bin Laden's death and the madness of crowds.
I really like how she bookends her post:
I suppose that someone, somewhere in the United States finds it ethically repugnant that our government hunted down and killed Osama bin Laden. I am not that someone. It is just and necessary that this evil man was finally punished for the mass murders he engineered on September 11, 2001. But I am repelled by the scenes of mindless jubilation, from Times Square to the park in front of the White House, that erupted after President Obama delivered the news in a properly sober tone Sunday night.It's a short post, but well-worth the quick read. Read more...
...
If there is a moral here, it is emphatically not the childish mantra that “bad guys do get caught.” It is that unearned happiness is a fleeting, unreliable commodity that has nothing to do with reason, justice, or what it takes to build a decent society and a decent world.
Finally, Trump and the Birther Brigade can pour a hot cup of shut the fuck up.
Now let's watch all the birthers play Calvinball and say they need even more proof. I think The Onion is spot-on about the next wave of birther controversy.
This question hasn't gotten a lot of coverage in the media. There has been some partisan whining and arguments, but it is hard to take them seriously when the GOP is also saying that Obama didn't asct fast enough. Those aside, there have been calls from Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, and John Larson, calling into question the Constitutionality of the actions in Libya. There is also Obama's statement from 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
With all the recent news item to get pissed about, the treatment of WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning caught my attention. This was probably due to the fact that it is getting almost zero attention. The NYT has covered it and Glenn Greenwald had a scathing op ed on the subject. Manning, among other things, has been charged with 27+ violations, some of which carry the death penalty, and is being subjected to the following conditions:
Let's review Manning's detention over the last nine straight months: 23-hour/day solitary confinement; barred even from exercising in his cell; one hour total outside his cell per day where he's allowed to walk around in circles in a room alone while shackled, and is returned to his cell the minute he stops walking; forced to respond to guards' inquiries literally every 5 minutes, all day, everyday; and awakened at night each time he is curled up in the corner of his bed or otherwise outside the guards' full view. Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will? As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.
UCLA Professor Mark Kleiman -- who last year hailed Barack Obama as, and I quote, "the greatest moral leader of our lifetime" -- wrote last night:
The United States Army is so concerned about Bradley Manning’s health that it is subjecting him to a regime designed to drive him insane. . . . This is a total disgrace. It shouldn't be happening in this country. You can't be unaware of this, Mr. President. Silence gives consent.
just fathom the contrived, shrieking uproar from opportunistic Democratic politicians and their loyalists if it had been George Bush and Dick Cheney -- on U.S. soil -- subjecting a whistle-blowing member of the U.S. military to these repressive conditions without being convicted of anything, charging him with a capital offense that statutorily carries the death penalty, and then forcing him to remain nude every night and stand naked for inspection outside his cell. Feigning concern over detainee abuse for partisan gain is only slightly less repellent than the treatment to which Manning is being subjected.
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP
