Thanks to "Seedy Pete" at Worldwide Hippies

I loved this response to a "Gawker" column at Worldwide Hippies: President Orders College Kids To Do Something. 

Here's the deal, Mr. President. 

I am going to vote Democrat in the midterms. Not because I believe you or your party will accomplish a single goddamned thing that I care about; they are clearly inept to the point of ridiculousness and your fetish for compromise would be laudable if the other party shared it but since they have openly stated they are unwilling to negotiate on anything it's an enormous handicap. But I will vote Democrat, because the alternative is actually horrifying. 

I am disappointed that the public option was dropped without a fight in favor of drug price fixing deals with Big Pharma and a mandate to purchase insurance from the same handful of companies whose monopoly on insurance is why we have a WHO score on par with a third world country in the first place. I am disappointed that your party has rolled over on fighting the crooked Bush tax cuts, or extending health benefits for 9/11 first responders, or repealing DADT. Want to know what those four things have in common? They were all overwhemingly popular with the public during a period when your party had a majority (briefly even a supermajority) and yet without exception the Democrats in Congress either traded away core parts of their party platform in exchange for absofuckinglutely nothing or just completely bobbled the ball and let the GOP control the debate. You people are sexually attracted to failure. 

Just a few years ago the GOP passed spectacularly unpopular legislation with considerably less votes in Congress...granted, unlike you they were able to count on the fact that the opposition party was so spineless they'd vote for things they claimed to oppose out of fear of being painted as unpatriotic. But the Democrats don't have the advantage of getting to fight against Democrats, so at some point you people are going to have to grow a goddamned backbone. 

So why vote Democrat at all, if your party is determined to fail at everything you try? Because at least you're trying, and the opposition party is a veritable death cult with no plan beyond getting back into power so that they can do the exact same things that ran the country off the rails in the first place. 

But don't expect me to get excited about it. Don't expect me to volunteer my time and money to help Democrats get elected the way I did in 2008. You squandered every opportunity we gave you, ignored your professed values, punted on the first down at every opportunity, and ignored your base in order to court the votes of people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Then election season rolls back around and suddenly you remember to pay lip service to our values? Piss off. You don't get another dime from me until I see you people care about progress sometime other than election season. And stop mistaking my disgust for apathy, or my expectation that Democrats in Congress do their goddamned jobsfor unrealistic magical thinking. No one expected a magic wand to be waved and the trainwreck the GOP spent 8 years created to be undone in 2, but what we did expect was that you would at least make an effort. Your party has failed to meet the already exceedingly low expectations I set for it. 

Stop mistaking my disgust for apathy … Do I have an AMEN?

Why I didn't go to the Obama rally …

President Obama spoke in my hometown yesterday, and I had a hard time mustering much enthusiasm for him. I made some comments on Facebook to that effect, and a friend of a friend commented that liberals shouldn't be blaming him for his failure to right the wrongs of the Bush administration's 8 years in just 20 months -- something which I have heard often. It led me to want to clarify why I am so disappointed in the Obama presidency, to find a way to put it into words so I don't just sound like a disenchanted liberal who feels that Obama has failed to deliver the goods fast enough.

The essence of it is this: Aside from the backpedaling on campaign promises (which I consider to be standard political fare,) I resent that the Obama White House treats people on the progressive left (like me) as part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Because the ideas that we champion -- ideas such as universal single payer health care, a WPA-style employment recovery plan, removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan -- are common sense, good for the country, and tried and true. We are not obstructionists, nor are we naysayers. We are the yea-sayers, the ones who would happily pick up the mops and get to work, as Obama exhorted his critics to do last year.

We are the ones who got to work to elect this guy.

And they treat us as if we are, at best, inconsequential. Irrelevant. Then we are chastised for not wanting to come to the rallies to hear the pretty words. And it disturbs me greatly that so many who do the chastising are other progressives.

Obama is charasmatic. He is smart, and a good speaker. However I am wary of the cult of personality that continues to surround him. I want action in the right direction on his administration's part. I want acknowledgement and respect.

BTW, this doesn't mean that I am not voting in November. I am quite aware that people in other places die for the right to vote. But let me remind other liberals who might criticize my stance, questioning my government is also a right we hold dear -- or used to.

Battered and Bruised

(Warning: I am about to ramble a little.)

Well, emotionally anyway. Yesterday one of my Facebook friends (a "friend" only on Facebook, but that's OK -- he seems a decent enough guy) posted a link to an article about the recovery of the Bush White House emails. I made a comment about having little faith that the Obama White House will prosecute, and was berated by another commenter for having "low expectations." He ended by saying, "Who did you vote for? John or Ron?" and he said I was no different than the teabaggers. I responded that I did indeed vote for Obama, and that, while I was aware I was not voting for a progressive, I have been disappointed in things like the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. The same commenter belittled that, saying that Obama is NOT escalating the war in Afghanistan. When I replied that I thought sending in 30,000 additional troops did amount to escalation, and as a Quaker I am opposed to all war, he called my opinions "uninformed". He also said that if I am going to comment in a public forum, I am open to insults and criticism. At that point, another commenter jumped in saying that if I am a Quaker I shouldn't have voted for Obama because he said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan. I responded (should have stopped there, but oh well) that a) many Quakers voted for Obama for many reasons, and b) just because he said he was going to do it doesn't mean I have to like that it is happening. Anyway, 2nd commenter got the final word when he wrote, "Oh just take your bat and ball and go home! If you're going to comment then grow a thicker skin!"

O-kaaaay. I'm just going to say that I felt like I was in an old boys' club and these two guys were hell-bent on proving that they were right and I was wrong. They were going to belittle me until I ran home to my mommy. The crux of it seemed to be that I said I was disappointed in Obama so far. During the Bush years, some wags in the blogosphere coined the term "sheeple" for the people who mindlessly followed Bush just because he was the president. Is it any different to mindlessly follow Obama? I find it alarming that so many people seem to think so.

Commenter One told me that my ideals were unrealistic. He said I was a "fringe element." If people like me (and I think I'm in very good company with folks like Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman, Dennis Kucinich and so many more) are painted as extreme in our ideals, then the center is pushed farther to the right and the so-called "centrists" look an awful lot like Republicans. Like Bill Clinton. Or Barack Obama.

For the record, I have to agree with Ralph Nader, who said that it wasn't Obama's intelligence he questioned; there is no doubt that he is a smart man. It is his integrity. He is not a progressive president. I knew that when I voted for him, but it still saddens and disappoints me. I wish I could really and truly vote for a peace president. I wish I could have voted for Dennis Kucinich. I wish there were viable parties outside of the big 2. (Or as Gore Vidal said, there is one political party in the U.S. with 2 right wings.)

I'll bounce back. I spent the night thinking of many people who have taken a stand and been berated and worse for it. It's part of standing up for what you believe in. However, I wish that people in the relatively anonymous world of the internets didn't feel like they had to be insulting in order to get their point across.

Robber Barons

I almost can't post this because I find it so discouraging. But it's so important, it should be seen. This is from the incomparable investigative journalist Greg Palast, about the forced bankruptcy of GM.

Screw the autoworkers.
They may be crying about General Motors' bankruptcy today. But dumping 40,000 of the last 60,000 union jobs into a mass grave won't spoil Jamie Dimon's day.

Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank. While GM workers are losing their retirement health benefits, their jobs, their life savings; while shareholders are getting zilch and many creditors getting hosed, a few privileged GM lenders – led by Morgan and Citibank – expect to get back 100% of their loans to GM, a stunning $6 billion.

The way these banks are getting their $6 billion bonanza is stone cold illegal.

I smell a rat. (Read the rest ...)

I had few illusions about Barack Obama as president. I knew he wasn't progressive and had some tense moments with friends when I wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon. I hoped he would give me a respite from worry and fear, and it didn't take long to see how illusory that was as well. Steve Earle was right when he said that whoever got elected, the real work would begin on January 20, 2009. I feel so worn down after 8 years of BushCo, yet there is indeed work to be done.

This story stinks to high heaven.

"Let them eat cake."

Chances are, you've already seen this. The G8 pigs are at the trough, while much of the rest of the world starves. Why do we allow this?

It reminds me of the book I am currently reading, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. The hubris, the thirst for war, and the absolute cruelty of the world's leaders at that time (and I'm not just talking about Hitler; Churchill and Roosevelt were equally inhuman in their own ways) was shocking. Nothing has changed, the thirst for power and profit rules the planet.

Just One More Year! Good Riddance to George W. Bush

That is the headline of an op ed piece from Britain's fantastic newspaper, The Independent. The author of the piece, Rupert Cornwall, writes:

Today is a sombre milestone, marking the start of the last of Mr Bush's eight years in the White House. This being a leap year, exactly 366 days remain until 20 January 2009, when his successor will be sworn into office. It is a time when incumbents look to their legacies. And for this President the view could scarcely be bleaker.

Is he the worst President in US history? Mr Bush faces stiff competition from the likes of James Buchanan, who watched as America slipped towards civil war, or Warren Harding with his corrupt administration, or Herbert Hoover, who failed to halt the slide into the Great Depression, or, more recently, Richard Nixon, the only President to be forced to resign. But in terms of dogmatism, incompetence, ignorance and divisiveness, Mr Bush surely compares with any of the above. (Read it in its entirety here.)

I think he sums up the whole sorry situation very well, although I disagree with him on some points. He believes that Bush cannot be held responsible for the looming recession. I say, look at the man's record! He has turned every venture he has ever touched into dreck (although he and his buddies always seem to make out like bandits. Imagine that.)

I also take issue with this: "Belatedly, the President has learned the virtues of diplomacy, and his troop surge has at least reduced the violence in Iraq." Has he learned the virtues of diplomacy? I still believe that he will find a way to bomb Iran before his term is over. And ask a citizen of Iraq whether the troop surge has reduced the violence.

I don't have a lot of faith that U.S. regime change is going to change our path anytime soon. What I do know is that we at the grassroots have to keep on working for the common good, sowing the seeds of nonviolence and of stewardship regardless of what we predict as an outcome. And I, for one, am looking forward to that day 366 days from now.

Is voter suppression now the norm?

I just read this article at Alternet about tactics that the Clinton campaign is allegedly using to block Obama supporters from voting. If this is true, it is disgusting and clinches it for me: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

The headlines say the latest schism among the top Democratic presidential candidates is over gender and race. But on the ground in the presidential season's opening states, there is a darker narrative: that Hillary Clinton will not just fight hard, but fight dirty, to win. And her tactic of choice is attempting to suppress the votes of her rival's supporters.

The latest example is from Nevada, where the Nevada State Education Association is widely seen as filing a suit on Clinton's behalf to stop Las Vegas' most powerful union, Culinary Workers Local 226, from caucusing inside downtown casinos after the union endorsed Barack Obama. The tactic foments a split along racial and class lines in arguably the strongest union city in America.

"It's horrible," said one longtime Nevada activist, who didn't want his name used. "It will cause fights and damage that will last for years."

But the Clinton campaign has made similar moves in New Hampshire and Iowa.

We have had 2 stolen national elections and too many years of the dirtiest of politics. I won't pretend that anyone else is squeaky clean, but I think this shows her hunger for power and her contempt for the American people. Enough is enough.

Yet Another Travesty

If Marion Jones returned her Olympic medals after admitting to using steroids, shouldn't George Tenet return his Presidential Medal of Freedom after this?

MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11 commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest possible account of the “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001” — and to offer recommendations to prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president’s chief of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the commission.

The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations. Read the rest here.

Heckuva job, Georgie. My God, will we ever see any accountability?

(With apologies to all pigs and their admirers)

You know what I'm REALLY sick of?

I'm really sick of former aides to George F. W. Bush publishing "tell all" books. Scott McClellan is only the latest in a long string of weasels (my apologies to the cute little animal above) who continues to profit off of the misery that has been visited on the world over the last 7 years.

If he knew it was wrong then, why didn't he say anything then? No, he had to wait until he had a lucrative book deal. I'm sure he'll be wringing his hands all the way to the bank.

It's times like these that I wish I believed in Hellfire and brimstone. I picture the Devil saying, "Sorry Scotty -boy. All of the mea culpas in the world aren't going to save your sorry ass!"

Sheesh.

(By the way, I have decided that henceforth I shall refer to the mean little alcoholic who is not my president as George F.W. Bush. The "F.W." stands for something not very Quakerly.)

John Edwards' $7B Education Plan ...

... just pisses me off. Why? First, and foremost because Edwards -- who voted for No Child Left Behind -- makes no apologies for his vote, but says instead that he's seen over several years how it was poorly implemented and underfunded. That statement perpetuates the myth of NCLB: that the problems with it lie with implementation and funding.

Bullshit. (Yes, you heard it from the lips of a kindergarten teacher. BULLSHIT.) NCLB was BAD POLICY from the start. Like virtually everything that has ever oozed from the Bush Whitehouse, NCLB has never been about improving schools and has always been about maximizing profit for Bush relatives and family friends. It has done more to harm schools than any other education policy I can think of. And most members of Congress (Kucinich too, sad to say) refused to listen to educators who called it out from the start, and instead went for it hook, line, and sinker.

Yet every single politician continues to talk about "revamping" NCLB, when it needs to be thrown out permanently. (Mr. Ether -- who just guessed correctly that I was posting about this topic; maybe it was the vehemence with which I was striking the keys as I typed? -- said that revamping NCLB is a little like buying fire insurance for your Ford Pinto. Ha. Good one, Mr. Ether.) Policy makers need to listen to the people who know best: professional educators.

What else? Universal preschool? It sounds nice, probably looks nice on paper too. What about universal supporting parents and other caregivers, birth to 3? Oh my God, now it's starting to sound a little too much like -- gasp -- welfare! Backpedal, backpedal ...

I am also sick to death of the assumption that education is broken and needs to be fixed. Or reformed. That somehow the "problem" is that there isn't an "excellent teacher" in every classroom. That "excellent teachers" can only come from a West Point-like academy. I'm sick of being dumped on, by the well-meaning and the not so well-meaning, alike.

Sure, Edwards makes some good points too. Read about it here, if you like. But to me, this is disingenuous grandstanding and I'm not buying it.

(By the way, in the same newspaper, the $200B more that Bush is asking for and likely to get to continue his cowboy adventures in the Middle East is pretty discouraging.)

What comic book has Gonzo been reading?

"Over the past two and a half years, I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption and depravity of types I never thought possible," Gonzales said in prepared remarks at a Hispanic Heritage Month ceremony at Bolling Air Force Base. "I've seen things I didn't know man was capable of.

"But I will tell you here and now that these things still leave me hopeful," he said. "Because every time I see a glimmer of the evil man can do, I see the defenders of liberty, truth and justice who stand ready to fight it."

Good riddance, and may he still be brought to justice. More than likely, he'll be the recipient of Bush-style justice: a plum ambassadorship to the Duchy of Luxembourg, or some such.

The definitive way ...

... to find out if a rabidly homophobic politician is gay? Ask him what his favorite ABBA song is.

I drove my younger daughter and a friend to a Renaissance Faire today, 2 hours each way. We sang along with ABBA on the way there and the soundtrack from the new Hairspray on the way back.

I had lots of time to think about politicians who are NOT GAY.

The "faire" was OK -- infinitely better than going to Six Flags and marginally better than a poke in the eye, although perhaps a little more prolonged. (I've taken my kids every year for a l-o-n-g time -- it's a tradition -- so I'm a teeny bit jaded.)

Please explain to me chain mail and leather. Particularly chain mail brassieres. Why?

What's your favorite ABBA song? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours ...

Some unsolicited advice ...

... for any bigoted homophobic closeted homosexual Republican politicians who happen to be reading my blog:

Listen up, guys. Have sex with each other! Call it a committee meeting, or -- I know -- a secret Skull and Boner Society thang. You could get your needs satisfied without having to solicit sex in public restrooms, which frankly is pretty dumb because you know that you're going to get caught sooner or later. (Or is that part of the excitement?) You can stay in the closet and continue to pander to your bigoted base back home. Oh, there may be whispered rumors -- like that pesky question of just who Jeff Gannon was visiting in the White House (Jo-ji? Karl? A threesome??) but if you keep it between yourselves (ha-ha ... that conjures up some imagery now, doesn't it?) the public need never be the wiser. And you're all in the same boat, so no one can spill the beans without incriminating himself.

Hey, you're welcome. No problem ... log on for advice anytime.
[editorial comment: eeeeeeuwwwww.]

Revisionist History … Only One Day Later

Here's what one article in The Guardian has to say about Karl Rove's "departure":

Mr Rove ultimately became a victim of the administration's hubris.

This column paints a picture of Rove as an abject failure, slinking off with his tail between his legs to lick his wounds, spend time with his family, and maybe write a book. (Ooh, maybe he'll write a children's book! About virtue.) Karl Rove is no victim of anything; he IS the administration's hubris! I don't know that earthly justice will ever be served in his case, but this lauding of his contributions is just disgusting.

Then there's this headline:

Rove Still on Democrats' Hitlist

Hitlist? What a shameful manipulation of language, implying vengeance and retaliation rather than accountability for criminal actions.

To me the al denté spaghetti that makes up the Democrats' collective spine suggests an invitation to a tea party more than a contract killing.

Sigh.

Accountability? Impeachment? Hey, Congress ... Those words mean anything to you?

Many thanks to hippie-gone-mean Pygalgia who posted a reminder on his blog that it was on this date in 1974 that Richard Nixon resigned the presidency rather than go through impeachment proceedings.

I was 14 when Nixon resigned. I watched his resignation speech on t.v. in a Tokyo hotel room (in between watching reruns of Bewitched and I Dream Of Jeannie dubbed in Japanese.) We got home a few days later to find that my older brother, who was "watching the house", had done a little too much dancing in the streets that night. In his elation he had taken a meat cleaver and decapitated a little fiberglass mannequin that we had, before somehow knocking the ventilation fan out of the kitchen wall. My mom was kind of upset with him. (Sorry, Jim, for revealing family secrets here. But you'll never know I revealed anything, 'cause you never read my blog. Bwahahaha.)

Yeah, I remember when accountability extended to the Executive Branch.

How Counter-Productive Is This?

I was waiting at the local café for my Mocha Millie Latté (it was either that or a 2 hour nap) when this article in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye:

College students returning to campus in a few weeks will be greeted by steep increases in one of the few items they have been able to buy cheap: birth control.

For years, drug companies sold birth-control pills and other contraceptives to university health services at a big discount. This has served as an entree to young consumers for the drug companies, and a profit center for the schools, which sell them to students at a moderate markup. Students pay perhaps $15 a month for contraceptives that otherwise can retail for $50 or more.

But colleges and universities say the drug companies have stopped offering the discounts, and are now charging the schools much more. The change has an unlikely origin [Unlikely? Yeah, right.]: the Deficit Reduction Act signed by President Bush last year. The legislation aimed to pare $39 billion in spending on federal programs, from subsidized student loans to Medicaid. And among the changes was one that, through an arcane set of circumstances, created a disincentive for drug makers to offer school discounts.

This infuriates me on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

1) If you want to reduce the number of abortions, women must have access to affordable contraceptives. I know that in the wet-dreams of so-called Christian fundamentalists, young people are abstaining from premarital sex, but in the real world that is not happening (nor should it happen, in my opinion. Sex in a loving relationship between consenting adults is healthy and normal.)

2) It is one more way that Americans are being forced to pay for endless war and line the pockets of the war profiteers. Real budget deficit reduction would mean ending the war and cutting military spending. Period.

3) A loss in profits that the deep discounts on contraceptives supposedly cause the big pharmaceutical companies? Yeah, right! Their greed and arrogance is breathtaking. Check this out:

At drug maker Organon, Nick Hart, executive director for contraception, says, "On the one hand, it's a tremendous disservice to our customers, our young women." But he says that providing low-cost access to young consumers has to be balanced with "our fiduciary responsibility. It puts us in an untenable position."

(Blogger wipes tear from corner of eye.)

I have no doubt that this was no accident. It satisfies the Christian Right's desire to control all aspects of women's sexuality and delivers a nice monetary gift into the laps of Big Pharma. As Mr. Ether says, when it comes to any of Bush's policies, simply follow the money.

4) Finally, I HATE the way the corporate media continually reports on this president as if anything he does has any credibility. (I wanted to call him a "fuckwad", but I refrained. It isn't very Quakerly.)

Read the entire article here.

Depressingly Inevitable/Inevitably Depressing

'Taco Bell High' may come to Canada

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I despise the selling of naming rights for public facilities. The local library board did that here a few years ago when they built a new branch, amid much controversy. In a cool turn of events, a local couple bought the rights and then proceeded to name the library after the person it should have been named after in the first place! But it doesn't always work out that way.

And selling the naming rights of public schools seems particularly distasteful. (Hey ... the biggest and most successful business in my neighborhood is a porn shop. What if they bought the naming rights to my school -- The Red Letter News Elementary School. Hmmm.)

Labor Unions -- The Folks Who Brought You the Weekend

Thanks to Quaker Dave (on hiatus,) who passed this on to me:

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have allowed labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending labor's chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress. (read more)

This bill would have amended the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. The Employee Free Choice Act would

require employers to recognize unions after being presented union cards signed by a majority of eligible workers on their payrolls. Under current labor law, a company can demand a secret ballot election supervised by the federal government after being presented the union cards.

The vote broke down along predictable Dimocrat/Rethuglican party lines, with independents Bernie Sanders and (surprise) Joe Liebermann siding with the Dims.

Unionized labor has been under direct attack in this country for the past 25 years, since the air traffic controllers' strike was broken by the Insane Anglo War Lord (that's an anagram for Ronald Wilson Reagan -- neat, huh?) One of my favorite musicians, Steve Earle (whose dad was one of those fired air traffic controllers,) likes to point out that strong labor unions are an essential part of a strong democracy. Without the one, we will not have the other.

Legislation such as this is one part of the solution, and I hope it will continue to come up again and again, as the Dimocrats promise it will. The other pieces of this puzzle involve campaign finance reform, so that legislators cannot be so easily bought by anti-labor corporate lobbyists and, perhaps more importantly, education in labor history for the younger members of the work force who seem to lack an understanding of what unions have done/can do for them.

Oh yes, and jobs.

I also want to point out, that this is one more key piece of the Democrats' agenda which would have been vetoed by the branch of government formally known as "the Executive Branch," had it reached the required 60 votes. This is why I find it specious when the Dims say that "Impeachment is off the table" because they want to "focus on furthering their agenda." Until they get more of a majority, their agenda is going nowhere. Really fast.

2 political thangs

1. I got a fund raising appeal tonight from the national Democratic party. I've noticed that whenever I get these calls, my husband starts skulking around; he thinks it's funny to hear how it will go. First of all, the caller told me that she was not asking for money, and then shortly thereafter asked for my "support." Huh? I spent at least 10 minutes patiently explaining why I might give political donations to individual candidates, but not to the national party. The caller would interrupt to say, "Ma'am, I hear what you are saying, but the Democrats are the party that is working to end the war in Iraq." I gave my opinion on that (you don't end the war by giving the White House all the funding they've demanded with no time line for pulling out the troops.) Over and over I told her that I MIGHT consider making a donation when Pelosi starts talking impeachment. Wow, she was a tenacious young woman. She argued with me a long time, which is an interesting thing to do when she called asking me for money! Either she finally wore out or she got what I was saying. Probably the former.

2. A few weeks ago I wrote about going to Tammy Baldwin's listening session. Today I got a letter from Tammy. I was expecting the usual "Your opinion matters to me, bow wow woof woof ..." and there was that, but Tammy herself had filled in my first name, signed it, and written a note on the bottom: "Thank you for your strong comments on impeachment." Nice. Now what's she going to do about it? (Maybe I can give her a call and ask, now that we're pen pals.)

Impeachment: It's Not Just For Blow Jobs

Back in 2003, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham (D-FL) was one of 23 thoughtful senators voting against the Iraq war resolution. There is an interview with him at Think Progress today where he talks about impeachment. It's pretty good, but I disagree with this part:

Graham added that it’s unlikely Bush would be impeached, explaining that he learned the word impeachment is an “incendiary word” that Americans shy away from. “Americans don’t like impeachment because it connotes the kind of instability that so many other countries around the world have known.”

This makes me think, once again, that these people are a) out of touch and/or b)misinformed about American citizenry. It seems that the only ones shying away from impeachment are the members of Congress who somehow see it as a political liability. I'm good and sick of these cowards explaining (often in a condescending tone) why they don't think impeachment is a viable option. Perhaps they need to go back and read the Constitution. (I'd say reread, but I wonder how many of them have read it the first time.) And if Americans don't quite understand the purpose of impeachment, wouldn't it be the job of a lawmaker to educate his/her constituents?