Spam

While Blogger blocks spam on blogs, it does not stop spam comments from coming into my EMAIL INBOX. These spam emails have increased at a rate I can no longer handle - some 50 this morning.

They are, I'm sure, part of some VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY.  :-)

I have disabled comments temporarily on DemWit and permanently on my archived blog, "I See My Dreams," in hopes of stopping this nonsense.

Do these twits really think I would want to buy anything they have to sell?

When a new DemWit post is published, I will engage commment capability again.

Thanks! BJ

Tough time in The Big Easy

Way down yonder in New Orleans, Southern governors Haley Barbour and Bobby Jindal pleaded for focus and sanity without taking into consideration they were addressing what Jonathan Swift called “a confederacy of dunces.”

That Swift quote, in my opinion, sums up the three-day gathering of the GOP leadershipt this week in the Crescent City:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Despite the governors’ advice, the gathering turned into an Obama-bashing free-for-all. And strangely ended with Texas Republican and libertarian Congressman Ron Paul continuing his straw poll winning streak as the Party’s primary hopeful for 2012.

DemWit offers the following ARTICLE because it’s just chock-full of evidence that the GOP is like a fish out of water in its frantic efforts to retake the White House:

GOP tensions on display at Republican Leadership Conference

By Peter Hamby, CNN Political Reporter
June 18, 2011 10:05 p.m. EDT

New Orleans (CNN) -- Conservative after conservative took the stage and railed against President Barack Obama at this week's Republican Leadership Conference, a three-day gathering of presidential candidates, party activists and political operatives in New Orleans.

But their sharp attacks were interrupted by stern warnings from party leaders to remain focused on winning in November 2012 instead of becoming preoccupied with ideology, litmus tests or silly distractions.

The starkest admonition came from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a respected party elder and political tactician, who told the conference that "purity is a loser" in politics.

He urged Republican voters to concentrate on a pocketbook-oriented economic message, and to pick a candidate who offers "plain-spoken, common-sense solutions" instead of an ideology-driven agenda.

"We are not going to have a perfect candidate," Barbour said. "There has only been one perfect person that has ever walked on this Earth, and there's not going to be one who runs for president in 2012."

Barbour's pragmatic message was well received by the roughly 2,000 delegates who came to New Orleans for the conference, which was organized by the Louisiana Republican Party.

But in the end, it was wave after wave of pointed attacks -- the very rhetoric that Barbour cautioned against -- that earned the rowdiest applause at the conference.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich labeled Obama a "national secular European socialist."

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota gave the president a "big F on his economic report card" and claimed, without corroboration, that Obama wants to bankrupt Medicare in order to force seniors to enroll in his new national health care program.

And just 24 hours after Barbour's speech, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Republicans should never back down from their core principles in order to score points with the electorate.

"Our party cannot be all things to all people," thundered Perry, who has emerged in recent weeks as another potential presidential candidate. "It can't be. Our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let's stop trying to curry favor with them."

Conference organizers also invited an Obama impersonator, Reggie Brown, who delivered a comedy routine peppered with jokes about President Obama's birth certificate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

The appearance drew applause and raucous laughter but was hardly in keeping with Barbour's plea to stay focused on defeating Obama rather than being distracted by political sideshows.

Organizers eventually grew uncomfortable with the off-color humor and pulled the comedian off the stage.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who may run for president himself in 2016, echoed his neighboring governor and reminded Republicans that winning back the White House is the ultimate prize.

He said conservatives should not stoop to the level of liberals who savaged George W. Bush during the previous administration.

"We must not mimic their shallow approach," Jindal warned.

"Hating President Obama is foolish, but defeating President Obama is absolutely crucial," he said.

If the results of a presidential straw poll conducted at the conference were any indication, Republicans may be ready to put aside some elements of party dogma this primary season.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a hero to libertarians, won the 2012 straw poll in dominating fashion.

But it was former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman's surprising second-place finish that attracted the most attention.

Huntsman did not attend the conference, but his strong showing was surprising given his moderate stances on climate change and same-sex civil unions, positions that put him at odds with conservative activists who hold major sway in the key early caucus and primary states.

Even Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, told CNN "there's a good possibility" he could support any of the current crop of Republican candidates in a general election against Obama.

"Most of them are pretty good," Perkins said.

Perkins said he agrees with Barbour's anti-purity approach, but only to a point.

"If you've got the core principles, where you are strong on national security, if you understand the idea of economic freedom as well as traditional values, but then within those parameters there are degrees of difference of opinions, yeah, that's OK," he said.

But, he added, "If you are saying we are going to take a third of these issues, and we are not going to deal with them, then that ain't going to work."

Gingrich's 'Obama depression'

Never a TV around when you need one. I have saved the CNN transcript of last night's GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire and will try to read it along. In the opening segments, the participating candidates briefly introduced themselves, mentioning their accomplishments and family members.

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House, stuck to that old GOP stand-by, “If you can’t say something good about yourself, say something bad about Obama.”

“I'm Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House. And when 14 million Americans are out of work, we need a new president to end the Obama depression.”

Obama depression?

Mr. Gingrich, if you would take a little time to focus on your campaign, you can easily Google "comparing economy in Republican and Democratic administrations." You will find all sorts of data and graphs showing this economic mess began in Dubya's administration.

And, that's pretty much been the case with every Republican administration since FDR.

With only a few clicks, sir, you can find out under which party’s administrations paychecks grew. You can even find out how much you would have today if you had invested $10,000 under one administration or the other.

I've gotta tell you I am amused by one Web site's claim that statistical proof is "unfair to Republicans, because most wars are started under Republican administrations, and wars cost money." Yep, and the tab is still running on two of them.

You simply cannot dispute the facts. Of course, you have to examine them first.

Here’s a start:

The Washington Monthly: “There’s just no way around it, Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.” LINK

The Idea Blog, The New York Times: “The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House.” LINK

Something you don't want

Never one to talk about ailments, always one to count the blessing of good health, I have been reluctant to explain my recent inattentiveness to DemWit.

(Yes, I often mention my vision problem, because it’s something I live with and something which often requires explaining.)

Over the last few weeks I’ve dealt with a physical problem which my son assures me should not be considered “an old folks’ condition” – the pain of pleurisy. (One of his college buddies, he recalled, likened it to "being kicked by a horse.")

Before being diagnosed with pleurisy I always grouped it with terms like lumbago and bursitis and thought it was the result of a bad chest cold. I haven’t had a cold in 20 years. So, here’s what I've learned about this condition:

“Pleurisy is an inflammation of the pleura, which is the moist, double-layered membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the rib cage. The condition can make breathing extremely painful. The double-layered pleura protects and lubricates the surface of the lungs as they inflate and deflate within the rib cage. Normally, a thin, fluid-filled gap - the pleural space - allows the two layers of the pleural membrane to slide gently past each other. But when these layers become inflamed, their roughened surfaces rub painfully together like two pieces of sandpaper.”

Or maybe something like two plates of the Earth’s crust rubbing together in the “Ring of Fire.”

"Pleurisy can be caused by viral infections, any number of serious diseases, drug reactions, chest injury or simply movement and causes stabbing pain in the rib casge area." (Source of quotes: WebMd.com)

In my case, the pain is exacerbated by sitting for any length of time in my fancy ergonomics computer chair.

I have a friend who lives with chronic pain every day of her life, yet maintains a cheerful and loving nature. I, on the other hand, cry over a stumped toe.

The doc says it could take six more weeks of anti-inflammatory drugs. For someone who hasn’t been “on medication,” this is a bitter pill to swallow. Oh, there’s also a bottle of pain pills, but I’ve tried to tough it out and have only reached for it twice. Narcotic is a scary word.

Other than the pain, I feel great! No kidding. Temperature: normal. Blood pressure: normal. Chest X-ray shows lungs clear.

Let me sign off for a while before you start yelling “TMI” (“too much information” for the acronym challenged). In short, pleurisy is something you don’t want.

A heavy ransom demand

Just another example of Democrats catching hell over the actions of Republicans: this item from CNN’s “Political Ticker” today:

New York (CNNMoney) – Federal workers have a message for the White House: Keep your hands off my retirement benefits. (LINK)

That’s right, blame the Democrats.

At a time when we are on the way to economic recovery, do you want to see ideologues bring this nation and the world to its economic knees?

The backstory on this facet of the debt ceiling debate is dead serious and should scare Democrats and Republicans alike. I take the liberty in the interest of informing DemWit’s readers to publish here, verbatim, the following Progress Report (LINK) from the Center for American Progress, dated 17 May 2011:

CONGRESS
Debt Limit Blackmail

The United States officially hit its statutory debt limit yesterday (5/16/2011), preventing the government from borrowing any more money, as Republicans continue to demagogue the issue but refuse to act. Since a large portion of federal spending is borrowed money, the Treasury Department has been forced to take extraordinary measures to allow the government to continue meeting its obligations, including tapping into government employee pension funds to free up cash. These measures and others should keep cash flow adequate until approximatly August 2, but if lawmakers have still failed to raise the debt limit by then, the effect could be "catastrophic," as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said yesterday in a letter to congressional leaders. In its 235-year history, the U.S. government has never defaulted, so the exact consequences are impossible to predict, but all experts agree that defaulting on our financial obligations would be disastrous for the global economy, shattering investors' confidence in the American government and economy while increasing the cost of borrowing and possibly shutting down the government.

Geithner has said defaulting on our obligations would almost certainly cause a double-dip recession, where a second dip could be worse than the Great Recession of 2008. Moreover, as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman noted, failing to raise the debt limit would "act as a terrible signal about the US political system," telling the world "we're a banana republic, with crazy extremists having so much blocking power that we can't get our house in order." Indeed, fueled by far-right tea party anti-debt dogma, Republican leaders have taken the debt ceiling -- and thus the entire global economy -- hostage, refusing to raise the ceiling unless they are allowed to enact their partisan agenda of radical spending cuts. Many conservative lawmakers have said they will not vote to raise the limit under any circumstance, while others have demanded extraordinary concessions.

HOSTAGE TAKING

Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that the debt limit is a "manufactured crisis," and in a way, he's right -- but not in the way he intended. The debt ceiling is an entirely arbitrary cap Congress sets on the amount of money the federal government can borrow. There is no real reason for having a statutory debt ceiling, which didn't exist until 1917. The amoung of debt the government takes on should be determined by budgetary needs, through the normal Congressional budgeting process, not some arbitrary redline that offers politicians a perennial issue on which to grandstand.

But even with some empty grandstanding, Congress has routinely raised the debt ceiling for decades, increasing the limit 100 times since 1940. Ths limit was raised seven times under President Bush, with hardly any real opposition from Republicans. "[I]t has been a regular, even routine matter. In fact, for many years, it was just rolled right into the budget process, and they didn't have a separate vote to raise the debt limit," NPR noted. But this year, Republicans have seen a convenient opportunity to score political points and advance their partisan agenda, even if it means risking the American and global economies. Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have made it clear they understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit and have said publicly that the limit must be raised.Yet, these same leaders have threatened to vote against any increase in the debt limit if their demands aren't met -- and their demands are huge: "We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions," Boehner said. "This is a hostage situation ... blackmail," Krugman wrote. "In effect, they will have ripped up the Constitution and given control over America's government to a party that only controls one house of Congress, but claims to be willing to bring down the economy unless it gets what it wants." Indeed, for their demands to be effective, Republicans have to be willing to "shoot the hostage" and let the U.S. government hit the debt ceiling and default on its financial obligations.

DOWNPLAYING THE THREAT

Meanwhile, a growing number of Republican lawmakers, especially Tea Party freshmen, have tried to downplay the threat of hitting the debt limit or defaulting. "The case has not been made that this is an absolute necessity," Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) said last week. "The debt ceiling really doesn't matter," the conservative blog Red State wrote recently. But these claims ignore a danger that even former President Reagan, the great conservative icon, recognized. Arguing for raising the ceiling in 1983, Reagan said, "the risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage" of not doing so demanded the ceiling be increased.

More reasonable conservatives today have come to the same conclusion. "Let me tell you what's involved if we don't lift the debt ceiling: financial collapse and calamity throughout the world," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told CNN. Even Boehner warned of "financial disaster, not only for our country but for the worldwide economy." Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, "I won't throw the country into the street" by not raising the debt limit. Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will said it could be "suicidal" for Republicans (if they) actually block an increase in the debt ceiling.

THE 'PAY CHINA FIRST' PLAN

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the important Republican Study Committee, suggested yesterday that hitting the debt limit could be a good thing. "Keeping the debt ceiling at its current level would force Congress to prioritize spending, but it would not force a default on our debt." Jordon's claim that U.S. would not default is based on the assumption that the government would be able to cover all of its expenses through tax revenue alone. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) has made the same argument and even proposed a bill to implement this plan. But while they are technically correct, tax revenue contributes only around 60 percent of every dollar spent, so this plan would force the government to cut about 40 percent of its activities literally overnight to keep spending in line with revenues. Moreover, as Center for Amerian Progress (CAP) fellow Matt Yglesias points out, this approach doesn't actually prevent a default from occurring. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neil Wolin said much the same thing, calling Toomey's plan "unworkable." Others have appropriately dubbed Toomey's plan the "Pay China First" plan, because it would prioritize payments to our debtors, including China, over paying for critical services Americans rely on. "This wouldn't avert a potential global economic catastrophe, but it would make sure the United States wrote checks to foreign governments before anyone else," the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote.

***

A more appropriate title for this post:

United States held hostage; Republicans: accept our radical agenda and/or we will bring this nation down.

A verse for our time

Ah, yet, when all is thought and said
The heart still overruales the head.
So, what we hope we must believe,
And what is given us receive,

Must still believe for still we hope
That in a world of larger scope
What here is faithfully begun
Will be completed, not undone.

My child, we still must think
When we that ampler life together see,
Some true results will yet appear
Of what we are, together, here.

- Arthu Hugh Clough, “Through a Glass Darkly,” 1849. (Clough rhymes with “rough.”)

This verse is oft believed to be a paean to love. Yes, love in the sense of compassion and social justice – in short, a call for self-examination and sanity. Its words ring true today.

Read the complete poem HERE.

Read about this English poet, who spent his childhood in Charleston, S.C., returned to England, then later spent time with Walt Whitman in Massachusetts HERE.

A day of sharing

It’s time to go through your pantry and kitchen cabinets (or make that special grocery run) and share your bounty with others.

The National Association of Letter Carriers and the United States Postal Service will hold its 19th annual nationwide food drive Saturday, May 14.

This is the largest single effort to replenish food banks across the country.

Place non-perishable food items in bags near your mailbox Saturday morning, and your mail carrier will pick them up for distribution in your area.

Throughout America, through local church pantries and volunteer food banks the needy will benefit - and so will you!

'Deathers' replace birthers

A madness is sweeping this country in the form of conspiracacy theorists on the right and the left. No sooner is one round of idiocy laid to rest than another starts. I am just sickened by the following article, in which poor Cindy Sheehan continues to exhibit that she's "gone off the deep end" and a Fox News host spouts the vilest of accusations against President Obama:

"'Deathers' take over where 'birthers' left off," Shannon Travis, CNN political producer, 5 May 2011: LINK

The truth is enough

You are going to see the following quote from George W. Bush (3/13/2002) recycled over the next few days:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

This quote has been all over the World Wide Web for years. The only problem with it is it’s apparently a fake.

I have spent hours trying to find an official transcript or legitimate news source for this direct quote – to no avail.

I did find a Wikiquotes forum where “fake Bush quotes on Osama bin Laden” were discussed HERE.

But, Bush is on the record saying something very similar when it came to his concern about finding bin Laden, and you can hear him answer a press conference question from “Norah” (presumably Norah O’Donnell) at this YouTube SITE.

The truth is enough, though. Osama bin Laden might have been killed or captured and al Qaeda weakened sooner if Bush had not taken his eye off the ball and sent our troops to a country in no way responsible for the attacks on 9/11. (Amazingly, many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 despite Bush himself and the 9/11 Commission Report denying any connection.)

Finally, in searching for a source of the quote at the beginning of this post, I ran across a very interesting post on thepresidentialcandidates. I had never heard of this Web site, but the author makes a strong argument that, unlike George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, Barack Obama contended all along that getting OBL was a top priority. There is sufficient documentation – including sources, cited quotes and videos – to prove the author’s assertion, and it’s worth a read.

Osama bin Laden is a done deal. I recall the video after 9/11 with bin Laden joking and laughing with his cronies about the twin towers coming down. There is one less truly evil person in the world today. To quote him: “Allah be praised.”

UPDATE

Listen up, folks, ‘cause I worked my buns off on this one.

This post is pegged on the opening quote attributed to George W. Bush.

A DemWit reader emailed that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said the elements of the quote can be found at various locations in the transcript of Bush’s press conference on March 13, 2002. Well, Mr. O'Donnell is wrong.

A direct quote set between quotation marks cannot be altered. The editor can add the word “sic” in parentheses within the quote to show an error is that of the person quoted and not the editor.

So, essentially, the quote is a fake.

I finally located the transcript of Bush’s March 13, 2002, press conference and, for the convenience of readers, pieced its 15 screen together and placed it in THE READING ROOM. What Bush said about Osama bin Laden can be found on pages 6 and 7.

So, let’s break the quote down:

I don't know where bin Laden is. (Bush said this.)

I have no idea and really don't care. (Bush did not say this.)

It's not that important. It's not our priority. (Bush did not say this, but in the context of his statements, it is most assuredly implied.)

So, some soul decided to author this quote, attribut it to Bush and float it around the Web for years. It has been used, without citation, on Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Yahoo News and thousands of sites.

SERENDIPITY

I do not regret the time and work put into this or going through this transcript for knowing what we know now -  and what some of us knew even then – it is a treasure trove of hindsight.

Remember, this is just six months after 9/11, and already Bush is marginalizing Osama bin Laden and making his case for war with Iraq, for Iraq, in Iraq - who knows? There’s a lot to be found in this transcript – Afghanistan, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, the debt ceiling and so much more.

And, it also begs the question of how this goofball ever got re-elected. (I’m sorry, I don’t like name-calling, but I can think of no better word to use at the moment.)

DemWit readers – and particularly Republican readers - would be well enlightened by stepping back into 2002 and reading this TRANSCRIPT. For the most part, the reporters’ questions and Bush’s answers will astound you! And, don’t even think this is old stuff, because it has directly affected where this country is today. Thanks, BJ

Truth or consequences

Facts have never gotten in the way of the conspiracy frenzy against President Barack Obama.

There’s a Chinese proverb which states, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while truth is putting on its shoes,” How could ancient Chinese wisdom have foreseen the impact of today’s technology?

DemWit has long railed against those undocumented and unattributed emails which people accept as gospel and cannot wait to pass along. The ones which always admonish the naïve: “This ia a must-read” and “Send this to everyone on your list.” And, let's face it, this is a phenomenon of the right-wing.

Sadly, it seems, these emails are the primary source of information for those just too damn lazy to think and research for themselves.

From such naivete was born the “birther” idiocy, and no amount of proof has shut down this vicious red herring.

In order to get on with the nation’s pressing business, the president of the United States decided enough is enough. Here are his remarks at a press conference yesterday:

OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Now, let me just comment, first of all, on the fact that I can't get the networks to break in on all kinds of other discussions.

(Laughter)

I was just back there listening to Chuck. He was saying, it’s amazing that he’s not going to be talking about national security. I would not have the networks breaking in if I was talking about that, Chuck, and you know it.

Q. Wrong channel. (Laughter)

OBAMA: As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the campaign. And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going. We've had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this, confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital.

We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on going.

Now, normally I would not comment on something like this, because obviously there’s a lot of stuff swirling in the press on at any given day and I've got other things to do. But two weeks ago, when the Republican House had put forward a budget that will have huge consequences potentially to the country, and when I gave a speech about my budget and how I felt that we needed to invest in education and infrastructure and making sure that we had a strong safety net for our seniors even as we were closing the deficit, during that entire week the dominant news story wasn’t about these huge, monumental choices that we're going to have to make as a nation. It was about my birth certificate. And that was true on most of the news outlets that were represented here.

And so, I just want to make a larger point here. We've got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there who are still looking for work. Everybody is still suffering under high gas prices. We're going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions about how we invest in our future but also get a hold of our deficit and our debt - how do we do that in a balanced way.

And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates. And there are going to be some fierce disagreements - and that’s good. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. And I am confident that the American people and America’s political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve these problems. We always have.

But, we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.

We live in a serious time right now and we have the potential to deal with the issues that we confront in a way that will make our kids and our grandkids and our great grandkids proud. And I have every confidence that America in the 21st Century is going to be able to come out on top just like we always have. But, we’re going to have to get serious to do it.

I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest. But, I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And, I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them - not on this.

Thanks very much, everybody.

***

Every American has the right and the duty to criticize our elected leaders when they need it, but this issue has been shameful.

Now, back to those circulated emails: those of you who read and pass them along, without any verification, are doing great harm to your country. I mean that. Just yesterday a friend shared with me one which maliciously took words out of context from Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. The original author of the email was counting on those who had not read the book to spread the propaganda. And spread it they did, and the lie it contains has been circulating since the book was published.

The Intrnet and the World Wide Web are such powerful tools. There are facts at our fingertips, and I simply do not understand why people choose to spend time, which might otherwise be put to research, reading and forwarding lies.

In doing so, you are doing the bidding of politial hired guns who soullessly sit at computer banks and play off your gullibility.

Or, hasn’t that ever crossed your mind?

I leave you, dear reader, with these words from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Easing into a second childhood

Yesterday I turned 69 and, as planned for some time now, began to ease into my second childhood. To mark the passage, I have for the last couple of weeks. with a selection of books, celebrated those carefree days of youth.

With special thanks to the talented readers at Talking Books Services for the Visually Impaired, I recommend:

THE HARRY POTTER SERIES
J. K. Rowling

For the third time, I listened to the seven books comprising J. K. Rowling’s unsurpassed and ultimate children’s saga. Her genius lies in letting her books “grow up” with her readers, and what emerged was a story for all ages.

For me the most magical words in these magical works were those spoken by brave little Neville Longbottom during the battle fought in the Ministry of Magic’s Department of Mysteries.

With five friends lying injured or unconscious, Harry is cornered by ten of Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters. Lucius Malfoy tells him, “You are not in a position to bargain, Potter. You see, there are ten of us and only one of you. Or, hasn’t Dumbledore ever taught you how to count?”

Neville staggers into the Death Chamber, his wand at the ready, and through his bloody nose shouts, “He’s dot alone! He’s still god be!” (“He’s not alone! He’s still got me!”)

And me. And a world of readers.

THE COMPLETE TALES OF WINNIE THE POOH
A. A. Milne

The author based “Winnie the Pooh” and “The House at Pooh Corner” on his own son, Christopher Robin Milne, and the boy’s collection of stuffed animals. Milne gave his wife full credit for suggesting his stories, and dedicated the first book, “To her: Hand in hand we come, Christopher Robin and I, to lay this book in your lap. Say you’re surprised, say you like it, say it’s just what you wanted, because it’s yours, because we love you.”

From the book jacket: “Elegant yet simple; whimsical yet wise.”

Milne takes you to “an enchanted place” and leaves you there.

THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS
Kenneth Grahame

“The mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring cleaning his little home, first with brooms, then with dusters, then on ladders and steps and chairs with a brush and a pail of whitewash ‘til he had dust in his throat and eyes and splashes of whitewash all over his black fur and an aching back and weary arms.

“Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor and said, ‘Bother!’ And ‘oo-bloo!’ And also, ‘Hang spring cleaning!’ and bolted out of the house without even waiting to put on his coat. Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the graveled carriage drive owned by animals whose residences are nearer to the sun and air.

“So, he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrootched, and then he scrootched again, and scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering to himself, ‘Up we go! Up we go!’ ‘til at last – pop! – his snout came out into the sunlight. …”

These opening words about a little blind animal, tired of cleaning, grabbed my heart in a personal way. It’s terrible to clean and not be able to see the results of your labor. He escaped from drudgery into a world where he – and I – can behold the wonders Grahame’s word pictures create.

TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
Harper Lee

Although I’ve seen the film many times, I had never read this modern-day classic. I added it to my reading list because it is primarily the story of children, learning about life from the adults around them. So, once more, here are Scout, Jem, Dill, Boo Radley and Atticus Finch, this time in Miss Lee’s words.

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA
C. S. Lewis

And finally, in the days ahead, 31 hours of listening to “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and the six other stories in C. S. Lewis’ fictional fantasy.

All of these books transport you to another world - whether Hogwarts, The Hundred-Acre Wood, Toad Hall or a small Southern town – where children are brave, animals sometimes talk, magic in all its senses is real and goodness prevails.

***

If I don’t achieve a second childhood, I will have at least achieved a degree of purification – armor against realities and the ever-stifling effects of commiserating with the elderly.

Foaming at the mouth

“The Don” must be eating his “Success by Trump” bubble bath, because the man seems to be foaming at the mouth these days, quite literally running himself into the ground.

Ticked off over Karl Rove’s criticism of his “birther” obsession, Trump lambasted the former Bush strategist on Fox News last night.

CNN’s “Political Ticker” quotes the presidential-waters tester:

"Karl Rove has a loser issue...[he] is the man that ran Bush into the ground. Bush finished so weak that we ended up getting Obama. He ran the man into the ground.

"The more I see about Karl Rove, the more I realize: maybe it wasn't completely Bush's fault,The fact is that Abraham Lincoln couldn't have beaten Obama because Bush finished so weakly, so I don't want to listen to Karl Rove."

With vivid memories of the smirk on Rove’s face as he dodged reporters’ questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, I am no fan of Bush’s so-called “Architect,” but it’s hardly fair to blame him for the obvious.

A Gallup poll yesterday reported Trump is the favorite presidential hopeful among “liberal Republicans.” Liberal Republicans could hold a convention in a phone booth, so let’s hope these numbers don’t go to Trump’s coifed head.

It’s almost a letdown that we won’t be seeing a Trump-Obama debate. I’d pay good money for that. I suspect Karl Rove would, too.

Oops, there goes another lie, kerplunk!

”Taxes: Myths, Lies and Deception.” That’s the intriguing title of The Progress Report, Center for American Progress, for Tax Day, 18 April 2011. I’ll summarize it for DemWit readers:

MYTH #1: Americans are unhappy paying taxes (as the Tea Party Movement would have us believe). A number of recent polls, including the Associated Press, Fox News and Gallup, show the majority of Americans say their taxes are "fair" and understand they pay for vital government programs and projects. The Fox News poll shows 43 percent say taxes are "unfair," while the majority say they are fair.

MYTH #2: The working poor don't pay taxes. Well, yes, they do. They pay payroll taxes just like everyone. And on the state and local levels, they pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rich. In Alabama, the working poor pay 11 percent in taxes. while the rich pay only 4 percent.

MYTH #3: Obama has raised taxes. Not true. "Federal income taxes under Obama are the lowest they have been since 1950."

READ THE REPORT, COMPLETE WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION, HERE.

***

For Part 1 of this lies v. truth thing, see Demwit's previous post.

GOP BS: myth vs. math

These figures don’t lie, so if you’re tired of the harangue, homily, hysteria and hypocrisy about which presidents have run up the national debt, read on.

The following figures show the national debt percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) at the beginning and the end of the terms of American presidents since WWII. Source for figures: Congressional Budget Office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt/Harry S. Truman (D) 1945-1949: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 117.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 93.1%.
Change: Down 24.4%

Harry S. Truman (D) 1949-1953: Debt/GDP at beginning of term, 93.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 71.4%.
Change: Down 21.7%

Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 1953-1957: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 71.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 60.4%.
Change: Down 11%

Dwight D. Eisenhowerr (R) 1957-1961: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 60.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 55.2%.
Change: Down 5.2%

John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1961-1965: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 55.2%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 46.9%.
Change: Down 8.3%

Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1965-1969: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 46.9%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 38.6%.
Change: Down 8.3%

Richard M. Nixon (R) 1969-1973: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 38.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.6%.
Change: Down 3%

Richard M. Nixon/Gerald Ford (R) 1973-1977: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.8%.
Change: Up 0.2%

Jimmy Carter (D) 1977-1981: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 32.5%.
Change: Down 3.3%

Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1985: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 32.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 43.8%.
Change: Up 11.3%

Ronald Reagan (R) 1985-1989: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 43.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 53.1%.
Change: Up 9.3%

George H.W. Bush (R) 1989-1993: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 53.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 66.1%.
Change: Up 15%

Bill Clinton (D) 1993-1997: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 66.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 65.4%.
Change: Down 0.7%

Bill Clinton (D) 1997-2001: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 65.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 56.4%.
Change: Down 9%

George W. Bush (R) 2001-2005: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 56.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 63.4%.
Change: Up 7.1%

George W. Bush (R) 2005-2009: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 63.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 83.4%.
Change: Up 20%

Barack Obama (D) 2009 -. Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 83.4%.

***

So, there you have it, boys and girls, every Democratic president since Harry Truman has reduced the public debt share of the GDP. And, what's amazing, still managed to push through legislation beneficial to all Americans.

The last four Republican presidents – Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush – have overseen increases in America’s debt, clearly marking a shift from true conservatism.

If I were a gambling woman I’d place my bets on Obama to pull us out of this fiscal mess.

And, to those who trust cureent GOP leaders to do their research and their thinking, read my lips:

SHUT UP!

Middle ground or a morphed America?

A few words from CNN’s cover story of the president’s fiscal policy address today at George Washington University:

“Obama's approach seeks to carve out a political middle ground between conservatives -- who are pushing for deficit reduction based solely on spending cuts and expected economic growth -- and liberals, who are generally resisting entitlement reform and seeking higher corporate and personal taxes.

“He called for political leaders to put aside orthodox party ideology and work together for the good of the country, saying ‘we can solve this problem’ while noting that ‘any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.’

“At the same time, Obama blasted the House Republican 2012 budget proposal unveiled last week, saying it would ‘lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.’

"‘These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in,’ Obama said of the plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who sat in the audience Wednesday. ‘I believe it paints a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.’"

Read about Ryan’s proposals linked at the top of DemWit’s sidebar.

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS: LINK (Note: For easy access to beginning of speech, go to the top of your screen, click on “edit,” then “find in top window” and type in: Here’s the president)

DemWit's words made plainer

I don’t have a Nobel Prize in economics, but this guy does. If I haven’t made myself clear over the last few days, along comes Paul Krugman in The New York Times to reiterate exactly what I’ve been saying in both my posts and my comments on the posts.

Only plainer.

Few political gambits have made me angrier than that pulled off by Republicans Friday night, so I wasn’t too receptive to President Obama’s words of praise for bipartisan accomplishment. And frankly, with so much at stake for so many Americans, all that BS about the Washington Monument turned me off.

As "Frodo" said in his last comment here, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. So, let me shut up. Let a Nobel laureate say it:

“The President Is Missing,” Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 10 April 2011: LINK

Don't call Boehner 'stupid'

When John Boehner and House Republicans pushed through a last-minute bill demanding cuts to Planned Parenthood and stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to control greenhouse emissions – as discussed in DemWit’s last post – they knew exactly what they were doing.

This was ideological trickery at its best. In addition to titillating his base, Boehner’s “social issues” scheme had America holding its collective breath, but, hey, a group of eighth-graders will now get to visit the Washington Monument.

The front page of The New York Times (LINK) sums it up nicely:

“Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.”

In his 11th hour comments to the nation, Obama continued to express his desire for both parties to work together for America’s future, calling spending cuts “painful” to many Americans and saying WE must begin to “live within our means.”

Now, whether the president means an editorial “we” referring to the government or to me as a citizen is unclear. (The New York Times article interprets the "we" as meaning Americans.) I have always lived within my means. My problem is, like so many Americans, my means ain't keeping up with the times.

I am not yet clear on how “painful” the historic $38 billion spending cuts deal will be. That requires further reading on my part, but I am clear on one thing.

Don’t call Boehner "stupid."

***

Read or view President Obama’s late-night remarks on the budget deal HERE.

NO COMPROMISE!

It’s not enough that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan introduced a highly controversial spending proposal during budget negotiations - one that would compromise healthcare needs for 100 million Americans - but now House Republicans have pushed through a bill which makes it look to the less-than-informed as if the GOP wants to keep the government running.

But, in the bill which passed the House today by a vote of 247 to 181, the GOP doubled down with a couple of tried-and-true measures to rile the low-end of their base and satiate the high-end.

When all else fails throw in the hot-button issue of abortion and, by all means, let business know the environment will never trump profits.

In what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly deems “ideological,” Republicans “are no longer on how much savings we will get on government spending."

Today, they have thrown in provisions that would strip all funding from Planned Parenthood as well as prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama, won't you use your bully pulpit, look into the cameras and tell the American people just how lowdown and dirty this ideological trickery is? Don’t let the Republicans come out smelling like a rose while the naïve blame a government shutdown on Democrats.

Enough, already!

NO COMPROMISE!

Messing it up!

My son Michael entered first grade about the time this country began to be aware of the environment. The word “ecology” had just entered the lexicon.

Michael came home from school one day with an assignment to make a poster about the environment, and I left him to his own devices. The finished poster had drawings of a few stars, the moon, the sun surround by rays, a fish, a bird in flight, a cat and a banana. All this resulted in a colorful work of art, but it was the words of a six-year-old, meticulously printed, which hit home:

“God created Heaven and Earth. Don’t you mess it up.”

Massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dying honeybees.

More and more animals on the endangered species list.

Depleted rain forests.

Natural habitats destroyed.

Global warming.

A glut of medical waste, nuclear waste and unrecycled garbage.

Deadly chemicals in our lakes, rivers, streams and aquifers.

Acid rain.

And now this:

“Water gushing into the Pacific Ocean from Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has radiation levels millions of times above the regulatory limit.”

In 1976, my biology professor was comparing our environmental challenges to a stack of cans at the grocery. One by one, he said, the cans would be removed until the whole stack crumbled.

I raised my hand and asked, “When will the last can be removed?”

“Fifty years ago,” he answered.

Earth isn’t going away. Our hermitage was here eons ago and will be here eons more.

How long before Homo sapiens are added to the endangered species list?

Now, it’s time for some smart ass Republican to call me a “tree hugger.”

PHOTO: NASA's "Blue Marble Earth"

***

Earth Day is coming on April 22. This year's theme is "A Billion Acts of Green." Go HERE to find out how YOU can help.

To a friend on Monday morning

My buddy Chris and I didn't let up all weekend, most of the time spent cooking my 16-quart boiler full of stuff for the freezer. Plus lots of little chores he helps me with. When his folks picked him up at 7:30 Sunday night, I opted to sit and relax and listen to my book, then slept from midnight until 8 this morning.

For that reason, I didn't get a chance to read the news articles I had saved to Word until this morning, including the ones about the killings over the Quran burning. While what Terry Jones did is despicable, there is no excuse for passion that leads to the deaths of innocent people. I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from President Obama:

"The desecration of any holy text ... is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

You and I, my friend, would not go out and kill a bunch of innocent people if we witnessed the Holy Bible being burned. These killings are the result of fanaticism on both sides - Terry Jones' church and Muslim protesters. Looks like the "Crusades" are going to last forever. Terry Jones has had his "15 minutes of fame," but Americans will see these killings as one more excuse to condemn Islam. I swear ignorance just seems to prevail, doesn't it?

Just thought I would get back to you on this. When you initially emailed me about the killings at the UN compound, I had not been able to keep up with what's happening in the world. Many days now I don't get much in the way of news at all, other than scanning headlines. I am just so limited now in what I can read, because it just takes me so long to do so.

Last week I spent most days reading all those comments (76, so far) about Obama on Parsley’s Pics (because I was interested both in what the "hard left" Obama-bashers and his defenders were saying) AND reading Obama's address to the nation on Libya as well as reactions - pro and con. For that reason I didn't get around to the news. I wish I could find a Web site which would email a daily briefing on all the IMPORTANT news stories of the day, rather than insignificant crap and the latest antics of Sarah Palin!

I get a lot from the Center for American Progress' daily Progress Report, but quite often at the end of the week, I find myself deleting all of them without even opening them. I sure hate that.

I did manage to read the CNN article about Ryan's proposed Medicare, Medicaid cuts and decided to put it on DemWit. I swear I believe Republican leaders would be happy if all poor folks just died and got out of the way. I will never understand their lack of empathy and sympathy for the poor. Then, they claim they love Jesus. Can’t make that work in my head. Haven’t they read The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes?

I am babbling, aren't I? I hope you have a good week, Ever think about taking a week off from the computer? Believe me, I have!

Love you, BJ

***

In the post that follows, Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid while continuing to push permanent benefits for the wealthy are discussed. Full text and audio of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount containing the Beatitudes HERE.

The known unknowns of Ryan's plan

DemWit shares the following CNN.com article in the hopes of educating readers to the known unknowns of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan, to be announced Tuesday.

In preparing GOP leaders for his very controversial proposals, Ryan uses fear, pointing out that without his plan:

"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget."

Despite claims that no one over the age of 55 will be affected by Paul’s healthcare entitlement cuts, take a close look at $1 trilion in Medicaid cuts, which will eviscerate assistance for low-income American families.

SOURCE: CNN

House GOP budget to call for big changes to Medicare, Medicaid

by Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh
April 2, 2011

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan is to be unveiled Tuesday

Washington (CNN) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, will unveil a highly anticipated 2012 Republican budget next week that proposes dramatic changes to political lightning rods: entitlements.

The plan, to be released Tuesday, calls for a controversial overhaul of Medicare, the health care program for seniors, and imposes deep cuts in Medicaid, which provides health benefits to low-income Americans, according to House Republican sources with knowledge of the proposal.

Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change.

The plan is modeled after one Ryan proposed last year with Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton.

Details of how Ryan's Medicare voucher program would work are still unclear, but the Ryan-Rivlin plan said the amount of the voucher -- a lump sum payment from the government -- would be calculated in part by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee.

The GOP aims to save billions of dollars in revamping Medicare, a large contributor to the massive federal deficit and debt.

Sources said they did not yet know how much savings Ryan would project by drastically changing the Medicare program.

On Medicaid, Ryan's plan calls for deep cuts, as much as $1 trillion. The program would also fundamentally change -- the federal share of the Medicaid system would become block grants to the states.

CNN has been told that the House GOP budget plan does not call for significant change to the Social Security program. Republicans argue that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare.

Two House GOP lawmakers briefed on the proposal told CNN they and others on the House Budget Committee believe it's a mistake not to tackle Social Security.

As for so-called discretionary spending, one of the sources -- who would not speak on the record before the plan is publicly announced -- said Ryan's proposal promises to roll back spending to 2006 levels.

It's unclear how much that would slash, but it is expected to be far more than the roughly $61 billion in spending cuts House Republicans passed in February.

Ryan is expected to give specifics on how much savings the plan would create when it is unveiled Tuesday.

One GOP source said even with the major cuts and changes in Ryan's proposal -- essentially a blueprint that guides spending decisions and does not go to the president for his signature -- it would not bring the budget into balance for many years.

Still, GOP sources briefed on the plan said it would save hundreds of billions of dollars more than the president's proposed 2012 budget, and trillions over the next 10 years.

The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate, but at the same time do away with tax loopholes for corporations.

Ryan's plan also provides for a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, which under a compromise with President Barack Obama were extended last year through 2012.

House Republican leaders have been signaling for some time that they plan dramatic and controversial changes to entitlement programs in order to rein in the budget deficit and debt.

Knowing that the proposed changes will be politically risky and elicit an onslaught of criticism, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy have been holding sessions two or three times a week with House Republicans to try to arm them with information about the gravity of the debt problem and why it needs to be fixed.

CNN was allowed into one of these meetings last month, and heard Ryan lay out for his GOP colleagues in stark terms what he calls the "tidal wave" of debt the country is facing.

"The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can't conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue," Ryan told the GOP group.

"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs -- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare --will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget," Ryan said.

When Ryan proposed a version of his Medicare overhaul idea last year, known as his "road map," Democrats skewered it and tried to use it as a campaign weapon against Republicans across the country.

Obama has often said it is important for Washington to address entitlement spending. But the president has not offered any specific proposals, and Republicans suggest he wants them to take the first risky steps.

Multiple GOP sources admit the timing of Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is tricky. It will be released in the middle of down-to-the-wire, contentious negotiations with Democrats about a spending measure to keep the government running for the rest of this 2011 fiscal year.

CNN has been told that GOP leaders considered delaying the release of Ryan's budget until this year's spending differences are resolved. However, they decided to go ahead with it in hopes showing major cuts and reforms planned for next year will calm rank-and-file conservatives who feel the leadership is too compromising on spending cuts.

***

This is another GOP effort to privatize entitlement programs, putting the private business sector ahead of the healthcare of Americans. I cannot put it any clearer.

Low-income Americans - indeed, all Americans - should listen closely to the echo of Ryan’s announcement Tuesday. His words to the poor and to anyone with the heart to care will reverberate across this nation: If you can't afford medical care without this help, "Just die!”

The right place at the right time

“I’m good enough. I’m smart enough. And, doggone it, people like me.”

That mantra was the title of Al Franken’s first book. It became a favorite saying of David Letterman. Al Gore even read it on The Late Show as one of the “Top 10 Rejected Al Gore-Joe Lieberman Campaign Slogans.”

According to a USA Today/Gallup survey released today, that oft-repeated slogan could apply to a woman I admire and respect:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.”

Hillary has topped Gallup’s end-of-the-year “Most Admired Woman” list 13 years since 1999 and has won that distinction for the last nine consecutive years.

I mention this for two reason:

First, a blogging buddy who keeps abreast of the liberal-progressive blogging world assures me that Hillary supporters are a strong element of the Obama-bashing coming from the hard left. (The left has done its share of Hillary-bashing as well.)

Second, since I supported Hillary for president, did not hesitate to vote for Barack Obama and do not now find myself part of the bashing, I’ve thought a lot about this capable – and popular - woman over the last few days.

We live in a time of amazing communications technology where news and opinion can be flashed around the globe as it happens. The world stage, tumultuous with natural disasters and civil unrest, is at our fingertips. Perhaps never before in the history of the world has reasoned diplomacy been so important.

In her memoir “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton recalls meetings with leaders around the world. With great courage and tact, the former first lady spoke out for women’s and children’s rights in countries where they do not exist.

Many across the U.S. Senate aisle found her likeable and said so. During her presidential campaign she charmed her archrival, Richard Mellon Scaife, into endorsing her. Diplomacy seems to be her long suit.

For these reasons, I have concluded that Hillary is exactly where she needs to be. And, President Obama is pretty damn smart to know it. Reading Obama’s address to the nation on Libya convinces me that this leadership combination is in the right place at the right time.

Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (2007):

“Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint. Here is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story. She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor and of a minister, all evidence of her passion—which, deep down, is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”

God forbid if her legacy includes disrespect for the American president.

Sixty-eight years of life experiences have taught me there are people who love to hate. These people, whether on the left or the right, can, in blogosphere terms, “piss and moan” all they like. I am content that our country is in the very best of hands.

Best to stop all the bitching and make sure it stays that way.

Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca'

“Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” Despite being caught up in its spell, I wasn’t dreaming. I went again to Manderley, not in Hitchcock’s classic film, but, for the first time, in Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 novel.

Literature has given us many complex female characters – Blanche DuBois, Elizabeth Bennet, Scarlett O’Hara, Emma Bovary, Milly Theale. The reader is often outside the character, observing, examining, but in “Rebecca,” you are inside and at one with the female narrator.

I cannot give this woman a name, because Dame du Maurier said simply she "could not think of one to give her." She is known to readers (and movie buffs) worldwide only as “the second Mrs. de Winter.”

Movies have never been a substitute for the books on which they are based, but Hitchcock came close. In one very important aspect, he failed. It is only through the words of du Maurier that one learns the narrator’s most fearful antagonist is neither the inescapable presence of Rebecca (the first Mrs. de Winter) nor the demented obsession of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. What most troubles our narrator, we find, is that she is a martyr to her own inferiority complex.

My Talking Books version is based on a special edition which features a wonderful Author’s Note and the original epilogue to the book.

At the time of Dame du Maurier’s death in 1989 at the age of 82, there were 3 million copies of her "unsurpassed masterpiece" in print, translated into 25 languages.

As she reveals in her “Author’s Note,” Dame du Maurier, upon finishing her novel, cleverly made changes. She added two vital characters. She moved the epilogue, rewritten, to the beginning of the story and rewrote the ending. She changed the master of Manderley’s name from the “too plain” Henry to Maximillian or Maxim. No spoiler to reveal that in the original epilogue Manderley eventually becomes a country club where the morning room is converted to a billiards room and “The Happy Valley” becomes a golf course. Those who have experienced “Rebecca” will know, then, how this must have altered the book’s concluding scene.

Those who have not read it are missing a Gothic mystery and romance which sweeps the reader along like “the salt wind from the sea.”

Examining Kucinich's claim

In the great Rob Reiner-Aaron Sorkin film, “The American President,” President Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas) decides to retaliate after Libya bombs a U.S.-manned missile installation in Israel. In a conference room meeting with his White House staff and military leaders to discuss the possible air strike against Libya, the following dialogue occurs:

A. J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk and it's a proportional response.

President Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.

(…)

President Shepherd (after ordering the air strike): What I did tonight was not about political gain.

Leon Kodak, Deputy Chief of Staff: Yes. sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.

President Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job, because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.

At no point in this scene does the president pick up the phone and consult with a Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich, Democratic congressman from Ohio, has claimed that President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” by joining allies in air strikes on Libya.

The intent of this post, then, is not to argue the merits of the military action, but to ask whether it is, indeed, constitutional.

First, I am not a fan of the fiery, hard-left political views of Kucinich. Time and again he has voted against Democratic proposals in the U.S. House, then justified his vote on his Web site. He votes “no” because the bills don’t go far enough. Kucinich wants it all, and he wants it now, overlooking the fact that sweeping policy changes often come in increments.

Is Kucinich right that Obama should have gotten Congressional approval before ordering U.S. military strikes on Libya?

In 1986 when Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque, he consulted with bipartisan members of Congress, but I can find no record that Congress voted to give him authority to do so.

The Department of Justice has this to say:

“(T)he President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”

Using these criteria, if we are to exclude Ghadafi’s abuse against his own people, then Congress should never have given sanction to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Read the Department of Justice’s report, “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them” HERE.

How would one interpret the president’s “broad” and “inherent” Constitutional powers in this action?

According to Kucinich, "Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."

That is not a true statement according to the powers granted the executive after 9/11.

"In a statement on his Web site Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war."

But, Obama has no more declared war on Libya than Reagan did in 1986.

Perhaps I need to do a little more digging – where is constitutional authority Jonathan Turley when I need him?

Or, perhaps this is a matter which should be clarified by both Congress and the courts.

POSTSCRIPT

There's a lot of hellraising about this issue, a squaring off on the left of anti-war advocates and folks like me who believe force is sometimes necessary. There also seems to be a confusion, IMO, in distinguishing retaliatory air strikes and a "declaration of war." This post has been strengthened by readers' comments, which you can access by clicking on the post title above or on "comments" below. Thanks!

Planet Me

You know that little bos in the upper righthand corner of envelopes which says, “Postal Service requires first-class stamp” or “Place stamp here”? That’s for Fox News viewers. Or, at least the ones who can read.

I’ve been too busy, with no TV, reading straight news articles about the disasters in Japan to pay attention to the vocal yokels on the right. (Vocal Yokels was the name of my first blog.)

But, when a friend emailed me that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (as well as Rush Limbaugh) are taking this “opportunity” to downplay Japan’s peril and to bash Obama, I thought, “Enough is enough!”

A Google romp through the comments being made by these cretins leads me to ask: why would anyone with a conscience and an IQ above room temperature pay attention to them?

This kind of unconscionable talk in the face of human misery is unacceptable.

I believe I’ve coined a new term for such egocentric people who reside in their own little world: “Planet Me.”

Leslie at Parsley’s Pics features an appropriate quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

I am certain my Republican readers will take umbrage with this statement, but sadly it’s what your Party – and its propaganda arm, Fox News – now represent.

Earth’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is nearing 7 billion. Methink is an illusion.