Ann Coulter: "Yes, I am an attention whore."

Ann Coulter, true to her nature, made something about someone else about her. In her brilliantly penned synopsis of Alaska Governess Sarah Palin for Time Magazine's 100 issue, Ann writes:

The only thing I have against her is that she threatens to surpass me in attracting the left's hatred.

I have a few thoughts on that:

There are some noticeable differences between the two.
1. Ann Coulter is a fascist party doll who spews vile hate speech like Shakespeare did poetry.
2. Sarah Palin is a vapid, party-line hack who tows the line and was an unfortunate victim of circumstances.

That being said, we, the collect left, dislike you both for entirely different reasons. While you've both managed to set back the cause of women about 50 years or so, one of you we despise because you anger us. You may have facts, incorrect as they usually are, and refuse to concede to even the most logical, rational, level-headed arguments.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, we just...well, Mr. T said it the best about Rocky - and I paraphrase, "I don't hate Sarah Palin, I pity the fool." McCain choosing her was the worst thing that could have happened. It was embarassing and it was a shallow, shameless pander, you betcha. And gosh, you know, it was just jingoism and hokey colloquialisms abound as she utterly neglected substance, answers, and genuine solutions to problems all the while skirting seemingly any knowledge of the Constitution of the way our government fuctons.

The Aryan posterchild goes on to opine that Sarah Palin got a bum rap because

she wasn't influential enough to overcome the deficits of her running mate and win the election.

Oh, contraire. John McCain would have had a much bettter shot at winning had he stuck to his moderate roots and chosen someone less...reactionary, and more intelligent. Sarah Palin was an embarassment not just to John McCain, but to Alaska, to women, and to America. H.L. Mencken was proved correct in his assumption that in America, we would eventually elect a genuine idiot to the White House in 2004 (I neglect 2000 because Bush was not elected in this year, rather he was appointed), and Mencken was almost proven right again with the baffling popularity of Sarah Palin in 2008.

Person of the year? Maybe in a political sideshow. But thanks for the laugh, Ann. I needed it today.

With age comes wisdom: Sen. Arlen Specter switches parties

Longtime Republican stalwart Arlen Specter, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania announced today that he is switching parties and will henceforth be affiliated with the Democratic Party.

He said:

"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."

There's few things I love more than seeing a party hijacked by neoconservative, regressive ideologues alienating their own senior statesmen. Now, as soon as Al Franken is seated as the Senator from Minnesota, we'll have that magical number of 60 seats.

And as Republicans try to tap into populism with their messaging, it would appear that even after the election, the majority of Americans, and a Republican Senator, are seeing the light and making the change to the party that has the future of America in mind - not the past.

The First 100 Days: Bipartisanship? Of course not.

CNN ran a story today on Obama's first 100 days in office, and most notably commented on his failed efforts at promoting bipartisanship. While I think that the notion or the spirit of bipartisanship is a good idea, at this point in American politics, I don't think it's a viable campaign promise. There is so much intense, emotionally-driven rhetoric (on both sides of the aisle), that any effort to foster more bipartisanship is moot from the get go.

That is not to say that Americans don't pull together when necessary, or that we don't have the same goals - we all want what's best for the country, we just disagree on how to get it. And in that, we have the beauty of our republic.

But I don't think it should be Obama's job to promote bipartisanship. He won the election, he sets the rules.

Think back to eight years ago - Bush had been appointed President. There was no effort to promote bipartisanship. The GOP ran the show, ran it into the ground, and left liberals with nothing but a big shit sandwich to eat. When we questioned the President, we were called un-American and unpatriotic. We were told that questioning or dissenting against a war-time President would "embolden the enemy."

But somehow - that's changed now? Somehow, now it's okay to denegrate the President because it's pro-American to do so? It's kosh to talk about seccession? Hardly. Conservatives and regressives in this country need to understand that when the man they didn't like wins an election, he's probably going to do a few things they don't like. The shoe is on the other foot now, and after eight years of GOP use and abuse, it's starting to stink.

The Democrats pushed through a lot of quality items in the first 100 days, reversed a lot of regressive and backwards Bush-era errors, and made some great progressive strides - the S-CHIP improvements, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the stimulus package to name a few.

I don't think that the measure of Obama''s first 100 days will be how bipartisan it was - the country is in an unprecedented, extremely dire state. Conventional politics are not applicable. And as we teeter on the precipace of disaster, I'm glad we've got a President who's thinking forward, not backward. History will judge the effectiveness of his reactions to this crisis. Let's remember - the New Deal wasn't the most popular project at it's inception either.

Busy and infirm - posting to resume soon

I've been battling with some nasty cold for about a week, my daughter has an ear infection, I've been busy at work, and the nice weather has afforded a few opportunities to get out of the house and enjoy mother nature. All apologies for the hiatus in posting, but rest assured, some fresh content is baking in the oven and should be ready to serve up piping hot in a day or two.

Ignorance is strength

hy-poc-ri-sy
–noun, plural -sies.

1.	a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2.	a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

3.	an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Thune in 2010: Untouchable?

The Argus Leader reported today in their print edition (it doesn't appear on their website), that Senator John Thune has over $4 million cash on hand for his upcoming re-election campaign in 2010.

Does this make him the proverbial 800 pound gorilla? While I think Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin could mount a formidable challenge to the seat, she may not have the political capital left in South Dakota (although her approval rating remains very high, we're all well aware of the malicious smear tactics the Thune camp and their friends are more than willing to use) after the stimulus packages and various bailouts of the Obama administration to take on Thune and be victorious. If she decided to run for governor against Dennis Daugaard or Lee Schoenbeck (one of my favorite DakotaWarCollege commenters), I think she'd have a large hill to climb, but a more likely chance of success.

With that said, who will the Democrats pick to take on Senator Thune in 2010? Is there a dark horse waiting in the wings or will they have to pony up some sacrificial lamb? $4 million is a substantial war chest, and I just have doubts about any Democratic candidate other than Herseth Sandlin being able to raise that kind of cash.

On top of all that, it looks like the Democrats in South Dakota have some serious organizing to do. Todd Epp over at South Dakota Watch reports that this year's state convention, the annual McGovern Days, has been postponed. While it might be a great time to be a Democrat in America - what with Obama in office and a majority in both houses of Congress - in South Dakota, it looks like business as usual.

You oughtta be teabagged: An activist's take

While I try to figure out whether I ought to be astonished at the display of ignorance or just more amused at the spectacle, I figured I should offer my take on the Tea Party that occurred in Sioux Falls - my take on it as a dangerous, radical, liberal activist that is.

1. You really need to familiarize yourselves with popular euphemisms. This is a not safe for work link that will describe tea bagging in it's more popular, connotative meaning. Next year, I don't want to hear about tea bagging, Cincinnati bow ties, rusty trombones, or anything of the sort in connection with a political protest.

2. I'm going to give you some credit. From almost all accounts, this event was well-attended. That's the hardest part about organizing any event - getting people there. And hey, even though you probably don't have a populist bone in your body, you certainly tapped a nerve and figured out how to scare/agitate/rile/motivate people into doing...well, into getting out of their house and holding pre-made signs. (Activist note: if you plan on using more than one sign, don't have one person make them all - we can recognize handwriting. It detracts from the effectiveness of the message.)

3. If you're going to hold a partisan rally, call it one. Now, I'm sure you're touting that you had Republicans, Libertarians, and some Independents out - that's hardly non-partisan. It's not even bi-partisan. It's biased. And when I see Ted Nugent on Fox News, any hope of calling it anything other than a right-wing propaganda orgy of jingoism, scare tactics, talking points, and old white dudes is out of the question. Besides, http://teaparty.gop.com kind of gives it away.

4. Learn what socialism is. If government monies go to prop up a capitalist system, it's not socialism. If corporations have the opportunity to buy back the shares purchased by the Federal government, it's not socialism. This is a link to an article explaining to you what socialism is. It's similar to what's going on, but it ain't it. And secondly, what about this sounds like a bad idea? I know that many Americans were raised in the Cold War era and were inherently indoctrinated against socialism because our enemy, Russia, was a socialist nation. The Cold War was not fought over economic ideology, it was fought over geopolitical gain and empirical control of land, resources, and goods.

5. Stay true to the original idea. The real Boston Tea Party was caused by taxation without representation. Not only has President Obama and the Democratic Congress cut taxes for 95% of Americans, nobody - not even the richest 1% of Americans - will see any changes to their taxes until 2011. So chill. You have representation, you just lost - that's all. And hey, when the guy you don't like wins, he's probably going to do things you don't like. Believe me, I know. The Founders would shake their heads at your misguided re-enactment.

6. Finally, stop your whining. Taxes pay for essential services like roads, public hospitals, schools, police services, fire services, 911 emergency and first responder services, the military, and all sorts of wonderful things. Oh, and libraries and the mail. If you don't use any of these services and don't ever plan on it, you are free to criticize and complain. If not, you're a gigantic hypocrite who needs a lesson in public administration. Paying taxes is patriotic. It's your duty. It's part of the social contract. You say "Support Our Troops"? I say, pay your taxes so our troops can be paid and supported.

And I mean, come on...tea bagging? I thought you were joking at first...then I thought it was just...sad.

Allen Unruh: Gigantic hyprocrite

Happy Tax Day. Or Tea Party Day.

Kelo ran a delightful story on "Dr." Allen Unruh (funny how he's not going by "Dr." anymore) in regards to the Tea Party he's apparently helped organize this year. Which is great. Because if I was in South Dakota organizing an event, he's the first person I'd call.

Anyhow, the good "doctor" said:

"We've got a big banner for everybody to sign, that’s gonna be there, which we'll take to Washington, D.C.,” Unruh said.
He hopes the government hears their message loud and clear and says this protest is just the beginning.
"If they ignore us this time, they’re gonna see a revolution by next year, I feel,” Unruh said.

So, apart from threatening a revolt against the government, Unruh goes on to say that government spending is wasteful and bad. Which just makes me laugh. How many Federal dollars did he and his lovely wife receive through the Alpha Center and their various anti-choice campaigns? I'm guessing it was a substantial amount.

So, "doc", for taking gobs of Federal money and then hypocritically protesting higher taxes, I applaud you.
And for your enjoyment, here's Mr. Unruh giving an Oscar-deserving performance of Patrick Henry's infamous "give me liberty..." speech. Funny, all this talk about liberty from a guy who thinks women should have none.

Texas Republican says Asians should change their names, make it easier for Americans

In perhaps the most bizarre and racially insensitive thing I've ever heard, The Telegraph reported on Texas State Rep. Betty Brown, a Republican who said that Asian Americans should change their names to something a little easier for Americans to deal with:

The comments from Republican Rep Betty Brown came on Tuesday, when the state legislature heard testimony from a Chinese-American group on voting difficulties. Asian voters' names are often spelled differently on different documents.

"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese," Mrs Brown said to a representative from the group, "do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?"

It never ceases to amaze me that these regressive conservatives continually forget what makes America great, what makes us unique and sets us apart from any other nation in the world - our diversity. E Pluribus Unim. From many, one.

But to be fair, I'm sure the first Americans, you know, the ones who lived here for thousands of years before we white folks showed up, had trouble pronouncing Smith, Hawthorne, Proctor and other ridiculous names like that. We should have heeded Betty's advice and our forefathers should have all adopted native tongues and native names. After all, they were the majority at the time. And they were here first.

Big swing and a miss by DakotaWarCollege

Pat Powers is not a progressive. In that, he's apparently reaffirming his objection to progress with his latest scare-tactic post trying to convince us of the evils of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade program.

In which he asserts:

Good gosh - are people thinking they’re getting a bargain by electing Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin? Because in this instance, it seems as if she’s doing little else but to slobber over the Democratic President at the expense of South Dakotans

Thank God we have John Thune to at least raise a voice of dissention that during tough economic times, South Dakotans really aren’t interested in our elected representatives in Washington raising our utility rates just because somebody is “committed to passing a bill.”

So my first qualm (apart from the fact that he misspelled dissension), is that Pat is heralding objection to the President. First and foremost, this smacks of hypocrisy when we champion a man's dissent against the administration who, just a few short years ago, said that dissent and "obstruction" of the President and his agenda would "embolden the enemy."

But secondly, cap-and-trade is a smart, solid plan on which to move our country away from a deadly, dangerous addiction of fossil fuels and is a brave step towards changing the way this country views energy and environmental policy. The ultimate goal of cap-and-trade is to reduce greenhouse emissions and ease us away from the dangerous precipice of the scientifically-proven, immanent climate change.

While Pat and other regressive conservatives will try to scare you into believing that your taxes will skyrocket and you'll be bankrupted if we dare to move forward, the good folks at the Center for American Progress assure us that:

"Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's research shows us that this transition to a more environmentally-friendly energy policy won't be as painful as Pat might lead you to believe. And Pat Powers? Let's just say that if this was the turn of the last century and Henry Ford was trying to sell you on this newfangled "automobile", Pat would be the one telling you that horses were the way to go. Progress isn't always easy. And I understand that it can be scary, but we ought not let fear of change dim the future of this country.

We need to take environmental policy seriously. We only have one planet. Once it's gone, it's gone.

I applaud Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her bold support of such a practical, progressive, and common sense policy.

Ending torture to make America safer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA Director Leon Panetta has carried through on his pledge to prohibit independent contractors from conducting interrogations of terror suspects.

In a message to agency employees on Thursday, Panetta said he had notified the congressional oversight committees about the current CIA policy regarding interrogations.

Besides discontinuing the use of contractors, the director outlined in the message other steps taken in response to executive orders issued by President Obama in January.

The harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration will no longer be used. Panetta said questioning of suspected terrorists will follow the approaches authorized in the Army Field Manual.

He said that included suspects held by Americans or those who might have been transferred to other countries.

The secret prisons used to detain terror suspects have been closed, Panetta said.

This single action alone will make America ten times safer than any Bush-era policy. When America can ethically and morally conduct business and follow the guidelines set forth in not just the Geneva Conventions, but the Bill of Rights, and the Army's own field manual, we will be more respected, have more authority on which to dictate to other nation's, and can rest assured that we are not lowering ourselves to the level of our enemy.

America doesn't torture. We don't outsource torture. We don't use "harsh negotiation tactics". We don't torture - period. Not only does torture yield inaccurate results, it's illegal, immoral, and un-Christian. This is a decision all Americans can be proud of.

No longer will this abominable practice be carried out in our name.

Gingrich calls former Methodist pastor "anti-religious"

(CNN) — Newt Gingrich said Tuesday the Obama administration is "intensely secular" and "anti-religious," the former House Speaker's second hard-hitting criticism of the new administration this week.

In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

"I think their goal is to have a very secular America in which government dominates everything," he said. "Why wouldn't you put an anti-religious, left-wing zealot on a faith-based group? It's a perfect pattern for this administration."

Since 2005, Knox has served as the director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. He is also a former Methodist pastor.

So let me get this straight. What Obama did is deplorable, but putting an anti-science, right-wing zealot in charge of an organization like say...Health and Human Services is alright? Has Newt forgotten the Bush policy of cronyism that led to such wonderful appointments as Eric Keroack - the man put in charge of the Federal family planning programs who doesn't believe in birth control?

Or maybe taking Michael Brown away from organizing horse shows to head up FEMA. That worked well.

Now, suddenly placing an ordained minister in charge of the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives is an outrage. Really? Come on, Newt.

Or could it just be that maybe, just maybe we have an administration that finally understands the intention of the separation of church and state? This administration isn't anti-religious, they just understand that America is not a theocracy to be governed by cronies and unqualified campaign donors.