On Retiring After 33 Years as a Teacher

I didn’t really know what I was getting myself into in 1974 when I was hired at Lincoln-Way Community High School in New Lenox, Illinois. I had done well in college and in my student teaching, but I found that neither one had really prepared me for the job I had taken on. High school definitely wasn’t like college. There was no atmosphere of intellectual excitement, there was little sense of self-discipline, and there was a great deal of sullen adolescent resentment at being a captive audience that I had to deal with. I almost didn’t survive my first year, but older and caring mentors helped pull me through. I was much stronger and more effective my second year; after five years, I felt like an Old Pro. Now, 33 years later, as a genuine Old Pro, I wanted to share some thoughts with the readers of my blog.

First, this job is one hell of a lot harder than people think it is (if you care about being good at it). It requires enormous preparation, a strong will, a tough emotional hide, and constant reading, learning, and personal growth. I was often surprised by how exhausted I was at the end of a school year. A lot of people think teaching is an easy gig—short hours, summers and holidays, off, etc. To them I say: try it. Try excelling at it. Try interacting with people 14 to 18 years old who are going through their own profound personal changes. Try finding ways of taking a small portion of the immense learning of the human species and relating it to teenagers who are often distracted by a hundred other interests and concerns. Try disciplining and motivating these kids. Try adjusting yourself to other teachers and the kids’ parents in what is often a very stressful environment. And then come back to me and tell me how easy it is.

Second, the classroom is an extraordinarily complex environment. Teaching is more of an art than a science, and it takes one a long time to get good at it. (In many ways, as one of my mentors told me my first year, the kids will change you more than you will change them. That’s more true than non-teachers realize.) Classroom interaction is a mixture of communication and social skills unlike anything I have ever experienced. Anyone who’s done it for a while knows what I mean.

Third, the commentators outside of education who regularly castigate and attack the competence of public school teachers don’t know what they’re talking about. The mainstream media often carry a grotesque caricature of American education. Right-wing critics want the public schools dismantled because we supposedly have “failed”. That’s a damned lie. Research like this would shock many of those who have been conditioned to think of American schools as desolate wastelands of ignorance:


By comparing the results of foreign students and American students on tests administered in both nations, and then examining the American students' scores on the U.S. NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress], it is possible to reliably estimate how well foreign students would perform on the NAEP.And it turns out that only one-third of those high-flying Swedish kids would be considered proficient readers; the NAEP figure for U.S. fourth-graders was 29 percent. The great majority of the remaining countries would have fewer proficient students than the United States. Using the NAEP standard, no country comes close to having a majority of proficient readers.Under the NAEP standard, Singapore is the only nation in the world to have a majority of its students be proficient in science, and that by a scant 1 percent. Only a handful of countries would have a majority of students proficient in mathematics.

And from my own previous writing:

There are certain people in our society who are dedicated to the destruction of the public school system on ideological grounds. Most often these are conservatives (often religiously motivated) or libertarians, although certain liberal or progressive parents also choose to attack public education. These people have waged an unrelenting propaganda war against the public schools, demonizing teachers unions, demanding vouchers, insisting on ever more tests (with reductions of aid to schools that fall short in such tests, an exercise in perverse “logic” if there ever was one), demanding tax breaks for parochial schools and home schoolers, and generally spreading as many distortions about what we do for a living as possible. These politically motivated attacks have done a lot of damage to our image because a lot of people haven’t been exposed very much to our side of the story. It’s time they were.

The Public Schools Are An Integral Part of American Life. According to the Census Bureau, in October 2003 more than 85% of all American students were in the public schools. When only those not in college were considered, the public schools’ proportion of America’s student body rose to almost 87%. Those who advocate eliminating the entire system are weirdly out of touch with the realities of how big a change they are (foolishly) advocating. The public school system in the United States has been one of the greatest engines for spreading democratic values and social cohesion in American history. It is perhaps the last place in America where people from different neighborhoods, religious backgrounds, social classes, and ethnic groups interact with each other on a regular basis (outside of the armed forces, which contain a much smaller percentage of the population.) It is this massive institution that some propose removing from our nation’s life entirely, at enormous risk to our country’s future.

Americans Do Not Generally See the Public Schools as Failures. Are the American people massively dissatisfied with public education? In 2003 (to stick to the same year for comparison’s sake) the Gallup Organization surveyed Americans about their perceptions of the public schools. When asked about the quality of their own oldest child’s education, 75% indicated they were completely or somewhat satisfied. In 2004 Gallup reported the percentage of those satisfied with the public school education their own children were receiving was even higher than in 2003. Those decrying the public schools are more often simply reflecting their personal biases and not the opinion of the American people. Interestingly, in the same 2003 survey Gallup asked its sample of adults to give a letter grade to the schools nationally and their own local schools. When asked about the nation’s schools, only 26% gave them a grade of A or B, with only 2% giving the nation’s schools an A. But when asked about their local schools, 48% gave them an A or B, with 11% giving them an A. When the grade of C was factored in, 52% rated the nation’s schools as deserving this grade, but only 31% thought their local schools deserved this “average” mark. Why the discrepancy? In my opinion, it shows that the more parents are personally familiar with the school system, the better they like it. The lower perceptions they have of the nation’s schools as a whole have been fostered by the persistent attacks of those who want to bend education to their own purposes.

Are Private Schools Inherently Superior to Public Schools? There are, of course, many data that demonstrate private school students generally perform better on standardized tests than public school students. However, there are some important factors we need to remember: that children of poverty and disrupted homes are more likely to be in public schools; that special needs children are far more likely to be in public special education districts; that public schools cannot, by law, turn away any student; and that public schools are governed by an enormous number of laws and regulations specifying in detail their curricular, disciplinary and custodial boundaries. Further, it can be argued that the parents of private school children, having made a substantial investment in their children’s education, may be more involved in the personal supervision of their kids’ studies. Such variables have a deep impact on the comparisons between public and private schools. In a report published by Phi Delta Kappa on mathematics achievement comparisons between students in public and private schools (Grades 4 and 8) we find the following conclusion:

Our findings suggest that it is time for a critical reexamination of common assumptions regarding the effectiveness of public and private schools. As market-style reforms change the public school landscape, prompting many to call for various forms of privatization of schooling options, it is important to examine the evidence regarding whether private schools are, indeed, more effective than public schools. In our study, once we accounted for the fact that private schools tend to have higher-SES [socioeconomic status] students than public schools, we actually found just the opposite of what was expected: public schools outperformed private schools within each SES quartile.

In private secondary schools the student-teacher ratio can be significantly lower than in public schools. Private high schools have much more latitude in designing their academic programs than public ones. They can more readily remove disruptive students and they can be far more selective than any public high school can be in screening their applicants. 7

Are American Schools and Students Trailing the Rest of the Developed World? Many parents have heard America’s schools compared negatively to those of foreign countries. The Organisation [British spelling] for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank keep exhaustive statistics on the developed world’s educational systems. Some of the results are revealing, to say the least. Yes, the United States does have some very serious and embarrassing deficiencies. But the picture of an American school system hopelessly behind the rest of our advanced competition is not what the data tell us. The picture is more complex and varied than many would have you believe.

None of this is to argue that we can’t do better. But to assert that American kids are bringing up the rear in the advanced world’s education system is simply wrong.

Fourth. To every teacher reading this, I say: Every kid, in his or her own way, deserves respect, if only for being a human. Each of the kids has a different combination of strengths and weaknesses. In all but the worst of them, there is something positive and respectable. Even the worst kid retains a minimal claim to our consideration. He may be ratty looking, he may be temperamental, he may be obnoxious and about as charming as a hemorrhoid, but he’s still a person. Even when a disruptive or insubordinate kid is being disciplined, there are rules that should be followed that preserve a measure of that kid’s dignity. Respect is a two-way street. We forget that sometimes.

It’s easy to be critical of teenagers. They often look strange. A lot of them are trying out weird hair styles or wearing bizarre clothing. Some of them are inked, pierced, and bejeweled in startling ways. A lot of them are really immature in their behavior. They laugh at stupid things, throw cheap shots and insults at each other, horse around, play dumb tricks on their friends, and get angry at the drop of a hat. Many have an unfortunate propensity toward slacking, viewing mandatory reading as a suggestion and homework as something best avoided until 2 a.m. the night before it’s due. And so very many of them always seem to be consumed by childish, insignificant (in our eyes) little high school problems, the kinds of issues we wrestled with years ago and now see in a less urgent light. They’re worried about making the cheerleading squad or how their makeup looks or whether some girl likes them or whether they did the right math problems. They can make it really tough to take them seriously. But underneath all that is a student in your class, a resident of your district, someone’s intensely beloved son or daughter, and one of the people who will be in charge of things when you’re retired. (Sobering thought, isn’t it?) Respect them and you will help a better grown-up emerge from the chrysalis of high school.

Every single kid knows something about life that we don’t. We might never have lived with a chronic, uncontrolled alcoholic. Some of them have. We might never have seen our parents split up; a lot of them have. We might have lived in the same area all our lives; some of them have lived in a dozen different states. And a kid’s life experiences don’t even have to be anything as dramatic as these examples to teach us something. Each one of these kids has seen life from eyes through which we can never see. Part of respecting them is comprehending that. If we are open to the experience, each one of these kids can broaden and deepen our definition of what it means to be a person.

Every kid must find his or her own way, and no kid will ever do it exactly the way any other kid does. It’s something isn’t it, watching them become their own men and women. They’re trying out a lot of new roles, almost as if they were trying on outfits. They’re pretty unsure and tentative in filling those roles most of the time. But they manage. The good news is that the vast majority of them will make it through high school all right and will go on to new challenges after it’s over. (You have to keep reminding them that yes, there is indeed life after high school.) Every young man or young woman who passes through our schools successfully did it in his or her own unique way. Their ways may baffle or appall us, but in the end, sometimes against all the odds, they measure up. If you had them when they were freshmen and you see them again when they’re seniors, you’re often amazed at how they’ve changed. Each of them went through those changes in a way unlikely to be duplicated exactly by anyone. There’s something very reassuring about that, to me. It speaks to the resiliency and adaptability of the human spirit.

At the end of my last class ever I tried to keep it together but I couldn’t. I was telling the kids in my 7th hour that my family was first in my heart, but that throughout my career the young people I had known and loved had been my second family. That’s when I lost it. It was so strange. In one sense, I had been waiting for this moment for years, but in another I found it almost unbearably hard. I was no longer going to be Mr. Miller. I was no longer going to define myself as a high school teacher. And I was no longer going to get to meet any more of those young people who had sustained me, exasperated me, exhilarated me, frustrated me, amused me, and given my life its central purpose over the years. I felt a mixture of relief, joy, sorrow, and gratitude at that moment, and the emotional impact of letting go of all I had known for more than three decades overwhelmed me. I can’t really describe it, but if you’ve experienced this yourself, you know what I mean.

So I am retired now. I’m moving out of state. I am beginning a new life. I hope to tutor at least part time and work on my book about the nature of human history. I’ll watch my grandchildren grow up (their mother and they coming with us), I’ll continue to cherish my remarkable wife, and I’ll try to find a new way to define myself. But I’ll always count myself lucky. I got to tell something of the story of the human experience on this planet to more than 4,000 young men and women. I can’t think of any way I could have spent my life better than that. And I will forever be proud that I was public school teacher, a small part of that great host of millions of teachers who love and care about the young people of America. I will no longer be in the classroom.

But it will always be in me.

It Doesn't Work. Period.

So-called "abstinence only" education, that is. It's a complete failure, but that doesn't stop the Idiot Right from pushing it. New evidence:

A recent study commissioned by Congress concluded that abstinence-only programs are completely ineffective in preventing or delaying teenagers from having sexual intercourse. Nor do they lower unwanted pregnancy rates or lessen the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

The solution? Give young people accurate and honest information about sex, including information about contraception.

We can choose to live in some kind of idealized dream world where teenagers are chaste and studious and young people are imbued with "virtue"--or we can live in the world as it actually is. I choose to live in the latter.

Bob Somerby Continues to Speak the Truth

Particularly about the diseased press corps that in 2000 practically handed the presidency to an unqualified little waste of skin named George W. Bush in preference to the immensely talented and qualified Al Gore, who would have been one of America's great presidents. Somerby continues his devastating critique here. And don't forget his incomparable archives, either. He has, over the years, presented a thorough and utterly damning case for the proposition that the national press deliberately and relentlessly lied about and smeared Al Gore from 1997 onward, an attack that made the election of 2000 close enough for the right wingers to steal.

Bob Somerby: defender of historical truth.

Mr. Sensitive Strikes Again

What an asshole.

Hey Right Wingers--Live With Bush, Die With Him, Too

There are few things more absurd and wildly dishonest than the current right-wing effort to disavow George W. Bush because Bush isn't a "real" conservative. Hmmm. That's funny. When Bush was riding high the rightwingers embraced him fanatically and enthusiastically. They shouted about his conservative virtues from the rooftops. But now that Bush is widely hated and reviled, they're falling all over themselves to repudiate him. The inimitable Glenn Greenwald is having none of it--and he nails this new right-wing garbage hard:

Jonah Goldberg, May 29, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 32%)

Bush, The Liberal [Jonah Goldberg]

Richard Cohen discovers something some of us on the right have been saying for a while: if you hold your head just so and look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal.

Jonah Goldberg, November 8, 2003 (Bush approval rating - 60%)

But it is now clear that Bush's own son takes far more after his father's old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on aborrtion (sic), to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?

Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006 (Bush approval rating -- 31%):

Liberalism didn't win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side. . . . Conservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night.

Rush Limbaugh, July 7, 2004 (Bush approval rating -- 55%):

Reagan was right just as George W. Bush is today, and I really believe that if Reagan had been able he would have put his hand on Bush's shoulder and say to him, "Stay the course, George." I really believe that.

Bob Novak, March 26, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 32%):

With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

Bob Novak, March 24, 2003 -- (Bush approval rating - 65%):

[Bush is] a president who may be more basically conservative than Ronald Reagan.

National Review's Rich Lowry, January 28, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 33%):
It is, in all seriousness, it is a distressing and depressing time to be a conservative. I'm reminded of the old saying by Mao -- things are always darkest before they go completely black.
In recent years, we have watched a Republican Congress disgrace itself with its association with scandal, with its willful lack of fiscal discipline, and with its utter disinterest in the reforms that America needs. And at the same time, we watched a Republican President abet or passively accept the excesses of his Congressional party and, more importantly, fail to take the steps - until perhaps now - fail to take the steps to win a major foreign war. . . .

National Review Editorial, Rich Lowry Editor, October 22, 2004 (Bush approval rating - 52%):

In his bid for reelection, George W. Bush deserves the support of conservatives. . . . Bush has shown evidence of being able to learn from his mistakes. We have made political strides in Iraq. . . . Bush deserves conservative support, as well, on domestic issues. . . It has been a long and difficult four years, largely as a result of events not of Bush's making. For conservatives, however, backing Bush's reelection should be an easy decision.

Folks, isn't it obvious that these conservative con artists are trying to have it both ways? They are the ones who foisted the worst president history on us, and then, when this president's conservative philosophy failed--and failed utterly--they argue that he isn't really one of them! I swear, these people have more nerve, more sheer chutzpah, than any group of people I've ever seen. Don't let them get away with it. The Right chose to live with Bush; now, let it die with him, as well.

Today Was My Last Day as a High School Teacher

I'm still processing that reality. I'll get back to you later with my thoughts about it all. Right now, it seems like a dream.

On Memorial Day 2007

Thank you to all those who have sacrificed for our country. Let us honor your memory forever and extend comfort to your families.

And may there someday be an end to the adding of new names to the Roll of Honor.

The Truth About John Wayne

The screen "hero" of such epics as The Sands of Iwo Jima deliberately avoided all combat in the Second World War. The story is here, courtesy of Truthdig:

An outspoken hawk during the Vietnam War, Wayne co-directed and starred in the Pentagon-subsidized propaganda picture “The Green Berets.” Duke denounced antiwar protesters, reportedly saying: “As far as I’m concerned, it wouldn’t bother me a bit to pull the trigger on one of ’em.”

Wayne was, in reality, a draft dodger. America’s archetypal soldier was in fact a chicken hawk. He was a cheerleader and champion of militaristic patriotism and combat he had never experienced. Wayne had “other priorities” during WWII—achieving superstardom (and saving his neck) was more important than defeating fascism. Much like Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought numerous deferments during the Vietnam War, Wayne was the quintessential war wimp.

According to Pilar Wayne, her husband “would become a ‘superpatriot’ for the rest of his life trying to atone for staying home” during WWII. Like Wayne, the current crop of GOP chicken hawks are great actors, overcompensating for their previous patriotic failings (draft dodging, etc.) by sounding the jingoistic battle cry for a new generation of working-class sons and daughters to go to war. Or, as George W. Bush did in a priceless moment of Hollywood flourish, dressing up in a flight suit to declare a failing and deadly war in Iraq a “mission accomplished.”

William Manchester, in his memoir of his World War II combat experiences, Goodbye, Darkness, writes that when wounded Marines saw Wayne's image on the screen, they booed and threw things at it. The Marines knew the truth about John Wayne. Wayne may have been a great actor, but he was not a hero--and nothing should ever let us forget that. We see the echo of Wayne's hypocrisy in the current crop of Chickenhawks--and nothing should ever let us forget that, either.

Henry Kissinger on the Men Who Serve America

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger

Bastard. Filthy right-wing bastard.

An Amazing Article That Deserves Your Attention

It's called, "Greetings from Idiot America" and in it Charles Pierce lays out the most devastating analysis of our current crisis I have ever seen. The gist of Pierce's argument is that many Americans have come to hate and fear anyone who actually knows what he or she is talking about, preferring instead to act from "The Gut", the irrational, unthinking, primitive, instinctive part of the brain. Pierce's words are ferocious and savage, cutting right to heart of our national tragedy. Key excerpts from Pierce's 2005 article that originally appeared in Esquire:

LET'S TAKE A TOUR, shall we? For the sake of time, we'll just cover the last year or so. A federally funded abstinence program suggests that HIV can be transmitted through tears. An Alabama legislator proposes a bill to ban all books by gay authors. The Texas House passes a bill banning suggestive cheerleading. And nobody laughs at any of it, or even points out that, in the latter case, having Texas ban suggestive cheerleading is like having Nebraska ban corn. James Dobson, a prominent conservative Christian spokesman, compares the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan. Pat Robertson, another prominent conservative preacher, says that federal judges are a more serious threat to the country than is Al Qaeda and, apparently taking his text from the Book of Gambino, later sermonizes that the United States should get with it and snuff the democratically-elected president of Venezuela.

The Congress of the United States intervenes to extend into a televised spectacle the prolonged death of a woman in Florida. The majority leader of the Senate, a physician, pronounces a diagnosis based on heavily edited videotape. The majority leader of the House of Representatives argues against cutting-edge research into the use of human stem cells by saying that "an embryo is a person... We were all at one time embryos ourselves. So was Abraham. So was Muhammad. So was Jesus of Nazareth." Nobody laughs at him or points out that the same could be said of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or whoever invented the baby-back rib.

And, finally, in August, the cover of Time—for almost a century the dyspeptic voice of the American establishment—clears its throat, hems and haws and hacks like a headmaster gagging on his sherry, and asks, quite seriously: "Does God have a place in science class?"

Fights over creationism—and its faddish new camouflage, intelligent design, a pseudoscience that posits without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural causes must be considered—roil up school districts across the country.

The president of the United States announces that he believes ID ought to be taught in the public schools on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. And in Dover, Pennsylvania, during one of these many controversies, a pastor named Ray Mummert delivers the line that both ends our tour and, in every real sense, sums it up: "We've been attacked," he says, "by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

And there it is. Idiot America is not the place where people say silly things. It's not the place where people believe in silly things. It is not the place where people go to profit from the fact that people believe in silly things. Idiot America is not even those people who believe that Adam named the dinosaurs. Those people pay attention. They take notes. They take the time and the considerable mental effort to construct a worldview that is round and complete. The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents—for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power—the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

In the place of expertise, we have elevated the Gut, and the Gut is a moron, as anyone who has ever tossed a golf club, punched a wall, or kicked an errant lawn mower knows. We occasionally dress up the Gut by calling it "common sense." The president's former advisor on medical ethics regularly refers to the "yuck factor." The Gut is common. It is democratic. It is the roiling repository of dark and ancient fears. Worst of all, the Gut is faith-based.

Yes, folks, people who believe that Adam and Eve played with dinosaurs are idiots, and there's no other way to put it. Unfortunately, many of these idiots are now in power. The capture of our political process by this terrifying irrationalism constitutes as grave a threat to America's future as Islamic fundamentalism. (I notice, by the way, a growing alliance between the militant Christian fundamentalists and the militant Muslims, especially in the areas of creationism, the crushing of women's rights, and the violent persecution of gays.) Pierce has courageously called our attention to this situation in the bluntest terms. You owe it yourself to read the entire article--and then vow to take action.

They STILL Don't Give a Damn

Despite recent phony rhetoric, the Bush Administration intends to do absolutely nothing about the global climate crisis. The BBC has the story of a proposed G8 global warming document here:

Correspondents say the document hints at a looming struggle over the issue of climate change at the G8 summit, to be held on 6-8 June in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to use Germany's presidency of the G8 to secure a major climate change deal, including:

--Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C

--A cut in global emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050

--A rise in energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.

Greenpeace Director John Sauven described the US position as "criminal".

"The US administration is clearly ignoring the global scientific consensus as well the groundswell of concern about climate change in the United States," he said.

Yes, criminal is a good way to describe it. Ignoring massive scientific evidence--as usual--the Bush regime is willing to sacrifice the well-being of billions of people to protect its cronies in the oil industry. Big Oil is fighting tooth and nail against doing anything about global warming, and in fact is spearheading a disinformation campaign that is spreading lies about the nature of the problem. (You can check it out for yourself here.) The U.S. produces about 25% of the world's greenhouse gases. China, the other big polluter, won't do anything substantial if we don't. Thus, the Bush right-wing Republican position is effectively destroying the international effort to slow or reverse the effects of warming, effects which are indisputably tied to human activity. Once again, the Oil Men in the White House have proven that when it comes to the lives of ordinary people, they still don't give a damn.

You shouldn't be surprised.

A Look Into the Future

Very cool.

Shooting Down Neo-Confederate BS

The next time you hear some apologist for the Confederacy talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" or hear him asserting that the South fought only to defend itself and its way of life, remind him of what Mississippi's state government said was its reason for seceding:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

(Thanks to a poster named "ahermit" on HuffPo for pointing this out.)

The Civil War was about SLAVERY. It was, from the southern point of view, an attempt to PRESERVE HUMAN SLAVERY and to DESTROY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It was a loathsome, repulsive act of TREASON and the leaders of the rebellion were TRAITORS who should all have been HANGED. The defense of the display of the Confederate flag is nothing more than an attempt to GLORIFY TREASON. It has NOTHING to do with "heritage" and it has everything to do with RACIAL HATRED AND VICIOUS BIGOTRY. (Heritage? Virginia became an English colony 400 years ago. Virginia was part of the Confederacy for four years. How does 1% of the state's historical experience become its "heritage"? Mississippi was part of the Confederacy for 2% of its statehood history. Some "heritage".) The Republicans who defend the Confederate flag are KISSING THE ASS OF RACISTS in order to win the votes of RIGHT WING REDNECK IDIOT NEANDERTHAL PINHEADS.

Have I made my position clear?

Bush to Troops: You're Not Worth the Extra Money

This kind of crap just makes me crazy.

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

You see, the White House says the wonderful benefits package that the military provides will close the gap. Some might disagree with that, in light of the disgusting treatment of our troops at the hands of Halliburton. And others might point out the many troubles plaguing the VA. But hey, it's the Bush Administration. They wouldn't lie, would they?

Mr. "Support Our Troops" strikes again.

On the Death of Falwell

He repeatedly stirred up hatred against gays. He lied through his teeth about Bill Clinton and hurled every vicious smear against the Clintons he could think of. He was consistently dishonest, a complete moral fraud, and a pseudo-Christian. He was a tyrant who wanted to see science driven out of the schools and a theocracy established in our nation. He had extensive ties to far-right psychotic and financier Sun Myung Moon. He was moral ugliness and hypocrisy personified. So I have no tears to shed for this wretched man. Eric Alterman has more here.

Good riddance.

UPDATE: Think I'm being too rough? Check out the Falwell quotes from this article.

Wow! An Absolute Must-Read From Digby

Haven't you wondered about the perversity of much of our Washington-based political commentariat? They exploded with rage when Bill Clinton lied about sex, but they've tried their damnedest to prop up a dishonest little silver-spooned rich boy who blundered and lied this country into its worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. They are a self-designated elite who hold the rest of the country in utter contempt while pretending to be in touch with "ordinary Americans". They consider Washington to be "their" town. Now Digby, on Hullaballoo, has ripped into this sick, perverse, inbred group of losers with surgical, laser-like precision--and it's a devastating indictment. Excerpt:

When the equally phony George W. Bush came to town it was love at first sight, and why wouldn't it be? Here you had a man whom these people could truly admire --- a rich man of the bluest blood, born into one of the most powerful families in America who nonetheless pretended to be some hick from Midland Texas. He took great pride in his phoniness, just as they did, and they all danced this absurd kabuki in perfect step for years each pretending to the other that they were all "just regular guys."

You can see then why some of us have concluded that the Dean [David Broder] and his cadre of establishment courtiers don't actually care much about what "the people" think about anything. And it should also be obvious why we are so skeptical of their reporting skills when they venture out on their anthropological expeditions to find only examples of Americans who strangely hew to their own Hollywood casting of themselves -- an America of Sally Quinns warmly played by plucky Donna Reed and David Broder himself, brought to life by loveable Wilfred Brimleys. ("They came in and they trashed the place. And it's not their place." Can't you just hear it?)

Of course political reporters should go out and interview Americans and write stories about what those Americans have to say about the issues of the day. But those interviews are not any more representative of what "the people" as a whole think than are the liberal blogs or Sally Quinn's fictitious "small town" or the fans at a NASCAR race. This is especially true when it's filtered through the phony bourgeois posturings of a bunch of highly paid reporters and insiders who have contrived a self-serving little passion play in which they are regular blue collar guys from Buffalo and corn fed farmers from the Midwest (Real Americans!) who just happen to summer on Nantucket and get invitations to white tie state dinners with the Queen of England. Pardon us fringe dwellers for being just a tad skeptical that these forays out into "America" are informing us about anything more [than] the embarrassing neuroses of some very spoiled elites.

Nothing I have read recently sums it up better. I urge you to read the whole thing--and then pass it on.

Greenwald Lays the Hurt on Broder the Fraud

Man, if this were a boxing match, the ref would have stopped it. Glenn Greenwald absolutely destroys David Broder and the entire corrupt "Beltway" culture he represents. In a reply to Joe Klein, Greenwald takes issue with Klein's defense of the "Dean" of the political press corps. Excerpts:

Broder seems to have absolutely no idea that the country has turned against George Bush and his war to a historic and irreversible degree, and no cute and clever Rove-designed platitudes at a Press Conference will change that. Anyone remotely in touch with the political sentiments of "Americans" would know that.

Klein should also look here, where some of Broder's most out-of-touch and obtuse observations are collected -- including:

* Broder's 2005 canonization of Bush ("the quest for freedom . . . is a central purpose of his administration");

* his November, 2004 criticisms of Bush critics for what he said were misguided concerns that the Bush presidency was radical ("he will have to work within the system for whatever he gets. Checks and balances are still there");

* his November 1, 2004 proclamation that the country likes Bush personally far more than Gore and Kerry and that "the country is truly conservative";

* his April, 2003 decree that "there is little the Democrats can do to shatter the reputation for strong leadership Bush has built, and not much their presidential candidates can do to win equal reputations for themselves";

* his May 2003 confession that "I like Karl Rove" followed by a very moving reminiscence of the quality time he was able to spend with Rove in Austria when (just like the ordinary people): "Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution and I were assembling a cast of American politicians to address a group of 40 emerging political leaders from Western Europe, the former Soviet bloc, Asia and Africa, I suggested we invite Karl Rove to be one of the instructors";

* his October 2002 "report" where he explained how Don Rumsfeld personally invited him to the Pentagon to explain how Iraq is such a grave threat, and at the meeting, Rumsfeld "pulled out a pencil and drew me a simple chart -- a downward sloping line tracing the erosion of Iraq's conventional military strength in the decade since the Gulf War, and an upward sloping line showing its growing store of WMD - weapons of mass destruction." Based on Rumsfeld's crude and condescending scribblings, an obviously flattered Broder pronounced: "Rumsfeld left me with the impression that he is aware of the risks of war with Iraq, but confident they can be handled." And finally:

* his October 2002 attack against protestors trying to stop the Iraq War with meetings in Iraq: "It was all too reminiscent of Jane Fonda in Hanoi or antiwar protesters marching under Viet Cong flags."

Last year, Broder decided to spew pure caricature and cliche about the ordinary people he loves so much by claiming that only [a] few Democrats "have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

In sum, Broder has propped up one of the most unpopular and corrupt presidencies in history, all after he spent years waxing hysteric over a deeply popular President and a sex scandal that Americans by and large thought was petty and inconsequential. Time and again, David Broder is on the wrong side of every critical political issue. His judgment proves again and again to be worthless and misguided. And his opinions could not be any more detached from the "ordinary Americans" he thinks he represents.

In truth, Broder is a fraud, a shill for Bush and Cheney (he is, as I recall, Cheney's personal friend) and representative of everything that is wrong with our lapdog political press. Greenwald is right: the "Washington Beltway" insiders ARE the problem in this country, and only a peaceful revolution that displaces them can correct it.

Hmmm. What Could Be Causing This?

New Video on Government Corruption

Here.

Haw!!

Refuting the Big Lie of the "Failing" Public Schools

The buffoons who make education policy in this country at the federal level (and the equally buffoonish commentators on education) never tire of touting standardized test scores as "proof" of the failure of American public schools. As a teacher, I naturally take umbrage at these accusations of incompetence. So I always enjoy seeing these people made to look foolish in articles like this by Gerald Bracey. Key finding:

By comparing the results of foreign students and American students on tests administered in both nations, and then examining the American students' scores on the U.S. NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress], it is possible to reliably estimate how well foreign students would perform on the NAEP.

And it turns out that only one-third of those high-flying Swedish kids would be considered proficient readers; the NAEP figure for U.S. fourth-graders was 29 percent. The great majority of the remaining countries would have fewer proficient students than the United States. Using the NAEP standard, no country comes close to having a majority of proficient readers.

Under the NAEP standard, Singapore is the only nation in the world to have a majority of its students be proficient in science, and that by a scant 1 percent. Only a handful of countries would have a majority of students proficient in mathematics.

And yet the NAEP results are constantly used to flog the public schools and scare Americans into thinking that education is in a state of collapse in this country. The reasons this is done are often quite simple: opponents of the very idea of public schools want to take over the education system. These are the John Stossels of the world, driven by ideological motives, who constantly lie about the public schools in order to destroy them. Articles like Bracey's are a refreshing antidote to such lies. Read the whole thing, as they say in blogdom, and see if you don't agree.

Job One: Save the Bees!!

This is pretty alarming, to say the least.

"The Commander Guy"??

Good God, is this guy six friggin' years old or what??

The Bush-Cheney-Kristol-Rumsfeld-McCain Catastrophe: By the Numbers

Courtesy of Think Progress.

On the Fourth Anniversary of "Mission Accomplished", Bush Betrays the Troops--Again

Glenn Greenwald recalls, in scathing fashion, the disgusting groveling and media worship enjoyed by Commander Codpiece four years ago today as he pranced around on the deck of an aircraft carrier, playing dressup so he could feel like a Real Man. (And worship it was. Was there anything more cringe-inducing than Chris Matthews' homoerotic verbal fellating of the Boy King at that time?) This was one of the low points in the history of the modern American media (and that says something).

Now, four years later, with more than 3,300 Americans dead for no good reason, with an Iraqi death toll perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, and $500 billion squandered, the Emperor With No Clothes has vetoed a bill for merely suggesting that a timetable for withdrawal be set. The lack of funding for our troops is Bush's fault. It is he, and he alone, who is holding the process up. Like a spoiled, petulant child, Bush's idea of compromise is "Give me everything I want and don't ask any questions." Well to HELL with that. I hope the Democrats throw the same bill in his g-d damned face again and again until it is abundantly clear who has betrayed America's fighting men and women.

And while we're at it, why is Condoleeza Rice allowed to simply ignore a congressional subpoena? Whatever happened to contempt of Congress?

Democrats, dig in your heels and FIGHT. The people of America are counting on you.

UPDATE: By the way, let's help this go viral.

When Are People Going to Stop Taking Broder the Fool Seriously?

I am convinced that our political pundits and commentators are, as a group, among the very worst on the planet. There are the obvious right wing sociopaths, of course--Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, O'Beirne, Boortz, Savage, Stossel, O'Reilly, and all the other bottom feeders, trolls, and chronic liars. Then there are the less obvious but even more dangerous "political experts"--Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and especially David Broder. They're more dangerous because they seem superficially reasonable, and yet they stick the knife in the backs of Democrats just about any chance they get, while playing softball with the right wing criminals that are killing America. Broder stands out as the most dangerous of all because of his high status as the "Dean" of American political reporters. MediaMatters, however, has the Dean's number--and his record. Here is a generous sample:

In 1998, Broder suggested President Clinton should resign, apparently because he "he may well have lied to a federal grand jury." Read that again: Broder wasn't even sure if he thought Clinton lied to a federal grand jury, but thought he should resign. Because maybe he lied. About an affair.

But in 2006, Broder wrote that President Bush "has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution." Did he think this "lawless and reckless" president who "repeatedly defied the Constitution" should resign? If he thought so, he did not tell us. Broder believes his president is a lawless man who repeatedly defies the Constitution -- yet this superman, this titan, this great and influential man will not say it is time for the president to step down. Now, if Bush "may well have lied" about sex ... then, perhaps this titan would be stirred to speak out a little more boldly.

Broder has repeatedly and disingenuously defended his window-peering coverage of the Clintons' marriage, despite having previously denounced such journalism. He hasn't entirely abandoned his earlier stance, though: when asked if he would write a similar article about Republican candidates, Broder replied: "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that." He is, however, "the most objective and respected reporter" Tim Russert knows.

In 2002, when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a prominent leader in the Republican Party, was forced to step down from his leadership position after suggesting the country would have been better off had we elected a segregationist president in 1948, David Broder explained that the "losers" in the matter were ... Democrats, because four years earlier, they hadn't impeached President Clinton.

In 2005, Broder blamed Democrats -- who were in the minority in both the House and the Senate -- for Congress' failure to conduct oversight hearings. Which, of course, they didn't have the power to do, being in the minority and all. Then, in March 2007 -- just two months into Democratic control of Congress -- Broder complained that the House had "slowed to a crawl," doing little other than "filling time with investigations." Later that month, Broder claimed "Democrats find it easier to investigate than to legislate. ... Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives." In yet another March column, Broder warned, "It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves ... with more investigations ... At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for. People already know what they're against -- the Republicans."

So, when Democrats didn't control Congress, David Broder thought that oversight hearings were good, and blamed Democrats -- who lacked the authority to conduct such hearings -- for their absence. Now that Democrats control Congress, Broder warns Democrats not to conduct oversight investigations.

In 2005, Broder actually touted President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. 'Nuff said.

In December 2006, Broder praised Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as "stalwarts of economic and national security policy." No, really.

And this Bush-Cheney apologist is the "best of the best" as he has been called? He thinks Bush did a good job in handling Katrina?!? He thinks Clinton should have resigned for lying about having affair but thinks Bush should stay in office even though Broder has called Bush lawless and blamed him for starting the war?!? What in the hell kind of "logic" is that?!?

Yes, friends, this is the true state of political commentary in America. Whatever happens, according to the pundits, is basically bad for Democrats. All blame rests on the Democrats, even for events over which they had no control. Democrats are "inauthentic" and "elitist". The narrative is simple: People like Cheney are the "serious adults" while Democrats are "shrill". It is this crackbrained cheerleading for the Right that has dragged this country to the brink of catastrophe. Yes, Broder has criticized Bush, but his real fire has been reserved for Bush's enemies--the people trying to save America. Broder has been consistently wrong in his judgments. It is time for him to suffer the ultimate fate of all those who wrongly imagine themselves to be deep thinking and insightful:

To be ignored.

Keith Olbermann (Verbally) Caves Giuliani's Head In

It's a thing of beauty, and it's right here.

Oh baby.

Broder's Boy Bounces All the Way Down to 28%

Aging knucklehead David Broder recently speculated that President Dimwit might be in for a "surge" of support, a "bounce", if you will.

Oh, too bad, Davey. Your hero is down to 28% approval--the lowest of his rotten, miserable excuse for a presidency.

Retire, Broder. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Tom Tomorrow Exposes the Right Wing Idiots

Step Right Up, Folks!

Get your Republican Chickenhawk cards right here! My faves:

The Truth About Mass Murderers

And it sure as hell ain't what the pathetic, fat assed, hated-by-women, drug addict, draft dodger says it is.

No. As in HELL NO

Republicans are floating the name Ted Olson as a possible replacement for disgraced and politically crippled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Olson was the head of the so-called "Arkansas Project" in the 1990s, a project organized to "get" Bill Clinton and lay the basis for the hideous farce of his impeachment. Olson is one of the most corrupt people in our country, a complete and total political hack of the worst kind. Pensito Review has the story:

Now there is word that Republican officials in D.C. are seriously proposing Ted Olson to replace Gonzo. Digby asks, “Is this some kind of a joke?”

Knowing Ted Olson’s history, the answer is sadly no.

During the 1990s, the GOP ran a stealth disinformation campaign against the Clintons, the prototype for Swiftboating, out of the offices of the American Spectator, a rightwing magazine. Internally, the operation was called the Arkansas Project. Hillary famously referred to it as a “vast rightwing conspiracy.” It was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and its CEO was Ted Olson,
At the same time, Olson’s wife, Barbara, was one of a cadre of wingnut blondes — the others were Ann Coulter, Kellyann Fitzpatrick and Laura Ingraham — who were given untold hours of face time on cable news to bash the Clintons with rumors and innuendos, much of which was processed through the Arkansas Project. Barbara, the author of a bizarrely nasty screed titled “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” died on the plane that hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

In late 2000, Ted Olson argued for the Bush/Cheney campaign in the Bush v. Gore. For this, he was rewarded with the position of solicitor general, a job once held by his friend Ken Starr, the Whitewater special investigator who spent $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to smear the Clintons with allegations, much of which were generated by the Arkansas Project, but came up emptyhanded except for an unrelated sex lie and stained blue dress.

And the Republicans want THIS son of a bitch to be the head of the Justice Department??? If Olson is nominated and the Democrats help confirm him, then I'm out of the Democratic Party. Period.

If You Want to Know ...

Why Bush and his thugs were allowed to pull off the coup d'etat in 2000 that stole the presidency from its rightful winner, Al Gore...

Why the major media ignored Bush's utter corruption, lies, and complete lack of qualifications...

Why the major media failed in their job of questioning the basis on which the Iraq War was started, and why they have dismissed or ignored the lies that led to the war...

Why the major media have been Bush's good little lapdogs...

Check this out:




And then, decide to do something about it.

Bill Maher on the Rampage Again

Beautiful. Just simply beautiful.

You know, if you played a drinking game where you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being elite, you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I - I don't get it. In other fields outside of government, "elite" is a good thing, like an "elite" fighting force; Tiger Woods is an "elite" golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an "elite" doctor. But, in politics, "elite" is bad. The "elite" aren't down to earth and accessible like you and me and President Sh*t-for-brains.

Which is fine, except that whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from?

Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding. Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College... And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.

And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.

Ha! Gawd, I love it!

Ah, Is There Hope for the Future?

What in the Hell is He Talking About??

Is he drinking again? Is he off his meds? Take a look at this and tell me he's operating with a full deck.

Want to Reduce Abortion, Teen Pregnancy, and STDs?

In light of the controversial Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on the procedure that is commonly (and misleadingly called) "partial birth abortion", I thought it might be interesting to look at some ways we can reduce the incidence of abortion and other sexually-related problems. And it turns out the answer is a "radical" one:

TALK TO KIDS ABOUT HUMAN SEXUALITY OPENLY AND HONESTLY, AND GIVE THEM COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION ABOUT REPRODUCTION AND BIRTH CONTROL.

I swear to God, the attitudes about sex in this country are so utterly screwed up that it sometimes drives me to despair. "Cultural conservatives" have done epic damage to this country in many ways, but none worse than in the pervasive hypocrisy about sex that plagues our culture. (And I'm not just talking about conservatives who spew a line of self-righteous crap and then roll around in bed with male hookers while high on meth.) A lot of people seem to think--idiotically--that if we preach "abstinence only" to our kids that we'll magically convince them not to engage in sexual activity. If it weren't for the human tragedies that result from this nonsense, "abstinence only" sex education would be funny. Folks, let's face it--kids are going to be interested in masturbation, oral sex, and intercourse no matter how much we tell them not to be. The results of our kids' sexual ignorance have grown too serious to ignore. We need a better way, and I think I've found it:

Follow the Dutch and German examples.

This article here lays it out beyond dispute: Sex education and sexual attitudes in Europe have a lot to teach us in this country. To wit:

Pregnancy

In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany.

Birth

In the United States, the teen birth rate is nearly 11 times higher than that of the Netherlands, nearly five times higher than the rate in France, and nearly four times higher than that in Germany.

Abortion

In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France.

HIV in Young Women and Men

In the United States, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young men ages 15 to 24 is over five times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, and about 1 ½ times higher than that in France.

In the United States, the estimated HIV prevalence rate in young women ages 15 to 24 is six times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly three times higher than the rate in the Netherlands, and is the same as that in France.

Syphilis

In the United States, the teen syphilis rate is over six times higher than that of the Netherlands, over five times higher than the rate in former West Germany, and nearly three times higher than that in former East Germany. Data are not available for France.

Gonorrhea

In the United States, the teen gonorrhea rate is over 74 times higher than that in the Netherlands and France, over 66 times higher than the rate in former West Germany, and over 38 times higher than that in former East Germany.

Chlamydia

In the United States, the teen chlamydia rate is over 20 times higher than that in France. Data are not available for Germany or the Netherlands.

Despite what George Bush and his fanatical right-wing idiot supporters believe, it is KNOWLEDGE that fights the very things they are supposedly most opposed to, not the SUPPRESSION of knowledge. Don't want your kid to get pregnant, get someone pregnant, have an abortion, or get an STD? Then TELL THEM THE TRUTH--and show the boys how to strap on a condom and explain the pill to girls. Tell the kids something else as well--that they don't need to have sex to prove themselves adults, and they don't have to have sex to live up to other people's expectations. But above all, acknowledge their sexual natures--and show them how to handle their sexuality like real adults do--openly, candidly, and honestly.

The Myth of a Celibate and "Virtuous" Past

It's fascinating how the Internet can lead you into all sorts of tangents. I saw an item on Sullivan linking to an item on Reason that linked to a study on sexual behavior in the United States (and the utter failure of "abstinence only" sex education). I saw the following astonishing information:

By the way, a new report, Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, finds that most Americans have been enjoying premarital sex for a long time. To wit:

Contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

Well, well, well. Wouldya lookee there. Looks like most people in this country have a premarital roll in the hay despite any religious or parental warnings not to. Maybe we should gear our country's sex ed policies to the way life really is, rather than fantasies based on a world that never existed--namely, the fantasy of the celibate-before-marriage past.

Why do you think so many of our parents and grandparents are kind of "hazy" about the circumstances that caused them to get married so young?

The Sewer of Right Wing Hate Radio

MediaMatters has a tremendous post here that makes an excellent point: the cleaning up of American radio cannot logically end with the elimination of Don Imus. In fact, for years the (Republican) elephant in the media room has been the astonishing outpouring of the most vile bigotry and slander by the radical right on the nation's airwaves.

The phrase "liberal media" has always been a fiction, but no more so than in regard to radio. (Paul Harvey has been spewing out tiresome conservative platitudes since the 1940s, but at least he has been generally civil.) The real right wing nutcases began to appear on the airwaves in much of the country in the 1950s. Beginning with conservative loudmouths Joe Pyne (nationally) and Howard Miller (in the Chicago area), the right's ugliness proliferated. Morton Downey, Jr. kept the ball rolling nicely (he was Limbaugh's immediate predecessor) and then the floodgates were opened: the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Ronald Reagan. After that, the Right's dominance spread even faster. Rational dialogue? Reasoned arguments? An examination of all sides of a controversy? Who needs that crap? It proved to be much more profitable to appeal to hatred, anger, prejudice, and the hunger for brainless, simplistic "answers" to every complex problem. (Can there be a more repulsive example of "discussion" than a knuckle dragging Limbaugh listener from the 90s shouting, "Ditto!"?)

In many parts of the country, the far right viewpoint is the ONLY one which is EVER heard. I've been told that to drive through the Deep South during the Clinton presidency and listen to the radio was to be exposed to an unceasing flood of mindless hatred and preposterous lies. And the cancer of the Fox "News" personalities has only exacerbated an already awful situation. (Really, how can there be a just God when people like Sean Hannity are allowed anywhere near a job that doesn't involve the serving of fast food?) Right wing hate radio has been the chief engine of Republican electoral success and a key instrument in the conservative "culture war" (i.e., the war against the rest of America). It has also pandered to the worst instincts of its audience. Here's a lovely example of radical right wing Republican trash that MediaMatters didn't cite--Bob Grant, who was ultimately fired:

One of Grant's favorite words for African-Americans is "savages": The U.S., he said (1/6/92), has "millions of sub-humanoids, savages, who really would feel more at home careening along the sands of the Kalahari or the dry deserts of eastern Kenya--people who, for whatever reason, have not become civilized." He declared (10/15/93) that "if they didn't observe Martin King Day, there would be trouble from the savages." Apologists for Grant say that he only uses "savages" to refer to rioters and criminals (as if applying racial stereotypes to criminals was not racist).

But it isn't true: Grant has referred to black churchgoers as "screaming savages" (4/30/93); he's said (7/15/93) that black fraternity members represent "the savage mind, the primitive, primordial mentality." After overcrowding at a charity event led to deaths, Grant referred to the crowd (1/6/92) as "the 3,000 to 5,000 savages who showed up for the rap stars' basketball game."

Read the MediaMatters article and then add your own observations. To me, the solution to this is obvious: a Democratic president, an increased Democratic majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate to allow the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine--and a crushing blow to the Right Wing Noise Machine that has so poisoned and sickened political discussion in our country.

This is Why Don Imus Deserves to Be Fired

He's a foul-mouthed, pinheaded bigot. I'm sick of these pricks like Imus and Limbaugh getting a free pass (or else simply being slapped on the wrist) and then returned to their places of media prominence. To hell with them. And no, don't give me this "you're just a Politically Correct fanatic" bullshit. People who say that simply want to make the public expression of raving ethnic and gender hatred respectable. You can say whatever you want, but you're not entitled to a national radio and TV show on which to say it.

Here, by the way, is collection of Donny Boy's "witticisms". See if you can keep your sides from splitting.

A Disgusting Phenomenon

The people who pull this crap deserve to have the book thrown at them.

Henry Kissinger: War Criminal

Can there really be any doubt, in light of recent revelations, that Henry Kissinger is the most remorseless and unprincipled war criminal in American history? This outstanding article is a summary of Kissinger's appalling career. It was Kissinger that goaded Richard Nixon into prolonging the Vietnam War for purely political reasons from 1969 to 1972. It was Kissinger who helped push Cambodia into disaster in 1969 and 1970 through a campaign of illegal and massively excessive bombing. It was Kissinger who "tilted" U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan at a time when the people of East Pakistan were being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands in 1971. It was Kissinger who aided the overthrow of Chile's government in 1973. It was Kissinger who gave U.S. approval to Indonesia's extermination of the East Timorese that began in 1975. It was Kissinger that Bush tried to put in charge of the 9/11 "investigation" (in order to bury it). And it was Henry Kissinger who flattered our shockingly unfit "president" into believing that invading Iraq would be a good idea and that he, Bush, would be considered a courageous figure for prosecuting the war.

Through all this Kissinger has maintained a brutal, callous indifference to human suffering, sacrificing all considerations to realpolitik. He has repeatedly sneered at those who raised human rights concerns. And he has been perfectly willing to look the other way as governments of which he approved committed the most egregious crimes. From Human Rights Watch, discussing Argentina's brutal government in the 1970s:

Recently declassified U.S. government documents reveal the strong support given by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to the Argentine military junta in 1976, at a time when the junta was responsible for massive human rights abuses. According to a record of a conversation between Kissinger and Argentina’s then-Foreign Minister, Adm. César Augusto Guzzetti, Kissinger told Guzzetti: “[I]f there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. [Emphasis added.] But you should get back quickly to normal procedures.” The documents show how Kissinger undermined efforts by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. ambassador in Argentina to press the Argentine military to stop the abuses.

In other words, beat, torture, and murder whomever you need to and then get back to normal.

Henry Kissinger, Republican, has been a cancer on our nation's foreign policy for more than 30 years. He is utterly amoral and willing to countenance any barbarism in the name of his perverted sense of "national interest". He's old now, but I want him to end his life in prison. I know it won't happen, of course.

But in a truly just universe, it would.

Fun With Optical Illusions

or delusions.

Cheney is Insane and Must Be Removed From Office

He continues to insist on a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda (and by implication a link between Saddam and 9/11) despite ALL EVIDENCE, including a statement from Bush himself. He is living in a "reality" that exists entirely in his own mind--clear evidence of delusion.

...a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period.

Cheney is mentally incompetent. The lunatic Neocon dreamworld that he lives in has become a mortal threat to our nation's survival. We all realize that Cheney is evil. Now we have to recognize an additional fact:

This son of a bitch is crazy.

Well, Well, Well. Look Who's in the Lead

And he's an actual living, breathing Democrat.

Bravo, John Edwards!

He pulls out of the proposed Fox-sponsored Congressional Black Caucus debate on 23 September and issues the following statement:

"We just called the CBC to let them know that we're looking forward to their January debate with CNN but we're not going to participate in the proposed debate with Fox. The CBC champions critical issues that matter enormously to the future of our country, and we look forward to discussing them throughout this campaign and at their debate in January. But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective. If there was any uncertainty as to Fox's objectivity, it was put to rest when they attacked Democratic candidates, Democratic constituency groups, and the Nevada Democratic party when their last proposed debate was cancelled for lack of support."

Outstanding! Fox is not a legitimate news organization. It's a refuge for right wing hacks, liars, and character assassins. Way to go, John! Screw 'em!

America Stands With Nancy Pelosi

And it stands against the insane, radical right wing agenda of Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, Kristol, and all of the other conservative criminals who are killing this country with their lies, their malice, and their almost unbelievable incompetence. Aiding and abetting these criminals are many in the so-called "mainstream media" who have been stupidly and irresponsibly attacking Pelosi. Glenn Greenwald lays down a crushing smackdown of these idiots here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The "liberal media" phrase is a lie, a myth, utter BS. The so-called MSM are virulently anti-Democratic Party and they kowtow to every right wing fruitcake and nutjob in America. Russert, Matthews, and all of their enablers try to give the appearance of being "fair" but the only thing we Democrats, independents, progressives, liberals, and moderates ever get from them isn't an an even hand--it's the back of it.

He Still Refuses to Withdraw!

Click here for the full story!

The "Recovery": A Farce

And the right wingers are STILL lying through their teeth about the "great economy".

BTW, note the strong increase in corporate profits--the only "positive" sign.

A weak "recovery"+flat or dropping wages+record government debt+a collapsing housing market+foreign policy catastrophe=disaster for the Republicans in 2008.

An Interesting Quote by Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh actually said this several years ago, but I thought it would be appropriate to post it today, the 39th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King:

"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed."

Ray was the confessed murderer of Dr. King.

Great Moments in Conservative History: 1980

Ronald Reagan speaks at the Neshoba County, Mississippi fair as part of his 1980 campaign. His use of the phrase "I believe in states rights" sends a clear message to the huge white crowd gathered to see him. Neshoba County was where three young civil rights workers had been killed in 1964. There was in 1980 as yet no conviction for these crimes. An account of Reagan's visit and its connection to the "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party can be found here.
(And yes, I voted for Reagan in 1980, but I'm not sure I would have in light of this.)

This has been another...GREAT MOMENT IN CONSERVATIVE HISTORY!

Great Moments in Conservative History: 1921

The Tulsa, Oklahoma race riot that may have killed more than 300 African-Americans. Read about it here.

This has been another...GREAT MOMENT IN CONSERVATIVE HISTORY!

Pathological Liars or Complete Idiots?

You decide.

Hatch and Limbaugh: made for each other.

The Real Power Watches From a Distance

And in a spectacular display, Cheney's mouth didn't move once while Bush was "speaking".

Are You Surprised? I Wish I Were

Transcripts from secret recordings of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon during Nixon's presidency. (From Robert Dallek in this month's Vanity Fair):

Using language that has a painfully contemporary echo, Kissinger and Nixon very quickly came to private conclusions about Vietnam that they never revealed publicly and denied entertaining. "In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation. "But you and I know it won't happen—it is impossible." Even so, according to Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled "the party of surrender." When someone told Kissinger that Nixon could not be re-elected, because of Vietnam, he disputed it and added, according to a memo of a conversation, that "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can," and that "we will get out of Vietnam before the [1972] election." Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Kissinger cautioned that, if North Vietnam then de-stabilized Saigon during the following year, events could have an adverse effect on the president's campaign. According to Haldeman's diaries, Kissinger advocated a pullout in the fall of 1972, "so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." He apparently had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost by deliberately prolonging the war. Just before a peace treaty was signed, Kissinger in a phone conversation advised Nixon against stating that this was a "lasting peace or guaranteed peace because this thing is almost certain to blow up sooner or later."

I'm old enough to remember the way Vietnam fractured this nation. I'm also not shocked to see the ugly cynicism and calculation by Nixon and Kissinger. And I'm not surprised in the least to see the Republicans using the same filthy tactics against critics of a war that should never have been fought.

Remember this story if you're ever standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington.

Simply Beautiful

This is so freaking cool. (I would suggest going full screen on this, by the way.)

Conservative Heroes: Jesse Helms

Savor the profundity of these wonderful quotes!

"To rob the Negro of his reputation of thinking through a problem in his own fashion is about the same as trying to pretend that he doesn't have a natural instinct for rhythm and for singing and dancing."

"The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (Commenting on civil rights demonstrations.)

When a caller to CNN's Larry King Live show praised guest Jesse Helms for "everything you've done to help keep down the niggers," Helms' response was to salute the camera and say, "Well, thank you, I think." (Wilmington Star-News, 9/16/95)

There's more. Check 'em all out!

Jesse Helms...CONSERVATIVE HERO!

Great Moments in Conservative History: 1964

Angered by President Lyndon Johnson's embrace of civil rights for all Americans, conservative Strom Thurmond switches from Democrat to Republican and warmly supports Barry Goldwater for president. Goldwater had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Thurmond's switch is a harbinger of things to come, as the Republican party openly solicits support from southern white racist conservatives, the "Southern Strategy" that transforms the South into the Republican heartland.

This has been another...GREAT MOMENT IN CONSERVATIVE HISTORY!