Space

Now we can finally get back to reality.

More later…

credit to original(?) source – http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/potus_talks_to_ppofb/

What’s the best response to the massive environmental destruction taking place in the Gulf of Mexico and growing by the minute?

Deregulate! That’s Sharron Angle, GOP Candidate for the Senate in Nevada, thinks.

QUESTION: You have been in support of onshore drilling in the United States as well as offshore drilling, are you rethinking that policy with what is going on in Louisiana?

ANGLE: No. I think that what happened in Louisiana was an accident. They’re cleaning it up. We need to go forward and talk about prevention and not about whether we keep it out all together. We know that lot of the problems that have been caused for us with foreign policy and even with our own gas prices here domestically going up is our dependence upon foreign oil.

We have oil reserves and petroleum reserves that we should tap into. And that’s a policy that we really need to look at as a nation. How do we deregulate enough to invite our industries to come back into the United States and quit outsourcing their business?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_in_wake_of_gulf.html

Oh, I wouldn’t worry – I’m sure BP is telling the truth about the oil spill. I’m sure we can just spend their money and not our own on the oil spill cleanup and payouts to those whose jobs, businesses, and lifestyles were dependent on business in the Gulf of Mexico. Oops. BP lied about how much oil was being spilled into the Gulf.

A government panel on Thursday essentially doubled its estimate of how much oil has been spewing from the out-of-control BP well, with the new calculation suggesting that an amount equivalent to the Exxon Valdez disaster could be flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every 8 to 10 days.

source – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/us/11spill.html

And Republican leadership is fighting to ensure that *no* taxpayer dollars are used for the cleanup, so if BP doesn’t pay nobody will.

It all started when TPM asked Boehner at his press conference today whether he agrees with the Chamber of Commerce, which has said BP and the Federal government should pitch in to clean up the spill.

Boehner replied: “I think the people responsible in the oil spill — BP and the federal government — should take full responsibility for what’s happening there.”

Boehner’s office subsequently clarified, saying he’d misheard the question. His aides pointed to this previous Boehner quote: “Not a dime of taxpayer money should be used to clean up their mess.” And Boehner has also said we must “hold BP accountable for the clean up costs.”

Those quotes are pretty clear. But the problem is that the Chamber’s position is that while BP is on the hook for the cleanup, its liability for damages should be limited, meaning inevitably that taxpayers should bear some of that liability.

source – http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/boehner_spox_no_taxpayer_money.html

I’m sure “Drill, baby Drill!”, like President Obama has been saying for years, is the right way out of this mess and the right way to achieve energy independence for our nation. Oh, wait – Obama didn’t say that, did he. Ooops again.

You poor Republicans – your neck-deep love affair with big business put aside, there actually is enough blame going around in this for everyone and you can certainly make some politcal hay off of it which is really all you care about anyways. President Obama’s pathetic lack of leadership on this issue, coupled with his amateurish trust in BP themselves being honest brokers in the cleanup, spreads enough blame to him and his whole team. He put Ken Salazar (who may well have coined ‘drill baby drill’ himself he is so taken with off-shore drilling) in charge of the department responsible then forgot about it. Salazar knew this was probably the most corrupt department in the whole US Government, but after a year of big talk realistic reform was non-existent. And Obama, trusting in his pick to manage this change, did nothing further.

On May 27th, more than a month into the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, Barack Obama strode to the podium in the East Room of the White House. For weeks, the administration had been insisting that BP alone was to blame for the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf – and the ongoing failure to stop the massive leak. “They have the technical expertise to plug the hole,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had said only six days earlier. “It is their responsibility.” The president, Gibbs added, lacked the authority to play anything more than a supervisory role – a curious line of argument from an administration that has reserved the right to assassinate American citizens abroad and has nationalized much of the auto industry. “If BP is not accomplishing the task, can you just federalize it?” a reporter asked. “No,” Gibbs replied.

Now, however, the president was suddenly standing up to take command of the cleanup effort. “In case you were wondering who’s responsible,” Obama told the nation, “I take responsibility.” Sounding chastened, he acknowledged that his administration had failed to adequately reform the Minerals Management Service, the scandal-ridden federal agency that for years had essentially allowed the oil industry to self-regulate. “There wasn’t sufficient urgency,” the president said. “Absolutely I take responsibility for that.” He also admitted that he had been too credulous of the oil giants: “I was wrong in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios.” He unveiled a presidential commission to investigate the disaster, discussed the resignation of the head of MMS, and extended a moratorium on new deepwater drilling. “The buck,” he reiterated the next day on the sullied Louisiana coastline, “stops with me.”

source – http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965

I’m sorry, Mr President, but you’re a day (or a month) late and quite a few dollars short. We don’t need rhetoric, we need action. And we need someone who can actually stand up to big business, and although you’re not their toady as much as your predecessor you’re clearly not willing to actually go toe-to-toe to get something done either.

But don’t worry, Boris Johnson to the rescue! All we need to do is stop saying such bad things about BP (incidentally protecting the pensions of lots of Brits), and work together.

Mr Johnson echoed previous comments by business leaders by suggesting that the “anti-British rhetoric” was becoming a matter of “national concern”. He added that BP was paying “a very, very heavy price” for what had been an accident, and pointed out that UK pension funds had a “huge exposure” to BP. The firm is estimated to account for one in every seven pounds of dividends paid to British shareholders.

Mr Johnson acknowledged that the spill was a “huge environmental disaster”, but added: “I think that the best thing now is not to get into too much name-calling and buck passing and attempts to damage the reputation of a great British company but to get on, to work together to sort it out.”

In an open letter to the president, Mr Napier warned that his “comments towards BP and its CEO (Tony Hayward) as reported here are coming across as somewhat prejudicial and personal”. “There is a sense here that these attacks are being made because BP is British.” He went on: “Whilst we all recognise the seriousness of the situation there is a need to put some balance back into the situation… The immediate issues are very challenging but are best solved working together in a more statesmanlike way.”

source – http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gFCpI80-_DRhJWIg28yM0fSIiujg

No, BoJo. What we need to do is make BP stop lying to us and deal in good faith with the people of the Gulf region. And we need to regulate them more, not de-regulate, as they clearly didn’t feel any need to actually do realistic work in disaster preparedness on the scale that was required. Of course you want the British pensioner to be left alone, but what about the millions of Americans whose careers are at risk because of this incident to do? Oh, well, they’re not British so they better not say mean things about a British company.

Brainwave alert! Apparently, the best way to fix this problem is to remove power from enforcement agencies to actually do anything at all! According to all of the GOP Senators (and 6 Democrats) this is the way to fix it – do absolutely nothing.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), working with oil company lobbyists, crafted a scheme to deal with the problem a different way — push a rarely-used tactic through the Senate that would strip the EPA of its authority to act. The idea, known in some corners as Murkowski’s “Big Oil Bailout,” would allow Republicans to block Congress from tackling the problem and block the administration from taking any action.

The gambit needed 51 votes. It came just a few votes short.

The final roll call was 47 to 53. Every single Republican — including so-called moderates Snowe, Collins, and Brown — voted against science, against the environment, and for Murkowski’s scheme. They were joined by a few too many Democrats, including Sens. Bayh, Rockefeller, Pryor, Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024195.php

I guess reasonable responses to an environmental disaster, with a company that has repeatedly violated the public trust, is to just shut up and let them get on with it. Of course this was nothing more than a politcal ploy, a poisoned pill that would make it impossible for anyone, except BP and on their own terms i.e. protecting their profit margins, to do anything about the spill but still being able to blame Democrats for not cleaning it up - a transparent political ploy from the party who honestly believes in party before country. Thank god it failed, but the margins are terrifying. This means, to me, that any realistic reform in environmental law is basically impossible, to say nothing of finanical or other regulatory activites against big business.

If the Republicans win some seats in 2010, then the hope of actually doing anything to wean the US of it’s oil addiction is gone, baby, gone. And BP, and all their ilk, can stop fannying about and simply pull the knife on us, their consumers, as they’ve wanted to do all along and simply rob us blind, and our children, and our children’s children. At least the British pensioner won’t loose out.

If at first you don’t succeed, obfuscate, lie, and even change time.

First the lead story - from here: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/102443-boehner-bush-tax-cuts-didnt-lead-to-the-deficit

Boehner: Bush tax cuts didn’t lead to the deficit
By Jay Heflin – 06/10/10 11:55 AM ET
 
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday defended tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, saying they did not lead to the deficit that currently confronts the country.

“It’s not the marginal tax rates … that’s not what led to the budget deficit,” he told reporters, adding, “The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago.”

In January 2001, before the Bush tax cuts were enacted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected annual budget surpluses of approximately $800 billion between 2009 and 2012. The CBO now projects a $1.2 trillion annual deficit for those years and has also stated that the Bush tax cuts contributed to the budget deficit.

Boehner on Thursday blamed budget shortfalls on increased spending, which he says is “scaring the hell out of the American people.”

He also said that slashing marginal tax rates has actually buoyed revenue levels.

“We’ve seen over the last 30 years that lower marginal tax rates have led to a growing economy, more employment and more people paying taxes,” he said.

During the Bush administration the country netted the creation of 1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The low job figure was a direct result of the financial crisis the country was entering when Bush left office. But experts have claimed that job creation was anemic under Bush when compared to other two-term presidents.

 Now, the facts:

• The economic collapse started 24 months ago, not 18. Rep. Boehner’s curious math conveniently moves the start of the recession away from the end of President Bush’s term and right into President Obama’s start. Convenient, although a lie. Much like calling the bank bailout ‘Obama’s bailout’ when it was actually voted for and agreed to in President Bush’s term.
• The Republicans love the CBO telling them that the health care bill will cost trillions (except it’s millions, after the savings, and will save pretty much every individual citizen loads of money but likely cost the insurance companies some profit) but seem to ignore it when it doesn’t go their way. Simple math – cut taxes = cut revenue, if you don’t cut spending to match the cut in revenue, you increase defecits. Bush and his cadre of Fiscally Conservative Republicans (TM)  took the US from a surplus to record defecits because in spite of cutting revenue they actually increased spending, although their numbers conveniently ignore such low-ticket items as the Iraq War in their calculations of spending.
• Claims that the jobs created in Bush’s term was somehow remarkable or attached to the tax cuts is misleading at best and a flat-out lie at worst. In fact, Bush when he left office had one of the worst records on creating jobs of any president. Clinton’s record was 23 million; Bush Sr did just as well but only had 4 years to do it in (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/)
• But don’t worry – I’m sure Fox News and Rep Boehner will neglect to mention this, but Obama’s actually had some successes in cutting spending, unlike his predecessor.

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs… By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.

-source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/

Wow. If only the GOP bothered to do actual research before opening it’s mouth. Of course, that would mean ignoring decades of precedent – after all, if the common wisdom says it, it must be true – Republicans are fiscally conservative and Democrats are tax-and-spend crazies. Right?

crickets…

Living in the UK as I do, there is a large population of Islamic peoples who live here. We have Iranians, Iraqis, Somalis, Pakistanis, and lots of other people who believe in Islam. Now Islam, much like some other religions, has a strong civil aspect to it. Parts of Islam, called shari’a, actually set out a set of rules for how Muslims should interact with each other and the larger world in a manner which honors the word of god, the Qu’ran, and is set out in literally hundreds of hadiths, or amendments, to the Qu’ran, written after the Prophet Muhammad set down the original text. Some things are forbidden under any Islamic law such as the making of interest-bearing accounts of any type, or the drinking of alchohol. 

Side note – in an interesting twist which was mentioned in the book about Charlie Wilson but ignored in the movie, during the cold war, the CIA was transshipping billions of dollars worth of weapons through Pakistan, in part paid for by Saudi Arabia, in order to go to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan to use against the Soviets. These billions of dollars were accidentally put into an interest-bearing account, so the agents in charge had to move the money to a non-interest bearing account and apologize to the Saudis for their mistake. The Saudis were warmly appreciative of this gesture and put an additional million dollars into the non-interest-bearing account as a thank-you.

Moving swiftly on to the point, there are a set of guidelines set out in Shari’a law, however there is no single codified set of laws from them – the Hadiths are many and some contradict each other; some don’t talk about shari’a at all. Some countries, most notably Saudi Arabia and Iran, “shari’a law” but these laws are actually interpretations of the Hadiths and the Qu’ran codified into law by the top religious leaders in both countries.

Now, in England recently the Archibishop of Canterbury, aka the head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams (a very poor and rambling speaker but as far as I can tell a pretty level-headed guy, notwithstanding his affiliation to organized religion which I just can’t fathom), said in 2008 that due to the number of Muslims in the UK that there was no reason why there shouldn’t be community-based shari’a courts which adjudicated in matters where there was a policy or guideline in shari’a but not an overriding or counterveining Eglish law. Some examples given were family courts and divorce. A couple married under Islam, and whilst still following the laws of the UK concerning child welfare, etc…, would have no issue of giving the shari’a court authority to adjudicate their divorce in things like the distribution of assets. Notice the key words – where there was no overriding English law, and where the couple give authority to the shari’a court.

Que massive uproar. Claims from the right that the community shari’a courts would be performing criminal trials, beheading infidels in the streets, demanding that Archbishop Williams immediately resign, and a whole campaign by the far-right British National Party about ‘taking back Britain from the foreigners’ and England for the English!

Now, it’s all blown over now, just like the ridiculous sideshow it always was. There was never any talk by Dr Williams or anyone else about supplanting any aspect of English criminal or civil law with shari’a, nor any discussion in any way about forcing non-believers into an Islamic court. There was never a chance of this happening anyways – the Church of England is the state religion of England, and although there is by-law guaranteed religious freedom and a largely secular population, that’s still the way things are and likely will forever be.

Now as stupidity inevitably follows stupidity, the House of Representatives in Oklahoma feels so strongly about this issue that they’re passing laws preventing the adoption of shari’a or ‘international’ law in Oklahoma. I didn’t know there were enough Muslims in Oklahoma for this to be a realistic threat, nor that the UN was still passing laws taking away our guns, but apparently lawmakers there are so panicked about the possibility of shari’a law and all those blonde-haired ladies being put into burkhas and all of those god-fearing farm boys having their hands chopped off for stealing bubble gum (and by-the-by, forgetting about the First Amendment’s religion clauses protecting not only Oklahoma but the whole US of A from the establishment of any religion and guaranteeing the separation of Church and State) that they need additional protections. I guess the 30,000 Muslims in all of Oklahoma are such a massive threat to the lifestyle of the 3.7 million other residents that they must be legislated to stay in their place and make no laws. Of course, this is the same state that until recently prohibited the purchasing of dildos. Compensate much?

The lawmakers in question talk about the UK ‘surrendering to Islam’ and about how they feel that the Federal Government won’t protect them so they have to do this themselves. I just have to ask these lawmakers some key questions - what are you smoking, why won’t you share it, and why is it legal for you to breed but not to buy a dildo? Or even better, why wouldn’t you want shari’a in Oklahoma? You can be the ones doing the interpretation after all - you can finally push through all those gay-hating, woman-hating, racists, Christ is King and the US is a Christian Country bullshit laws you’ve been trying to pass for so long that keep getting batted down by the Supreme Court for being so fundamentally against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Just substitue Christ for Allah and The House of Representatives of Oklahoma for Muhammad or the Prophet in the Qu’ran and the Hadiths and you’re off and running.

Sorry, Oklahoma, but you’re going to have to go on my list of places I won’t be caught dead in. Incidentally this list also includes Texas (same reason), Somalia, Liberia, North Korea, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, so at least you Oklahomans are in good standing you ignorant, bigoted rednecks. Don’t like being called such? Vote to kick out the representatives who thought up this law and all the others just like it.

sources -

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/08/islamic-law-in-oklahoma-vote-to-bar-sharia-may-be-on-fall-ballo/?icid=main|aim|dl7|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F06%2F08%2Fislamic-law-in-oklahoma-vote-to-bar-sharia-may-be-on-fall-ballo%2F

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-28/entertainment/21647954_1_molly-ivins-female-power-scene

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/05/oklahoma-house-passes-bill-for-online-abortion-questionnaires/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_us/us_oklahoma_abortion_laws

The Tea Party is simply insane. This is not populist rage; this is not a grassroots movement. This is ignorance, chaos and anarchy, funded and bankrolled by big business, with the intention of lying and deceiving it’s way back into power at any cost. And if they don’t win fairly, they’ve got guns and they’re not afraid to use them. And the truly scary part is the blurry line between what is a mainstream Republican and what is the Tea Party these days… and the Tea Party movement itself dovetails rather nicely with the long-time Republican strategy of ‘distort, distract, and divide’.  

ITEM 1 – LIES - Sarah Palin, de-facto leader of the Tea Party movement and likely Tea-Party candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. Her claim via Facebook is that President Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil, which is why the Gulf of Mexico spill has taken so long to stop. Only one problem – Obama’s campaign received $800k from Big Oil in the 2008 Presidential election cycle. McCain, of which Palin was the VP portion of that ticket, received over $2.2m. And let’s not forget Todd Palin’s employment with BP in Alaska for over 15 years, but I can’t see how that would be a conflict of interest.

Sources-

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/blog/2008/08/05/mccains_oil_money/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin

But let’s not let the facts stop the adulation from the Tea Party Faithful bestowed upon Palin. She’s ‘real’, she’s ‘honest’. She’ll bring ‘real change to Washington’. After all, she wants to do *more* offshore drilling – drill baby drill, remember? Oh, wait, maybe we shouldn’t mention that bit.

ITEM 2 – Guns and Ready Violence. Sharron Angle, Republican (note – NOT independent, REPUBLICAN!!) candidate for Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada, supports the Oath Keepers, a right-wing organization of law enforcement and retired military who apparently believe that sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution aren’t enough, and that they need *additional* oaths sworn that they won’t put their fellow citizens into Concentration Camps by blockading cities and won’t follow orders to prevent the sucession of a US State.  This same individual who, on reaching Washington DC for her April 15th Tea Party ‘coming out’, complained about her lack of support, claiming she usually travels with ‘Smith and Wesson’ but at least she’s got God and her husband with her this time.

This same person, Sharron Angle, also has stated that the difficulty of sporting goods stores to keep enough ammunition in stock is an indication of a rising tide of Americans who are arming themselves in preparation to defend their Second Amendment rights. The same person who apparently believes that an electoral mandate does not translate into a legistlative one, that elected officials are under no obligation to honor the wishes of their constituents.

But don’t worry, she’s here for Freedom(tm) . She doesn’t actually want to enforce her worldview at gunpoint on an electorate unwilling to vote for her. And she certainly isn’t about to define what Freedom(tm) actually means or what it requires… but don’t worry. I’m sure she’ll be a fine Senator.

Sources -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/reid-opponent-embraces-patriot-group-that-warns-of-giant-concentration-camps.php

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/five-ways-harry-reid-might-att.html

Item 3 – Ignorance: We don’t know what our candidate stands for. We don’t know what our candidate feels about the issues. We don’t know our candidate’s stance on critical issues. We don’t care, she’s our candidate. Source – Interviews with Tea Party Patriots

Also, we named our group after a historic event, which we believe stands for small government and the small man standing up to gain their freedom. We don’t actually know that what the Tea Party originally was was a low-level protest, organized by known rebels, designed to spur an indifferent populace into hatred and revolution by goading the ruling party into reprehensible acts. But hey, what’s in a name? Source – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38191_Page2.html

Finally DECEIT and MISDIRECTION -

Think this is a party of like-minded patriots who set out to get elected to Congress to reign in those wild ways of the Government and bring down taxes and pay off the defecit and bring honour back to the Government? Think again. While the myth of high taxes (whilst actually paying some of the lowest per-capita taxes *in the world*) is a big hit on the Tea Party circuit, the reality is that the tax cuts pledged by many in the Tea Party aren’t actually followed by anything like the fiscal responsibility required to actually get the government back on a paying basis.

And the final amazing part of the whole circus is the reality that the Tea Partiers themselves are being rooked by – guess who? The GOP!

Of course, it isn’t easy to sort out their views. The tea party is many organizations and individuals attracted to a loose ideology of conservative populism. They loathe taxes and President Obama with equal fervor, but otherwise agree on little. Yet, according to an April CBS News poll of self-described tea party supporters, nearly half say their main goal is to reduce the role of the federal government. Only 6 percent say it is to cut the deficit. And as tea party candidates begin to win Republican primaries the outlines of the movement’s agenda is coming clearer.

Two national organizations provide logistical and financial support to this faction: The  Club for Growth and Freedom Works, the creation of former House GOP leader Dick Armey and others. Their goals are similar: low taxes, Social Security private accounts, free trade, and reduced government spending. The Club for Growth, whose Political Action Committee gets much of its funding from the financial world, would eliminate taxes on capital (an interesting view for a populist movement) and replace the current income tax with a flat tax. Deficit reduction, however, is of little interest to either organization.

It is the same with many tea party candidates. Pennsylvania GOP Senate nominee Pat Toomey opposes what he calls a “dangerous spending spree” in Washington and favors lower taxes on both income and capital. Reducing the deficit, however, gets barely a mention on his website. Toomey, who once served as president of the Club for Growth, does remind voters, however, that he “never voted for a tax increase.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/06/08/the-tea-party-tax-cuts-and-smaller-government-but-more-red-ink/

That’s really the masterpiece of the Tea Party argument – black is white and up is down; ignorance is hope; freedom is ignoring the mandate from the voters and doing what you want to anyways. Claiming to be a populist movement, but largely funded and organized by big business and GOP heavyweights of yore.

However, as the only real objection that the Tea Parties and their mainstream Republican allies can actually throw up is shouting ”NO” loudly and often (or even “you LIE” on the floor of Congress to the sitting President of the United States – apparently respect is due the office only if it’s a Republican holding it), it’s not all bad news…

At a time like this, the good news is that Democrats actually have a good answer to the question. From California to Nevada to Kentucky, the GOP agenda will be to take away Americans’ healthcare benefits, privatize Social Security, and question the passage of the Civil Rights Act as an example of government overreach. Democrats have a strong case to make to our core Democratic Party voters and the voters in the middle who will play an important role in deciding the outcome of these elections–if we give them a reason to turn out. Democrats have kept their promises and have begun to move America in a new direction–from affordable healthcare, to cutting taxes for the middle class, to a change in policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, to ending the reckless Bush policies that destroyed our economy and a regulatory framework that protects the food we eat, oil drilling, and Americans working in the mines of West Virginia. While Bush pushed through the bank bailouts that have most Americans fuming, President Obama and Democrats passed a stimulus bill that has created and saved millions of American jobs.

Ironically, it’s the very same conventional wisdom that voters are rebelling against which suggests that this should be a bad year for Democrats and a good year for Republicans. And the logic goes that in an anti-incumbent year, just based on the numbers, the party in the majority is at a disadvantage. But we have an answer–we’ve done a lot lately and have much more to do. Americans voted twice for a progressive agenda, overwhelmingly so for President Obama. Rather than be apologists for our agenda, we need to stand up and make our case.

  – source http://www.usnews.com/blogs/Karen%20Finney/2010/06/09/how-democrats-can-answer-angry-voters.html

 I am quietly confident in the power of the American Independent.

Focus of my day, why I work, the new apple of my eye…

Long chance, but maybe someone other than robo-spammers are actually reading my blog. So I’ll post something a bit more interesting – I’ve started writing a book. Maybe.

I’ve got a couple of pages into it, and I’d love to get some real comments, so here goes:

Dead in Seattle

A novel by Cullen Tillotson

Prologue

We all know where it started – China. We all know when, and we all know even kind of how. This isn’t about that, this isn’t about the global impact, this isn’t about how humanity as a whole survived. This is about Mike and Jane. And to a lesser extent, this is about me.

Mike’s story started in Seattle, when he was 26. This was years before I met him, years before I had my own tale to tell. Mike lived in an apartment building on 1^st Avenue in Belltown, the downtown very rich neighbourhood; achingly trying to be hip and trendy, but with that striving method of the truly rich and street people in every alley, beside every glittering condo, and drug treatment clinics two blocks away. I knew it well – I used to drink and eat there, years before Mike did, when I lived in the area.

Seattle is a port town, a town with lots of shipping, a gateway from Asia to America, and full of thriving populations of Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans. Also full of Russian and eastern European immigrants, although not as much as other American cities. A friendly town, prototypical Northwest. Sure, there were riots in 2000 in protest against the World Trade Organisation, and then more days of riots and chaos after the WTO left town in protest about how the Seattle Police handled the rioters.

So it was surprising when the first reports started coming in. Street violence was nearly unheard of in most parts of the United States, and was almost a myth in Seattle and the greater Pacific Northwest from San Francisco to Vancouver. So the initial news reports – violence, murder, shootings in the streets of those towns came as quite a shock.

The idea that these violent upheavals meant something more obviously didn’t cross many people’s minds…

Chapter 1

“What do you think this means?” she asks. Not for the first time, Mike thought about it. They were watching the TV news. Not one of the all-day stations, but the local one.

“Nothing… I guess can’t really say for sure… it does seem very strange though.”

“How so?”

“Well, the shooting doesn’t seem to do very much… The people being shot just keep trying to get back up. Maybe they’re using rubber bullets or something.”

“Did you ever shoot someone?” Jane asks.

“Yeah, I did, when I was in Iraq. Sometimes we had to shoot back. One time, at a checkpoint, we had to light up a car that wouldn’t stop. I was with 4 other guys, and we all shot at the car so I don’t know if it was me or one of the others, but I think I shot a guy in the head.”

“Wow. That’s grim.“

“Sorry, babe, sometimes the old shit slips out. Yeah, war is pretty grim and I really regret what I did, but at the time it made sense – the car was a threat to us. There were car bombs going off all over the place, killing dozens at a time in the streets, so we thought we were doing the right thing. Turns out, it was just some guy with his family trying to visit relatives in the city; he got killed, his family lost their father, and another bunch of kids is going to grow up hating America.“

“Strange how the cops seem to be so bad at it. I thought they had to spend so much time at the shooting range every month. These guys must suck a bit, they keep on missing. I mean look – that cop just tried to shoot that rioter with a 12 gauge from 20 feet, and keeps missing. The guy keeps coming!” she says

They keep watching the TV. The news announce sounds scared, sounds pumped. Just like all reporters everywhere – no matter how nasty it is, it is undeniably exciting ‘being there’.

“Mike, do you have a gun?”

“No, why?”

“I don’t think that cop is missing that guy. I think he’s hitting him, but the guy keeps coming. What can that mean?”

“Well, if the cops are using rubber bullets, they just leave a bruise and hurt a hell of a lot, but you can certainly get up after one hits you. I saw some in training, and watched the MPs use them on a bunch of rioters in Baghdad and it seemed like it would hurt really badly to get shot with one but wouldn’t be fatal. The Israelis have been using them for years.”

When the phone rings, Jane goes to get it. She’s tall, about 5’10”, slender and attractive, with dark hair parted in the middle and a heart-shaped face. On the way to the phone, she looks out the open sliding glass doors, through the balcony railing, down onto Broad Street. She can’t see down 1^st Avenue, but she can see the alley opposite. The guy who was sleeping next to the dumpster is still there, hasn’t moved at all. Usually, he’s gone by this time – it’s 8:00am – but he always seems to come back to that spot. She’s often wondered why, often wondered what it was about this spot. At least there aren’t any cops around to hassle him – they’re all down in Pioneer Square, trying to contain the riot.

In spite of all the street people around, and the addiction clinic two blocks down on 3^rd Ave, Jane’s never felt very much at risk in this neighbourhood. Maybe it’s just about the location – Seattle is just so damn friendly, but maybe it’s also because of Mike. He used to be a soldier, he’s so strong and self-confident and capable. She’s been with him for 2 years and just can’t imagine being afraid with him around. He knows how to shoot and hunt from a childhood spent in the wilds of Wyoming and eastern Washington.

As she answers the phone, she turns to look at Mike. He’s focused completely on the TV, doesn’t even seem to notice anything else. And she hears the sirens for the first time.

“Hello”.

“Jane! Where are you!” Lots of background noise, shouting, and sounds like firecrackers in the background.

“At home – you called me at home. Who is this? I can barely hear you!”

“James!”

“Yes, James?” she sighs into the phone… this is not an unusual call, or even sadly an unusual time. “Where are you?”

“Why are you still at home?”

“Why? We live here.”

“You need to get out…”

The phone dies.

“Who was that?” asks Mike.

“James.”

“Your brother?”

“Yeah.”

“What did he want?”

“He seemed odd. Said ‘we need to get out’ the hung up on me. What do you think that’s all about?”

“Who knows? He’s your brother, you know how he is. Maybe he’s had another really late night and is just getting home. Maybe he gave your name to the collections agents chasing him again. Who knows?”

“Yeah” she says, and turns back into the kitchen. Looking out the balcony glass again, she sees the guy across the street, next to the dumpster, roll over. He looks dead, but lost of homeless people usually do.

She turns back towards him, and just then the door goes. Jane walks over to the door and looks out the peephole. It’s Chuck, their neighbour from two doors down. She opens the door.

“HI, Chuck. What’s up?”

“Well, just watching the news before I go to work.” He was a maintenance man in the building, and got cheaper rent which was the only way he could afford to live there. “I’m supposed to go down and check out the trash chute; it seems to be blocked up again. You guys watching this riot thing?”

“Yeah, pretty sick shit. Wonder what all the fuss is about this time? I think Starbucks in Pioneer Square is still busted up after 2000. “

“Not that WTO shit again – that was all over years ago. And that was all anarchist assholes from Eugene causing a ruckus anyways… the Seattleites only protested when the idiot SPD pushed all the rioters up onto Cap Hill and First Hill and that was up there, not down here.”

“Yeah. Well, anything you need from us?”

“No, just wanted to check in if you were home or not. See you later”

“Bye Chuck.”

After closing the door, Jane comes back to the sofa and sits down again with Mike. Absently, Mike puts his arm around her shoulders, watching the cops behind their riot shields swinging their clubs against the rioters. At least now, they seemed to be going down and staying down. “What did Chuck want?”

“Nothing.”

“Would be nice if he put the spare toilet back together…”

“Yeah, well it was your idiot roommate who screwed that up. Chuck would probably have to charge us.”

“Well, I gotta get ready for work.”

“OK.”

Mike gets up from the sofa, and walks across the hall. Jane changes the TV channel to the music station and then gets up, goes into the kitchen, and starts washing the dishes. Jane doesn’t have to work today.

Mike comes back into the living room, wearing his security guard uniform. He hates the job, but it helps to pay the bills and he can work shifts so can continue going to school. Jane’s job, at the hospital, pays better – she’s a radiology tech. His job doesn’t require he carry a gun, but he does have to carry pepper spray, handcuffs, and a radio so has the classic police belt. His dark shirt and pants, along with his old combat boots, complete the picture of the rent-a-cop. He knows, however, that he has nothing left to prove. Iraq proved that to him, and his boss is a veteran too so knows how it works.

“I love you babe. I’m out of here.”

“Love you too, Mike. Take it easy out there.”

“See ya…”

Comments from non-spammers most welcome. It is a first draft, though, so be gentle.

Funny how having a lil’ un makes you stop thinking about the ‘big picture’ and focus a lot more on the day-to-day… like how do I keep him happy? How do I keep my wife happy?

Anyways, some new photos to peruse

Requests from friends, family, and colleagues to post photos of the little bubba looking much more human and not covered with cottage cheese or wrapped in swaddling