Monthly Archive

Events in the past week have crystallized the complete hypocrisy the yapping talking-point dittoheads of the conservative partisanry hold with regards to our troops. Honest conservatives realize that the war in Iraq is simply a meat grinder which is serving no good purpose. Anytime our troops earn another victory, the conservatives move the goalposts and make “victory” simply an illusion.

We toppled Saddam. Victory was declared. He was even captured and hung. Our troops stayed.

Iraq had elections and wrote a Constitution. Victory was declared. Purple fingers were held up. Our troops stayed.

We had a surge. The current general appointed by Pres. Bush declared victory by subtracting huge swaths of numbers. Our troops still stay.

The concept of victory for the conservative partisans is fleeting… what would they talk about without Iraq? The concept for honest conservatives — the only-fight-when-necessary and stay-outta-the-nation-building-business type of conservatives — seems to have evaporated as their more partisan ideological brethren have pummeled them with the dogma stick over and over.

And so it is that the conserv-o-partisans came to rally round Gen. Petraeus and his fuzzy math earlier in September. Yet, they never stopped trashing those troops with whom they disagreed. The New York Times 7 were pilloried despite the fact they were simply telling us their honest opinion based on the facts they saw every day on the ground. Three of those seven men are now dead.

And I already wrote about Rush Limbaugh’s buffoon-like haranguing of Iraq War vets — such as the NYT 7 and the VoteVets organizers — who are now opposing this war because they completely disagree with the political brinkmanship being played out by the conserv-o-partisans. Limbaugh called those soldiers “phony” despite the fact they’ve literally lost life and limb whereas he was able to avoid Vietnam in his day because he had a boil on his ass.

This last week there was also an interview at MSNBC with conservative Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Rep. Blackburn is a war cheerleader and was regurgitating the anti-MoveOn talking points with “Tucker” sub David Schuster.

Mr. Schuster then asked her if she knew the name of the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq.

The partisan Congresswoman went blank. She had no clue.

She could recite line for line the hollow complaints about a friggin’ newspaper ad that simply called a spade a spade but when it came time to actually supporting our troops by honoring their memory she had no idea who that brave soul even was.

Then, an interesting thing happened. Mr. Schuster named the fellow — and Rep. Blackburn’s staff and other partisans immediately went to work trying to figure out if there was some “out” there, some excuse to stand on for why she didn’t know who the last soldier to die from her district was.

Within hours they thought they had it. They claimed the soldier Mr. Schuster named wasn’t from her district but actually from a neighboring district (the soldier had indeed grown up in that neighboring district… but read on). Mr. Schuster and his staff had done the research but now they were being told it was incorrect. The partisans demanded an apology.

Mr. Schuster’s supervisor at MSNBC, Dan Abrams, forced him to apologize on air (possibly even writing much of the mea culpa for him) despite Mr. Schuster’s insistence that he simply needed some time to re-verify the address info he had researched. Supervisor Abrams had none of it and so Mr. Schuster apologized on air despite the fact he wasn’t afforded time to re-verify his earlier work.

The conserv-o-partisan choir rejoiced and said, See, another Dan Rather moment of journalists trying to hammer the Republicans but lying to do so….

Except, it turns out after the verification Mr. Schuster wanted to do was actually done that he was correct in the first place and had no reason to apologize. The fallen soldier Mr. Schuster described had been living with his girlfriend and her mother in Rep. Blackburn’s district for nearly a year before his deployment — and that is his last known legal address.

And none of that changes the fact that Rep. Blackburn, cheerleader of war and ignorer of facts, had no clue which of her constituents were dying in the Iraq War she wants to continue until some partisan somewhere cries ‘uncle’ and declares “victory” (again, but this time for good)… Or that Rush Limbaugh would rather talk about boils on his arse and call actual men and women in uniform “phony” than get off his Oxycontin and serve his country. (And we already knew that the Republican leadership thinks those troops’ deaths are just a “small price” anyway…)

Hypocrisy, thy name is conservative.

Support our troops by bringing them home.

(h/t Mark at NewsCorpse)

In case you haven’t heard (and you probably haven’t since our not-really-very-liberal media hasn’t bothered writing or talking about it), Rush Limbaugh called our honorable servicemembers who’ve been deployed to Iraq but think the war is a sham a bunch of “phony soldiers“.

Mr. Limbaugh himself never served in the military. He had some ingrown hairs on his bum called a pilonidal cyst that got him a deferment. Even after a minor surgery — described here by another victim of such a thing — Mr. Limbaugh never bothered to volunteer for Vietnam and considered himself lucky to never have been drafted. (Apparently, there’s no word on whether or not he ever fully recovered from the surgical ordeal of decades ago.)

Mr. Limbaugh, as one might expect, yelped wildly that MoveOn was a bad, bad organization for asking if Gen. Petraeus or “General Betray Us” would show up to Congress at the beginning of the month.

This, of course, means that it’s not ok to call out our troops’ CO when he spouts a bunch of fuzzy math in Congressional testimony … but it is ok for someone who himself never bothered serving to call those troops who think the math is indeed fuzzy a bunch of “phonies”. Got that?

One of those phony soldiers writes about his friend, another phony soldier:

This is Chevy in Baghdad. Brian Chevalier was going to reenlist but decided against it before he was killed on March 14 during our first mission in Baqubah. His phony life was celebrated in a phony memorial where everyone who knew him cried phony tears. A phony American flag draped over his phony coffin when his body came home. It was presented to his phony mother and phony daughter.

Go read Army of Dude’s entire post about his phony self, his phony service, his phony colleagues, and their fake limbs and phony funerals. (Keep in mind though that the fake limbs are all too real…)

Limbaugh and his fellow conserv-o-partisans are asses … Not the phony, fake kind of asses. Real, live asses constantly dropping bullshit. Some, apparently, are also asses with nasty in-grown hairs that helped them win the chickenhawk lottery.

A great local charity which is doing tremendous and vital work is called Salute, Inc, founded by Will and Mary Beth Beiersdorf in response to one of Will’s deployments overseas.

Their motto is to “honor the sacrifice and remember the service” of our nation’s courageous men and women in uniform. Through a variety of programs, they do just that by helping servicemen and women once they return from duty as well as assisting their families during and after deployments.

Salute’s five main endeavors are:

• Nightingale Program: Providing monetary help to families of injured servicemembers who are relocated to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago for their recovery and therapy
  
• Direct Assistance: Offering financial assistance to the families of troops deployed away from home
• Wounded Warrior Laptop Program: Providing new computers to wounded veterans so they can more easily access social, work, and educational opportunities
  
• Memorial Scholarship: Scholarship awards for students offered in memory of local fallen heroes
  
• Forgotten Veterans: Offering funds to improve the quality of life at hospitals, homes and facilities which provide care to vets

Learn more about their different projects and fundraising efforts by visiting their website at saluteinc.org and think about giving them a donation. Salute also organizes a variety of charitable events throughout the year and a few are coming up in future weeks (run and walk events, a golf outing, etc.).

They currently have a goal of raising $50,000 — help them get there if you can. Contributions can be donated online or sent directly to their PO Box:

Salute, Inc.
PO Box 236
Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070-0236

It’s been a bit since DWLawson challenged me to read and explain the findings of “the NIJ study on the effectiveness of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban (included high capacity magazines as well)”…

I did read it.

Apparently DW did not. He claims the National Institute of Justice study by Prof. Christopher Koper (PDF) “shows NO evidence of any positive result from the 10 year ban.”

The authors of this study funded by the Bush Administration’s Dept. of Justice answer his challenge for me:

The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed

• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.

It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime

• Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers.

Further on, toward the study’s concluding chapters…

10.1.1. An Agenda for Assault Weapons Research and Recommendations for Data Collection by Law Enforcement

The effects of the AW-LCM ban have yet to be fully realized; therefore, we recommend continued study of trends in the availability and criminal use of AWs and LCMs. Even if the ban is lifted, longer-term study of crimes with AWs and LCMs will inform future assessment of the consequences of these policy shifts and improve understanding of the responses of gun markets to gun legislation more generally.

Developing better data on crimes with LCMs is especially important. To this end, we urge police departments and their affiliated crime labs to record information about magazines recovered with crime guns. Further, we recommend that ATF integrate ammunition magazine data into its national gun tracing system and encourage reporting of magazine data by police departments that trace firearms. [...]

Research on aggregate trends should be complemented by more incident-based studies that contrast the dynamics and outcomes of attacks with different types of guns and magazines, while controlling for relevant characteristics of the actors and situations. Such studies would refine predictions of the change in gun deaths and injuries that would follow reductions in attacks with AWs and LCMs. [...]

(Note: The National Rifle Association and other assorted members of the “gun lobby” have opposed weapons tracing efforts, especially on a national scale.)

10.1.2. Studying the Implementation and Market Impacts of Gun Control

More broadly, this study reiterates the importance of examining the implementation of gun policies and the workings of gun markets, considerations that have been largely absent from prior research on gun control. Typical methods of evaluating gun policies involve statistical comparisons of total or gun crime rates between places and/or time periods with and without different gun control provisions. Without complimentary implementation and market measures, such studies have a “black box” quality and may lead to misleading conclusions. For example, a time series study of gun murder rates before and after the AW-LCM ban might find that the ban has not reduced gun murders. Yet the interpretation of such a finding would be ambiguous, absent market or implementation measures. Reducing attacks with AWs and LCMs may in fact have no more than a trivial impact on gun deaths and injuries, but any such impact cannot be realized or adequately assessed until the availability and use of the banned guns and magazines decline appreciably. Additionally, it may take many years for the effects of modest, incremental policy changes to be fully felt, a reality that both researchers and policy makers should heed. Similar implementation concerns apply to the evaluation of various gun control policies, ranging from gun bans to enhanced sentences for gun offenders. [...]

(all bold emphasis added; italic text indicates author’s headlines and subheads)

Long story short: Some reduction in violence was seen, but because of mitigating factors (incomplete traceability data, “immense number” of grandfathered-in weapons and magazines, availability of imported weapons, etc.) results were mixed. Given that the results were mixed, the authors indicated a continuation of the ban may have resulted in definitive reduction in violence using the banned weapons.

Long story shorter: DW was wrong to claim there were “NO” positive results. The ban worked, but was hobbled by flaws built into it.
There were some positive results in the form of reduced violence, but those results were offset because of loopholes constructed in the ban at the behest of the gun lobby.

The Congress (Dems and Repubs alike) is at a paltry approval rating… Whether they realize it or not, it is mostly because they are perceived to not be standing up to Pres. Bush strongly enough.

MoveOn’s executive director (yes, that MoveOn) Eli Parisher tells Politico.com that he suggests:

…forcing Senate Republicans who are trying to block measures to force Bush’s hand on troop withdrawals to back up their filibuster threats in a dramatic showdown on the Senate floor.

“Republicans are effectively filibustering, but no one knows it,” he said. “One way to demonstrate what’s going on is to make them stand there and read the phone book.” (emphasis added)

If the Republican minority in the Senate and the House want to keep our brave and honorable service personnel stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq’s civil war … make them stand up and say why til their voices go hoarse. The Democrats have not done anything to enforce the actual filibuster rules in the Senate (this after fighting to keep the filibuster intact in the first place not that long ago, as a minority party themselves).

They ought to do so. Now.

A few months back the Illinois Republican Party launched a blog attacking Gov. Blagojevich called alliteratively enough “Bloggin on Blago Blog.” Since then, their blogposts have in fact been mostly about Blago, his interactions with fundraisers and other Dem leaders and IRP’s distaste for the guv (which is shared by many, I know) and, generally, their apparent disgust with all Dems. (They might want to see a shrink about their obsession.)

Curiously, among their few non-Blago attack targets is Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL 8th). She is the only one to be specifically called out separately from Blago on the “Bloggin on Blago (and apparently Bean) Blog.” The Republicans’ latest hatin’-on-Bean posts comes under the banner “Bean Targeted By Republicans”.

But the only thing in the post is a 2-minute video lifted from Fox News Chicago (WFLD-tv) and posted to YouTube. (Gee, I wonder if Fox will sue YouTube and IRP over copyright infringement.) And it’s not even about IRP targeting Congresswoman Bean but about a regular citizen — Kirk Morris — who has decided to run for Congress.

What the heck does IRP hope to accomplish here? They didn’t actually write anything about targeting Melissa Bean and instead posted a wholesale lifting of a Fox News video which does the “targeting” for IRP.

I’m sure we’ll all be holding our breath waiting for Fox to sue the Republicans for copyright infringement….

A few additional random thoughts:

First, that Fox News video is in fact mostly about Kirk Morris’ entry into the race on the GOP side with a few snide comments reserved for Melissa Bean. It was posted to YouTube by “WeAreIllinois” — an IRP-funded group whose contact information lists “Andy” (presumably GOP Chair Andy McKenna) and the IRP website.

Mr. Morris lost his son in Iraq. Clearly, we all respect PFC Morris and the fact he sacrificed his life to our nation and for the honorable service he dutifully and courageously offered before his untimely death.

But Mr. Morris says he doesn’t want folks to see his run for Congress as him honoring his son’s ultimate sacrifice. Instead, he tells Fox News he is running because he is “horrified” (that’s his word) by Melissa Bean. He doesn’t specify why.

Essentially, Mr. Morris hopes to win the GOP primary, beat the incumbent Rep. Bean in the general election and then vote to continue to keep our brave troops in Iraq until somebody defines “victory”. He also wants to legislate better support for returning troops — something that Republicans have time and again blocked in Congress, even to the extent of threatening to filibuster proposals made by the now majority Dems in the Senate. (At last check, Rep. Bean had also supported continued funding for the war and had also supported our troops through her votes to improve their plight upon returning from battlefield… so it’s unclear what Mr. Morris is “horrified” by in that regard.)

This sets up a weird bit of multi-layered hypocrisy…  Mr. Morris says he is “horrified” by Cong. Bean’s votes in Congress, yet on the few issues he mentions she’s been voting the way he seems to indicate he would vote.

Further, PFC Morris did indeed give our nation his ultimate sacrifice, a pain which I’m sure the Morrises feel daily. But, Republican Leader John Boehner calls the Morris family’s loss simply a “small price” to pay.

So Mr. Morris hopes to replace Rep. Bean (who has been voting to continue funding the war and to support our troops and their families when they return) in order to work with Republican Leader Boehner who thinks troops killed in action are a “small price” to pay for “investing” in this ill-defined war.

Second, the other declared GOP candidate in the 8th district primary is businessman Steve Greenberg who had trouble figuring out if he wanted to run against Senator Dick Durbin or Congresswoman Melissa Bean. Mr. Greenberg is a college drop-out who inherited his family’s Ben Franklin retail chain and who was encouraged by IRP to run for office (probably because he has his own built-in campaign fund).

He decided on opposing Rep. Bean.

Showing their propensity for accuracy Fox News labeled Greenberg as a candidate for Congress in the 18th district … it is, indeed, the 8th. (Go to 1:42 in the video.)

And, showing that their spin knows no bounds, IRP decided it was worth it to add the plural “s” to “Republicans Target Melissa Bean” based on the Fox News video they lifted even though Mr. Morris is now challenging their chosen “establishment” candidate, Mr. Greenberg.

Got all that?

So a conservapartisan talking head named Irishly-enough Bill O’Reilly walks into a “black” restaurant in Harlem called Sylvia’s Soul Food and comes away amazed that people there ate “normally” and service was “normal”:

I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship… There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.”

What? Did he think it’d be like Snoop Dogg goes to Chuck E. Cheese? Apparently so…

Even fellow conservapartisan talking head Joe Scarborough acted stunned to learn Bill “Boy Wonder Bread” O’Reilly is such a doofus (what took Scarborough so long to figure it out is unclear):

Well, that, you know, it’s just — it’s very surprising that, that Bill O’Reilly would be stunned that you could go to a restaurant that is run by African Americans, and that it would be, his words again, “I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between a black restaurant and a white restaurant.” (emphasis added)

This is Fox’ main personality?

Mr. O’Reilly is of course on the warpath, railing against people who actually dared to quote him. He called the Media Matters report on his statements a “hatchet job” and said CNN had gone to the “dark side” — all they did was reiterate his radio program’s transcript word for word. In other words, they quote O’Reilly disparaging his fellow Americans. (And as much of a faux pas as it may have been considering the circumstances I don’t think Mr. O’Reilly was using “dark side” in a racist fashion.)
Bill O’Reilly is barely any different than any of the other myopic conservatives who run around thinking “everything changed on 9/11″ not realizing that for American minorities Not. One. Thing. Changed. Heck, we learned just this week that even right here in Illinois, in one of the most “Republican counties in the country” that black folks are punished more harshly than white folks on a daily basis as DuPage schools dole out discipline more strictly for black kids.

It is stereotyping from those like O’Reilly, the Fox big cheese, that perpetuate the real-life dichotomy of the two Americas.

This is hardly any different than Imus’ slurs against African Americans (though, at the very least, with salt-free language). When will these people realize it’s 2007 and it’s time to grow up?

(h/t dday)

UPDATE: Digby writes a gem on just how un-different things in America are today from where we were at at the time of the Little Rock 9. Read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

It’s hard to imagine, isn’t it [the horrendous ordeal the Little Rock 9 were forced to endure]? But it’s even more hard to believe that the echoes of this exact behavior are still heard — loudly — down in Jena, Louisiana today where they didn’t scream “lynch her” or “send that nigger back to the jungle” — they just hung symbolic nooses under the “white tree” where African Americans aren’t allowed to sit and posted the addresses of black students on web sites, calling for their followers to “lynch the Jena 6″. And once again, as those who have followed the story know, the authorities are complicit at best and active perpetrators at worst.

[...]

[NY Times columnist Bob] Herbert reminds us about the Southern Strategy — and famed GOP strategist Lee Atwater’s candid admission: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger. By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

But what is unusual this time out is that the Republicans are getting more overt rather than less for the first time in 40 years. In recent campaigns the Southern Strategy had developed into a sophisticated code, even more obscure than Atwater’s examples, where they would support “Southern heritage” symbols like the confederate flag and run on “law and order” but at the same time make a great show of “outreach” and inclusion to the public at large. This has been the pattern for some years now, perfected by the current president in his “compassionate conservative” campaign in 2000. But as Rick Perlstein points out here, they aren’t even doing that anymore.

It actually isn’t surprising. If you listen to right-wing talk radio these days you will hear more outright racist rhetoric than I can remember in the last 25 years. The Internet is even worse. Blacks, “illegal aliens,” Muslims — all day long you hear an endless litany of complaints about these illegitimate people who are allegedly trying to ruin the American way of life through whining and scheming, stealing jobs and trying to kill us all in our beds. The other day, even General John Abizaid’s statement that the world could live with a nuclear Iran was greeted on rightwing forums with a spew of insults about his “Arab” ancestry.

The racist beast is clamoring to be set free. (links are original, emphasis added)

Digby also points out that the Republican presidential candidates are now avoiding forums and debates which involve minorities and others, a point I’ve highlighted on occasion.

Thus, the clamor over conservative spokesperson Bill O’Reilly being surprised to learn Americans with dark skin (yet still with red blood) are just as normal as you and I.

(h/t Kos)

I wrote about Tribune letter to the editor writer Nancy J. Thorner a bit earlier… but wanted to come back and point out a bit of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives on this health issue.

At the end of Ms. Thorner’s Bizarro-world diatribe against Sen. Clinton’s market-driven universal care plan, she writes:

Health care should always be more of a personal issue. Liberty and freedom of choice depend on it.

Liberty and freedom of choice… Funny, I wonder if those are the concepts running through the heads of the virulently anti-choice (and anti-privacy) conservatives going on those marches through Aurora neighborhoods to protest a women’s health clinic.

Those conservatives don’t seem to interested in liberty or freedom of choice. And they specifically seem to be ardently against women’s health care seeing as how the clinic provides a variety of medical and educational services for women (not just the one medical procedure they loathe).

One of the fascinating things to watch unfold in the days after Sen. Clinton announced her healthcare proposal has been the literally Bizarro-world reaction of the conservapartisans.

As evidenced by recent statements from Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and others, and by today’s letters to the editor in the Chicago Tribune … conservatives apparently have had a severe case of Knee-Jerk Reaction to Sen. Clinton’s plan. All of that is quite odd because her plan really isn’t that much different than the plan which then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts and has since touted as a conservative solution to America’s healthcare crisis. Does this mean it’s ok if Romney proposes it but not if Clinton does? Why no epithets of “MittCare will destroy the village in order to save it“?

How strange. But, what’s even more strange is the creepy vitriol coming from regular joes as they attack Sen. Clinton’s proposals…

Let’s break down one letter from this morning’s Trib:

A personal issue
Nancy J. Thorner, Lake Bluff

Hillary’s proposed plan would require a massive new government bureaucracy for enforcement, and, like all government-controlled entities, inefficiency and burgeoning out-of-control spending would rule the day.

Actually, many government agencies are very highly efficient. The Social Security Administration has “overhead” costs far lower than any investment bank, insurance firm or other financial-type institution in the private sector. It’s all a matter of leadership — does the person in charge of the Oval Office have the willingness to commit to actually governing efficiently or not (…”Brownie, you’re doin’ a heckuva job”).

Whereas each state government sets up its own health plan, when all states are mandated to establish the same health-care system, one would be hard pressed not to refer to the result as national health care. When did it become fashionable to believe that one is entitled to have what people used to supply for themselves?

Yes, asking all states to follow the same standards could be considered a “national” plan — look at what happened in the wake of standardizing public schools under NCLB. Fair enough, but what is inherently wrong with taking a national focus to a national problem? We do so with our military — defense is a national issue, is it not?

Why can we not consider our society’s health to also be a national concern?

As for the ol’ “entitlement” canard… since when did the “pro-life” party become the “anti-life” party? People with no health insurance are not able to afford the care they need. Healthcare costs are the #1 reason for bankruptcy in this country. Number one with a bullet.

We are paying for our out-of-whack insurance system now. Ask GM what their biggest carrying cost is (hint: healthcare for employees and retirees). Ask hospitals what drives up their costs of doing business (hint: uninsured individuals who don’t seek preventive care so they delay treatment til situations are emergencies). Those costs get passed along to the rest of us — GM raises the price of their cars; hospitals charge higher tabs to insurance and HMO cos.

Do the American people really wish to rally behind what they perceive as a freebie, which in reality would not be free, efficient or timely?

I’ve already explained that we pay for the costs of the broken health insurance system now, in ways that Ms. Thorner clearly hasn’t considered. No health service is “free” (no such thing as a free lunch). Even “free” clinics are paid for by grants from government agencies, businesses or wealthy individuals.

Universal healthcare is simply a way of covering health costs by other means — through raising revenues at the tax level instead of the car’s sticker price, the hospital’s marked-up charges, etc.

More importantly, with universal healthcare the cost liabilities are actually decreased. With the largest possible pool of “insured people”, the healthy folks help average out the costs of folks who get hurt or sick. It’s the insurance industry’s ideal actuarial table — everyone is included which decreases the risk for all. Besides, if all people have insurance they are far more likely to seek care for a problem before it becomes overwhelming (and much more expensive).

It’s a lot cheaper to modify diet and exercise before a heart attack than afterward; but if you don’t even suspect you’re heart’s in trouble because you don’t have insurance to cover a physical exam…. you won’t know about the problem.

Further, who hasn’t had some medically crucial service (test, procedure, exam, etc.) flat out denied for coverage by an HMO bureaucrat? Talk about inefficiency and delayed care.

Rationing of services and long waits would rule the day. Can situations of life and death tolerate delay and uncertainly [sic]?

Here’s where Ms. Thorner is actually dead wrong. We already have rationing of services and delays. Ever go to the doctor’s office for a 10am appointment and still been sitting in the waiting room at noon, with no hope in sight? We all have.

Besides, nations which have universal healthcare haven’t suddenly seen their populations disappear. Canadians still populate Canada. Britons still populate the UK. Universal healthcare hasn’t been anywhere near as diabolical as the conservatives make it out to be. Not by a long shot.

And, again, who hasn’t had some medically crucial service (test, procedure, exam, etc.) flat out denied for coverage by an HMO bureaucrat? Is that not “rationing of services”?

America has some of the best health care available to its citizens. A market-driven health-care system is the way to go. Such are the programs being proposed by several Republican presidential candidates.

This capper is one of the most Bizarro of the bunch. Again, Sen. Clinton’s proposal is barely any different than the Massachusetts example which Gov. Romney signed into law. And, that Mass. example is in fact market-driven (it relies on employers working with private insurers and HMOs).

As far as our healthcare being the best available — yes and no. We may have some of the best hospitals in the world, but they are also among the most expensive. And those “best” facilities don’t mean a hill of beans if you can’t afford them. While Ms. Thorner brings up a valid point that even the 47 million uninsured Americans can still receive healthcare (via ERs). But again, that is the most expensive option and part of the reason people are being driven to bankruptcy at such alarming rates.

Even folks with “insurance” or health coverage end up in dire financial straits when problems hit. With high-deductible plans gaining favor thanks to the conservatives’ market-based “solutions”, more and more citizens are forking over wads of cash to hospitals that don’t list their pricing upfront (it’s not like choosing between the McDonald’s value menu or the Burger King value menu).

And, of course, there’s the amazing market-based real-world example of Blue Cross Blue Shield recently telling a woman who had a miscarriage that BCBS doesn’t cover “elective abortions”. This woman didn’t choose to have a miscarriage, so it wasn’t elective. And since when did natural miscarriages become confused with medical procedures?

That is, in a nutshell, why our healthcare system is broken in this country, Ms. Thorner and Gov. Romney. (It’s also why I don’t think “market-based” solutions are going to work unless the market dramatically improves and becomes more consumer-oriented, rather than profit-driven.)

Why is it that conservatives think it’s better to leave 47 million Americans behind, out in the cold, than to work toward a truly united country which cares about and accepts a modicum of responsibility for one another?

Divided we fall — as we see with our broken healthcare system now.

Mike over at Archpundit describes the White House/Bill Sammon attack on Sen. Obama thusly:

I can’t believe this [Orwellian attack on Obama] came from a White House that is on the record as being opposed to the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” I’m shocked! SHOCKED!

That conserva-partisan slime being shockingly soft, when you think about it.

In the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove’s strategy called for then-Gov. Bush’s opponent to be painted as a fibber. Every little thing, whether big or small, was labeled a fib. Even when Bush was fibbing by claiming that VP Gore said he invented the Internet (he never said that, Bush just said he did and the partisans parrot it to this day — you can look it up) we saw that even Bush’s fibs painted Gore as a fibber. Fibbin’ is as fibbin’ does, eh? When VP Gore first started running for president he was seen as trustworthy and honest (esp. in comparison to Pres. Clinton). After Karl Rove was done with him … not so much.

Fast forward to 2004, and the Democratic candidate (didn’t matter if it was John Kerry or a yellow dog) got the Rove treatment with the label “flip-flop”. That decision to call the Dem nominee a flip-flopper was made before the nominee was even known. Again, everything was painted with the same brush. And again, a man who volunteered to go to Vietnam and who shed blood defending liberty was trashed and dragged through the mud by the Rovian slash-and-burn tactics.

It seems the conservative playbook to counter Barack Obama’s well-balanced, thoughtful strategic ideas is to bizarrely label him as somehow “intellectually lazy”. This coming from the administration of a guy whose favorite meal is PBJ, bankrupted a Texas oil company, and who has trouble eating pretzels and riding bicycles?

Over the weekend an “anonymous” White House source used that racially-tinged complaint against Sen. Obama in an interview with conservative author and pundit Bill Sammon. Getting conservative attacks out through conservative reporters — how convenient. The Republican National Committee then reinforced the Orwellian attack with a goofy memo of their own calling him “All Show, No Substance“; just out of pure coincidence, I’m sure.

Do the conservative “leaders” really think Americans are that gullible? Apparently, yes, and they may have been thinking of that conservative blog, Illinois Review, and its Obama-haters when they started pumping out their Orwellian baloney because lo and behold Ill Review Editor Fran Eaton picked up the attack line and spread it faster than you can say “Polly wanna cracker”. (Note to the white editor of Illinois Review: calling black people “lazy” has historically been considered racial code, even if it was not intended that way. Same goes for calling folks “clean”, etc. People who are not “intellectually laze” generally understand this.)

Oddly, the Tribune reported just this weekend that Sen. Obama isn’t quite connecting with “beer voters” as his Q+A sessions around the country have him coming off sounding too thoughtful.

Is it any wonder the American public is sick of this hyperpartisan malarkey?

(h/t Joy Sinha and TPM)

A few days back Nightline featured the story of a St. Louis Chicago* area mom named Aimee, her husband Jim and their three kids.

Aimee has ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) and her young children don’t have too many more years left with her. After first learning of that she had Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Aimee at first began to withdraw and tried to mentally and emotionally cordon off her children.

Then one day her daughter, Emily, came home from school and said she wanted tacos. In that instant, Aimee says she knew that even though she was going to die within years she was going to fight to honor the loving bond she and her children have.
I’ve had moments like that myself. Bad day at the office, lots of things going on in the schedule, and just a lot of life happening. And then the kids say or do something that just cuts through everything and puts it all in perspective (and it’s not as if my struggles are anywhere near the level of Aimee’s disease)…

And so now Aimee is fighting to raise awareness of ALS, the rare but fatal disease that is going to some day rob her and her children of such moments. She’s also using her first amendment rights to fight Congress and bad info in the press.

Head to the ALS Association website and see what you can do. Offer to volunteer near you or send them a donation. (I just missed posting about ALSA’s “Call for a Cure” action day, which I didn’t realize was this week. Perhaps you could still follow up with that.)

* Aimee and family are from the Chicago burbs … but she’s a Cards fan. (At least her husband’s a Cubbies fan! Go Cubs!) Darn those silly bloggers playing fast and loose with the facts.

Rich Miller and others are reporting that just after Rep. Weller’s retirement speech this morning, a Weller staffer apparently shoved a few reporters around. Channel 2’s Mike Flannery claims he was shoved down a stairwell and has filed a police report — news footage appears to prove it. CLTV’s Carlos Hernandez indicates he was literally leaned on, with an arm to the chest and throat — and, again, video appears to back it up.

While this isn’t nearly as bad as some of the actions his father-in-law is accused of, bowling over journalists just ain’t cool in the good ol’ US of A. But given the recent media reports about Cong. Weller’s questionable ethics, perhaps it was only understandable that the folks who now need to begin looking for a new job would take out their frustrations on reporters. Of course, Archpundit reported on a similar incident about Weller staffers some time back going after a constituent. And, in 2004 a local reporter covering issues behind his then-fiancee (now wife) was mysteriously attacked after he wrote some news reports. (The reports critical about the Republican Congressman Weller were squashed by that oh-so-liberal then-conservative owned Hoellinger media).

For those of you worried that such circuses might be coming to an end along with Rep. Weller’s Capitol Dome career, don’t fret.

You see, Cong. Weller’s campaign manager is one Steve Shearer (scroll down to the Update).

Mr. Schearer is also the campaign manager for conservative State Rep. Aaron Schock who is now running for (drumroll, please) Congress. And questions about Mr. Schock’s own ethics are starting to pop up.

Does this mean the childish antics will keep happening? Maybe, maybe not — perhaps it’s all koink-dinks and fog-and-mirrors. Certainly, Mr. Shearer may have had nothing to do with any of these incidents in the first place (whether in his role with Weller or Schock).

But the fact these two candidates with controversial practices have the same manager sure makes for interestingly speculative water cooler talk.

So after weeks of newspaper reports pointing out ethical challenges, a Republican Congressman who married into an allegedly dastardly family and has been conducting questionable land deals in foreign countries (while simultaneously advocating legislation which may benefit his land deals) announces he’s going to retire.

Forget about the fact that Republican incumbent is on CREW’s list of the most corrupt Congressmen.

Fran Eaton instead goes back to her bag of crapola tricks to again reference porn in criticizing one of the possible candidates to replace the retiring Congressman with a post called “Will Debbie do the 11th CD?” in a reference to Dem State Sen. Debbie Halvorson and the retirement of Repub Congressman Jerry Weller, whose home is now in Guatemala with his family.

Notoriously irrational con partisan Jill Stanek (who has yet to meet a common sense posting that she won’t try to delete) started the idiocy some months back with a series of blogposts questioning State Senator Halvorson’s sexual history and Ms. Eaton gleefully defended her friend and fellow Illinois Review contributor by saying the entire Ill Review blog “proudly” stood against a vaccine which helps prevent cervical cancer. In essence, the perky pair were happy to reference porn if it got them the same attention it got Howard Stern (and for a few days it did).

I’m not even going to bother linking to Ms. Eaton’s latest junior high-level myopic ad hominem about Sen. Halvorson. It’s not worth cloggin’ those Internets. But here’s a sample of Ms. Eaton’s fantasizing:

The old girls [of progressive organization EMILY's List] are now simply tingly about the thought of Debbie in the 11th CD.

If Sen. Halvorson runs in the 11th, the collar counties of Will, Grundy and Kankakee will be exposed to intense, provocative political action they’ve probably never seen before.

And we thought it couldn’t get any more exciting in Illinois . . .whew. Got a cigarette?

Normal folks panned their BS. Yet, Ms. Eaton just can’t seem to let a stupid idea go. And, her attempts at erotic locutions don’t hold a candle to those of her fellow conservatives Scooter Libby and Second Lady Lynne Cheney.

And these conservative ne’er-do-wells wonder why they don’t get taken seriously in Illinois….

“Tingly?”

Now it’s official. WJBC and a slew of other District 11 media are reporting that embattled Rep. Jerry Weller (R) is stepping down. The Kankakee Daily Journal reports:

“For the benefit of my family, I can no longer seek another term in the United States House of Representatives. At this time, my wife, my child, my family, must come first,” Weller said.

“Family must come first…” Is that what led to the questionable Central American land deals and your ranking on CREW’s list of Congress’ Most Corrupt?

Don’t let the border fence hit you on the way out, Congressman.

WordPress is saying they’re going to start scheduled maintenance later this morning. Not sure how long it’ll take but enjoy the sunshine while they tinker.

Commence open thread…

This morning’s Chicago Tribune had a front-page, top-of-the-fold Jill Zuckman article on yesterday’s Senate vote on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) amendment regarding combat troops, what some were calling the Military Recovery Amendment.

A minority of Republicans and one pro-war Indy managed to vote this amendment down. The amendment actually passed 56-44, but it didn’t clear the 60 vote hurdle needed to get past filibuster rules…

So since it was only a minority pro-war faction, why did the Trib’s subhead read: “Lawmakers reject plan to require more troop time at home”?

What actually happened was in fact that the “Pro-war GOP rejected plan to require more troop time at home”. (For those worried about saving ink, there was space enough to fit that into the print edition.)

Even Republican opponents of the conservatives’ war in Iraq recognize this. Ms. Zuckman reports: “Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a staunch critic of the war who co-sponsored the Webb amendment, said Wednesday’s outcome means Republicans will continue to stick with Bush for at least the rest of the year.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Archpundit puts together a good analysis of every potentially interesting Congressional district in the state (he skips the strongly Democratic seats based in/near Chicago, which are quite unlikely to change parties).

His summary is here in “The Tally” — go click all the links and have some fun with Archie’s crystal ball. He predicts our Congresscritter ratio will go from 10 D/9 R to 13 D/6 R.

The Quote of the Day comes from his break-down of Denny Hastert’s open seat in IL-14 with litigation happy Jim Oberweis running against Chris Lauzen, no stranger to the courtroom himself:

If someone doesn’t get sued by the end of this [GOP] primary, I’ll be shocked.

Conservatives against frivolous lawsuits? Only the ones they don’t participate in themselves…

Jerry Weller, recently ranked among the most corrupt members of Congress, is apparently about to throw in the beach towel (h/t Archpundit).

He could pull a Larry Craig non-committal head-fake, but given the pile-on by the Chicago Tribune over the last few weeks regarding his questionable tropical coast land deals (and the years of criticism from some of his constituents for other reasons, not the least of which is a huge conflict of interest in the form of his bride) … that may be unlikely.

From the Trib:

His [Latin American land] investment got a boost from the narrowly passed Central America Free Trade Agreement, which Weller pitched in 2005 as a tool to enable businesses in his hard-pressed district to sell tractors and food to Latin America. CAFTA also includes additional legal protection for American investors, including those who have purchased lots from Weller.

What he didn’t say was that, while he publicly pushed CAFTA, Weller privately was pursuing his land development, some 2,000 miles away. The House approved the trade pact in July 2005 by only two votes, 217-215.

Besides not mentioning his Nicaraguan investments during the CAFTA debate on the House floor, Weller did not give anywhere close to a complete accounting of them in his required 2005 financial disclosure statement. House ethics rules require representatives to disclose all property they own except for their personal residences. (h/t Aaron at Faithfully Liberal)

Clearly, he’s got some beachfront property in Central America that’s just itchin’ for a new casa del mar.

The Daily Southtown’s Kristen McQueary connected several electoral dots on Cong. Weller, leading her to believe he wasn’t going to run, and her colleague Rich Miller backed up those thoughts. Now Roll Call is sending it out nationally.

Adding Republican Weller’s retirement to the previously announced retirements of Denny Hastert and Ray LaHood means that a full one-third of Illinois’ Repub House delegation is quitting. In addition, John Shimkus (of the Republicans’ Mark Foley-Congressional page scandal fame) has also been rumored to be on the retirement shortlist.

In the likely-t0-be-open 11th, CIA officer and attorney John Pavich ran a spirited campaign in 2006 but was unable to gain the traction needed against the incumbent Weller. He has not indicated any desire to run again. The supposedly “liberal” media’s deafening silence on Mr. Weller’s alleged corruption issues was no doubt of great help in his 2006 reelection effort. (Mr. Weller first began buying property in Nicaragua in 2002, long before he promoted the CAFTA his land deals benefited from).

Currently, EMILY’s List is trying to recruit State Sen. Debbie Halvorson. The Senator has not committed yet but is in the middle of a 4-year term and would still have her seat if she lost the race. Former Republicans Jerry Weber and Bob Gorman have switched to the blue team in likely anticipation of running for the seat as well. There are no declared Dem candidates at this point. Other candidates include the Green Party’s Jason Wallace and Republican Jason King (h/t Kankakee Voice).

Of those, it would seem Sen. Halvorson and Mr. Weber (Kankankee Community College president) have the largest area presence.

Nueva Información: Rich Miller reports Rep. Weller’s staff is indicating there will be no announcement today. Mr. Miller also points out the Tribune reported this morning that an announcement may not come til early next month (which is in a week and a half).

Self-centered, myopic, callous, ignorance … all are harsh words depending on the context.

I include myself on at least one — myopic — as I hadn’t taken the time to think about the implications of how 9/11 in that one day made all Americans feel the exact same way various segments of American minorities have likely felt their whole lives.

Just before 9/11/07, George Dienhart at Illinois Review posted a stream of consciousness recap of quotes from his various fellow Ill Review contributors. This post covered the mundane everyday actions and the heartfelt seered-into-the-mind reactions of Illinois’ conservative illuminati from throughout the day — when their spouse told them to get out of bed, when they poured their coffee, what traffic was like … their raw emotions as they heard of the news on the car radio, their visceral thoughts as they saw the live coverage and the replays of the video footage.

These are the same day-to-day activities and the same gut feelings we all had that day and ever since.

I too remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that gorgeous, clear day. I had the news on while heading into work on the Kennedy. The announcement of the first plane hitting came on just as I was going through the underpass next the blue line — a few minutes from the office.

We were all just numb that day at work. My wife and my boss’ husband (he worked in the Sears Tower) were let out of work early; we had deadlines at our office. On the way home I remember thinking I hadn’t seen traffic that thin in some years (even 2am traffic is usually heavier than the 5pm traffic was that day). Most of what my wife and I remember in the days immediately afterward was how bizarrely quiet it was. Living under an O’Hare flight path made the no-flight silence deafening — we could sleep with the windows open as that incongruously beautiful weather continued. News analysts in those following days pointed out that

Upon first reading the Illinois Review run-down I was quite incredulous… How could these folks who had the exact same reactions as I did — numbness, trauma, and even fear — let their feelings metastasize into the vitriol and venom they’ve since displayed for people who had nothing to do with that day’s attacks?

Read the rest of this entry »

Illinois Review posts a guest essay by Rudy raver State Rep. Bob Biggins claiming Rudy Giuliani has some sort of conservative values… (Ill Review had trashed Mayor Giuliani a few days back.)

I suppose if you think conservative “values” call for supporting never-ending war by propping it up with Enron-style fuzzy math and cheering for torture…. (Can you imagine James Madison telling the Constitutional delegates we need to torture foreigners?)

Rep. Biggins starts with “While it is true Rudy Giuliani is the strongest candidate on national security…” and the jokes get better from there.
Perhaps Rep. Biggins thinks placing your emergency management center in the one place your top advisers advise you not to put it is “strong”.

Or maybe he thinks crassly making money off a characterized 9/11 image is “strong”.

Could just be that Rep. Biggins believes going AWOL from Iraq Study Group meetings in order to give speeches for money, promoting political friends with troubled histories for Homeland Security Secretary, and dressing up like a woman* over and over is “strong”.

Many other folks, however, disagree with the notion that Giuliania has any national security cred.

Oh, and Rep. Biggins, you can save all those claims of Rudy’s so-called fiscal conservatism for the bottom of bird cages considering one of his top fundraisers decided to stop paying his taxes some time ago, and now owes $100,000+ in back taxes. You and I, Rep. Biggins, have had to make up that difference by responsibly paying our taxes. Then again, Mr. Giuliani’s record of fiscal conservatism as mayor of Gotham are greatly exaggerated as it is. (Much of his spin is based on a huge loan the city took out… does America really need more debt?)

(* - To be fair, I could care less if Mr. Giuliani gets his  kicks wearing stuffed bras, pantyhose and heels. But, it’s a bit disingenuous for Rep. Biggins and other supporters to continue trying to prop him up among social conservatives who clearly do have a problem with cross-dressing and other issues of an even slightly sexual nature.)

Anne Leary and other conservative partisans have apparently taken to calling the lying Rudy “likes black pantyhose” Giuliani some sort of ‘liberal slayer’. Never mind the point on why they feel a need to “slay” their fellow Americans in the first place… but he’s not even very good at doing what their bizarre fawning says he is.

Mr. Giuliani is the former NYC mayor whose direct contradiction of his first responders’ advice (for reasons of pure political showmanship) led to the 9/11 destruction of the Big Apple’s emergency response hq has been chastised by those very first responders and also by his former mayoral emergency management director.

And now, after his goofy full-page ad blaming a Senator for a different ad that wasn’t from the Senator but was from a completely different organization, MoveOn.org (a group of Americans with the courage to tell it like it is)… well, that group of Americans is pointing out the truth behind his hypocrisy and his silliness.

Watch it here. “Liberal slayer” my knee. What a silly thing to claim when the candidate is so obviously weak.

Curiously, Ms. Leary chose to cherry-pick a quote from that Giuliani interview by the conservative pundit Sean Hannity:

Who should America listen to…A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org? 

Since we already know what the First Amendment (never mind Sen. Clinton) has to say about defending Americans’ right to free speech, let’s listen to what that decorated ass-kissing chickenshit soldier has to say about his commitment to defending America:

Republican Sen. John Warner: “Does that [continuing the Iraqi war] make America safer?”

Gen. David Petraeus: “Sir, I - I don’t know, actually.” (emphasis added)

Clearly, Rudy Giuliani, Anne Leary and the other conservative partisans mindlessly chirping their talking points don’t know either.
(h/t Kos)

The Chicago Tonight interview with Illinois Congressmen Mark Kirk (R) and Dan Lipinski (D) has now been YouTubed and not only are Reps. Kirk and Lipinski appalling, but the WTTW interviewer is beyond the pale. Part 1 is here; don’t take any sips of your beverage as you’re liable to spit it out on the screen while watching.

First, let me remind everyone that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No Iraqis hijacked planes. Al Qaida base camps were not in Iraq. Iraq’s dinari did not fund the operation. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein despised each other. Rational people understand these facts.

Any thin air connections the neo-cons dreamed up to con the country into war have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Now, it’s understandable that politicians might try spinning some non-existent connection into being (and Kirk and Lipinski did), as if pixie dust and magic wands were effective at making partisan fibs true. But that’s just a poor excuse for continuing the conservatives’ failed war on Iraq ad infinitum, against the wishes of the American people.

How then to explain the disgustingly slanted line of questioning from interviewer Elizabeth Brackett in which she repeated the neo-con canard that Iraq had anything to do with that fateful day? Where’s Carol Marin when you need her?

“Liberal” media public tee-vee my pinky toe.

Much ruckus was made last week about MoveOn.org’s “General Petraeus … or General Betray Us” full-page ad. Conservative partisans were apoplectic and could not type fast enough to shove their interpretation of the ad into the media, essentially putting their words into MoveOn’s mouth.

They claimed the ad was tantamount to calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor… whether or not you espouse that belief the one thing all the conservative partisans got wrong was just whom was being betrayed. It wasn’t America, it was (and continues to be) our troops.

The retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel (R, Nebraska), one of the few veterans in Congress, essentially agreed with MoveOn over the weekend on Real Time with Bill Maher:

Maher: Isn’t a dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job?”

Hagel: It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush’s policy. The military is — certainly very clear in the Constitution — is subservient to the elected public officials of this country… but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.”

Also during that show, Bill Maher indicated that it’s always best to ask the corporals and the sergeants what the on-the-ground situation is really like because the generals are too busy with their dog and pony shows. Two things indicate the inherent truth in that.

First, top military brass have been retiring at an alarming rate under Pres. Bush as they refuse to act on his strategies and politically-motivated misadventures which are literally breaking the military (the reason the troops can “come home” from the surge is because Gen. Petraeus is out of replacements after their 15-month extended tours are up). Some of those high-ranking officers — generals from the Army and Marines, etc. — have seen the folly of the conservatives’ ideas and no longer wish to stake their careers, let alone their very consciences, on such myopic partisanship. Those who have replaced them are a mixed bag of sycophantic go-along to get-alongs, like Gen. Petraeus, while others are tell it like it is leaders who have stood up to the President’s bizarre militaristic ideas, like Petraeus’ operations superior, Adm. William Fallon. Fallon has reportedly called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” — an honest military term if ever there was one.

Second, a group of seven soldiers (sgts, staff sgts, and one specialist) actually did write an editorial on their experiences fighting in Iraq. It ran directly counter to Gen. Petraeus’ “rosy scenario” and these seven honorable soldiers were raked over the coals by the conservative partisans (that particular link is mild). Two of those men were recently killed in Iraq weeks after their editorial was published.

So just how has Gen. Petraeus betrayed the men and women under his command in the Iraqi theater? By using Enron-style fuzzy math to discount violence and deaths he doesn’t think are important in an effort to prop up hollow “success” stories. And, by promoting the notion that keeping our brave troops in Iraq indefinitely will somehow improve a situation that has only grown worse in the four years we’ve been there so far as political and diplomatic efforts have failed to keep pace with the fact our military is doing the best, and more, it can do. (Those conservatives who point to our troops still being in Germany, Japan and Korea seem to forget that they aren’t bombing and shooting at our guys.) Even Gen. Petraeus admits he doesn’t know if staying in Iraq makes America any safer — and, yes, a Republican asked him that question.

Pres. Bush’s failed policies have broken our military. Gen. Petraeus is simply promoting a continuation of those failed policies (now with a shiny new name). Thus, in promoting continued failure, he is betraying the troops under his command.

Why the conservative pundits don’t support our troops by demanding their safe return home is unclear.

Republican State’s Attorney candidate Tony Peraica has now given us his side to the story of the obscene, harassing phone calls made by an apparently ex-paid volunteer of his. Curiously, rather than face reporters or anyone else who, you know, might question him … he simply posted an essay to the conservative partisan blog Illinois Review. (Mr. Peraica advertises on and contributes essays to Illinois Review. Several others close to IR have also worked or volunteered for Mr. Peraica’s campaigns.)

He adds little actual explanation and really only vaguely works his way around the heart of the matter. Basically, he blames his former volunteer and even his intraparty Republican nemesis — everyone but himself — because he apparently doesn’t realize that he himself might have fed into a culture of such beyond the pale antics with his own statements and actions.

Others, however, have preempted Mr. Peraica’s spin and are looking at the bigger picture to reveal what Rich Miller calls “a disturbing pattern” from Mr. Peraica.

Indeed, the current matter (those obscene phone calls from a former staffer, made to a political opponent) actually had its seeds planted with Mr. Peraica’s last campaign in which he ran for County Board President.

Mr. Peraica, a lawyer, once defended a fellow when he was brought in on charges of slashing nuns’ tires. According to his Illinois Review soliloquy (linked above), Mr. Peraica believes in second chances (which would also explain why he’s again running for countywide office after failing miserably against a not-too-stellar opponent).

Mr. Peraica writes:

First, this individual has had a troubled past, and I once represented him in my capacity as an attorney. Afterward, he committed to cleaning up his act. I believe in second chances, so when he asked to volunteer on our campaign, I allowed him to do so. We paid him a small twice-monthly stipend as reimbursement for his mileage.

Now, according to the Sun-Times, Mr. Peraica was this man’s lawyer in 2002. But the election that same guy was put on staff for was in 2006. Four years seems like a long time in between the two events, but who knows. Let’s take Mr. Peraica at his word on that.

Thus it was that Mr. Peraica agreed to having the tire slasher he represented in court come on board as a quasi-paid volunteer (ie, campaign staffer). Records show this fellow — Fred Ichniowski — was paid at least $2600 in increments of $100-$200 every two weeks beginning on 1/20/06 and lasting until November (D2 Jan to June and D2 July to December, 2006). Mr. Peraica says this was a stipend to cover mileage. Again, we’ll have to take him at his word, but that’s an awful lot of miles.

Now, the odd thing here is that Mr. Peraica also wrote:

In October of 2006, he was unable to control his behavior and we required him to leave our campaign.

Yet, the fellow was still paid up until November 10th. Besides, the election was Nov. 7 as it was so “firing” a guy in October after he’d been with the campaign all year seems strange. Once more, we’ll have to simply take Mr. Peraica at his word. All this really means is that even before the election last November we know that Mr. Peraica saw a place in his campaign for a guy who slashes nuns’ tires. Perhaps an odd choice, but fair enough.

Then the election happened. More specifically, election night happened. Mr. Peraica got impatient as the County Clerk’s office was tabulating the votes. So in the middle of the night Mr. Peraica led a gang of supporters up and down the Loop (photo essay here, via Pioneer Press), eventually landing at the County Building where they yelled and stomped and even apparently ripped open boxes of election returns (say, isn’t that illegal). All this took place while most of the rest of us slept.

A few weeks later (after the paid volunteer was clearly no longer a paid volunteer, and before Mr. Peraica decided to run for State’s Attorney) that same tire slasher guy apparently took it upon himself to start calling Mr. Peraica’s fellow county board commissioner and fellow Republican, Liz Gorman. The guy admitted he was drunk when making calls (at 9am) and he proceeded to call Ms. Gorman names and cuss her out because she opposed some of Mr. Peraica’s interests and, apparently, because she was running for head of the Cook County GOP.

It got so bad Ms. Gorman called the cops in February.

From the Daily Southtown:

Gorman said she regularly received harassing calls from the same man but only notified police after he grew more angry and vulgar in late February, when the county board was in a budget battle and she ran for GOP chairman.

The caller said Gorman was “acting like a bitch” and “that c— better learn to work with Peraica or she’ll find herself out of a job.”

Gorman said “whenever (Peraica) and I were on opposite ends of an issue, the calls would come. (Peraica’s) name always came up.”

“Peraica thinks everything is a fight, but it takes two to fight, and I won’t be part of this,” Gorman said. “He’s tossed too many grenades. One was bound to backfire on him.”

Long story short, the Sun-Times and Daily Southtown got a hold of the story late last week and political journalist Rich Miller followed that up with a column and a blogpost of his own. Altogether, we have a pretty clear timeline:

2002: Tony Peraica represents Fred Ichniowski in court on charges that he slashed a bunch of nuns’ tires. Mr. Ichniowski had a previous charge of making harassing phone calls

Jan. 2006: Mr. Peraica hires Mr. Ichniowski as a volunteer/staffer for his county board president campaign

Oct. 2006: Mr. Peraica claims to have asked Mr. Ichniowski to leave his campaign due to “his behavior”, but continues to pay him until just after the November election

Election Night, Nov. 2006: Mr. Peraica leads a gang of staffers and volunteers in storming the county building in the wee hours of the night

Feb. 2007: Mr. Ichniowski makes obscene, harassing phone calls to Mr. Peraica’s intraparty opponent, Commissioner Liz Gorman. Ms. Gorman files a police report.

Mr. Ichniowski tells the Sun-Times, “‘Tony didn’t make me do anything.’” But, the S-T also reports that he told the police “‘Peraica encouraged his volunteers to contact [Gorman] and expressed his disapproval of her new position’ as county Republican Party chairman. Peraica, now running for state’s attorney, bitterly fought Gorman’s nomination.”

And now we have Mr. Peraica’s side which sluffs off the slashing of the nuns’ tires as a chance at redemption; completely ignores the middle of the night raging march on the county building; and also doesn’t comment at all on any role Mr. Peraica’s own words or actions may have played in this incident… In fact, most of Mr. Peraica’s “explanation” boils down to a raging slam against Ms. Gorman as he says her record “speaks for itself”.
While Rich Miller calls this “a disturbing pattern” on Mr. Peraica’s part, it seems a longer view is in order as it appears to be a disturbing pattern on the part of many conservative partisans. This blog and others have commented before on the effects over-the-top vitriol from partisans can have on “rogue” activists who skate the line between activisim and violence, sometimes committing the unthinkable.

Oklahoma City and the nation found that out when conservative activists Tim McVeigh and others took seriously the words of pundits like G. Gordon Liddy extolling listeners to use “head shots” to kill ATF agents and short-wave talker William Cooper with his anti-goverment, milita-inspired screeds.

Locally, State Sen. Dan Kotowski has also learned this lesson as his staff and volunteers (including his own mother) have received threatening calls in the wake of a series of bitterly venomous alerts from the Illinois State Rifle Association and NRA front-group National Shooting Sports Foundation.

No, Tony Peraica can’t be completely responsible for every action his staffers and volunteers make. But, he is absolutely responsible for the environment of activism that he creates through his own rhetoric and actions — positive or negative. Mr. Peraica might not have forced Mr. Ichniowski into making those obscene calls, but it is likely that (as Mr. Ichniowski himself told the police) Mr. Peraica’s encouragement was all that was needed, especially given that this happened just a few weeks after the late-night march through the Loop.

And this man wants to run for State’s Attorney?

UPDATE: Rich Miller has also received messages “about other alleged strong-arm tactics from Peraica’s campaign and at least one more nasty phone call allegedly from Ichniowski to a different committeeman.” …And the dots around Mr. Peraica become easier to connect. Why does anyone continue to associate with him, let alone the self-proclaimed “conservative crossroads” of Illinois Review which has almost literally wrapped its arms around him (and he them).

Occasional Tribune columnist and University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone had an editorial in the Sunday Perspective section about his daughter’s beautiful wedding during the summer.

Read it. But if you don’t, here’s an excerpt:

Since Mollie’s engagement in November [to her partner Andrea], I have had many conversations with friends, law colleagues, students and even strangers about the definition of marriage. I very much want to understand why some people so strongly oppose the marriage of two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together merely because they happen to be of the same sex.

[...] But such questions are inevitable and healthy in a robust, ever-questioning, ever-evolving society. They are a fundamental and cherished part of our American history and culture. If we did not ask such questions, we would still burn witches, buy slaves and deny women the vote.

[...] Mollie and Andrea decided to marry not to gain the many legal benefits of marriage, which they are denied, and not to make a political statement, for they are not particularly political. That is what made their wedding so moving. Mollie and Andrea decided to marry for no reason other than love, their desire to commit themselves to each other and their wish to make that commitment in the presence of friends and loved ones. It was romantic, it was inspiring and it was perfectly right in every way.

The entire story of bonding love between two committed, responsible adults puts the lie to the notion that what folks like Dave Smith, Petey LaBarbera and others do is somehow ok. That such folks make money and, indeed, earn their livings promoting their vitriol based on discrimination and intolerance is even more despicable.

Unless you’re already gay and you have an epiphany about your need to come out of the closet (or bathroom stall, as the case may be) … allowing couples who are in love to marry will have no affect on you whatsoever. As I’ve said all along, the profound romance and joy beaming from those couples who do marry has only made my own marriage stronger as my wife and I share our own special bond and these newlyweds remind us of our own joy.

Why these bitter conservative partisans cannot comprehend this is unfathomable. That they feel a need to promote such venomous rhetoric in response to their own incomprehension is unconscionable.

Chicago Tribune architectural critic Blair Kamin’s opinion piece in this morning’s Sunday Perspective was about the need to adequately fund our “invisible” infrastructure, which is clearly growing