Time For a Blog and Internet Vacation.

I bought my first computer in the year 2000 and promptly signed up for the internet. It was dial up then with no opportunity for broadband where I live until 2007, and that was DSL. So except for a couple of periods of maybe 3 weeks during that time, I have been slowly getting more addicted to it. Spending increasing time to the point now, I don't do much else when there is a minute of free time.

In 2006, I posted my first blog comment on Talk Left and it was only a sentence/ I became more and more enthralled with political blogs from then, commenting mostly on newspaper articles at Wapo and other likewise mainstream publications such as weekly magazines.

These were the Bush years, and being liberal and having become politically aware and active since the 2000 election battle that ended with the Supreme Court decision of Bush v Gore, it was an exciting, if not enraging time for liberals on the web. There was much agreement and a sense of commraderie opposing the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate, right on up to Obama being elected the first black president.

But sign of trouble in the Netroot paradise began to surface during the primary bitter fight between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama one. It was very surprising to me and cause much stress and angst to be having bitter and even vicious arguments on blogs with people who I had so much in common with. I was an Obama supporter, but mostly because he had pretty much sewn up the nomination in March of 2008. I would have been satisfied, at that point, to support Clinton, or about any of the fine field of dem candidates to go against the GOP one.

But those on the Clinton side felt they had been cheated and launched into not only a lack of support for Obama, but even taking up sides with the republicans. It was baffling to say the least, but still I kept on going with being active in left wing blogs. And after Obama was elected, that PUMA period seemed to slow down quite a bit and things somewhat returned to normal. But not for long.

Early on, some left blogs began second guessing Obama on people he was appointing to political positions in his coming administration, and even some folks that were advising him in the transition.

This increased even more when Obama was sworn in, and began the sausage making progress of enacting legislation. And soon became a cacophony of sorts when even the slightest compromise with the republicans would send the bulk of the netroots into convulsions of outrage and disappointment. These people of the left had voted for and campaigned for obama and he owed them the totality of what THEY wanted him to do.

Then came the Health Care Reform year long battle. And be sure that mistakes were made by congressional democrats and Obama. It was a bloody and bitter fight with tea baggers and disappointed liberals. Especially when it became clear that the much desired Public Option, or a government run health insurer would not for lack of votes in the senate, become a part of the final passed HCR bill. That is when the democratic party split down the middle, or not so much down the middle, but a tiny sliver of it I belong to would not join the hordes of rebellious liberal ideologues on the web and began to condemn and oppose Obama as being a sellout to their cause. I am a pragmatic liberal that accepts reasonable progress when that is all we have the votes for. Which is almost always a function of the supermajority of 60 percent needed in the senate for anything, or most things to pass.

I have belonged to one blog called Balloon Juice, mostly for the past 3 years, and just about exclusively for the past year or so. It's owner, a former republican has valiantly, imo, held out for nuanced debate and reason, over the will of the netroot nation of dem bloggers, for as long as he could, I guess. And even on this blog, in had become a daily struggle for those of us to insist on debate with facts to oppose a dem president. It was a losing battle, and I had known that for some time. And had several times in the past year stated that when John Cole, owner of Balloon Juice gave in to that demand of ideological purity, and forsake to a large degree, common sense and reality based debate, that I would leave immediately his blog as a regular commenter.

That day arrived two days ago with a post slamming those of us who had been doing what we had always done, insist of fact based and wholistic reasoning, not only over Obama, but in general. So it was time to leave and I have. It is also time to take a break from the internet altogether for at least a month, and maybe longer. So my broadband will be shut off on Tuesday, but I will turn in my modem on Monday.

I spend way to much time on line, and have known it for awhile, and reading blogs no longer is rewarding, when all there seems to be are psychotic republicans and neurotic democrats populating them, or at least the overwhelming majority

I plan to go into my photography of nature more, and build artistic picture frames for my Hummingbird photos to sell. And let all the poison that has accumulated from bitter rivalries on Balloon Juice to melt away with peace and time. There are still a number of people there I think highly of and consider friends, and I will miss them. And John Cole too. He is a decent and honest man caught in a world of craziness. And when that is the case, no one can hold out forever. I will never return there however, and not likely become a regular commenter on any blog. But we shall see. I will be checking this blog every week or so at the public library computers to see if anyone is reading this or other stuff, and will post small blurbs on how things are going. Till then. Later Alligators.

Glenn Greenwald V. Obama/Kagan cont...

Here is the latest from the pages of GG blog on the evils of the Obama Administration.

It's anything but surprising that President Obama has chosen Elena Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Nothing is a better fit for this White House than a blank slate, institution-loyal, seemingly principle-free careerist who spent the last 15 months as the Obama administration's lawyer vigorously defending every one of his assertions of extremely broad executive authority.

That's right. A blank slate. Really? Dean at Harvard Law School, now Solicitor General of the US. What GG would say if he was the honest sort, that Ms. Kagan is a blank slate because she has not been a judge. That would be fair and true. But that little lack of caveat is this guys MO. It is sneaky smear tactics. Not an out and out lie, just not the complete truth, whereas to make the broad point he is making, the whole truth is required, to be credible. And he also leaves out that she is not a blank slate to Obama, who is tasked alone by the Constitution to appoint SCOTUS nominees, and made a great pick in Sonia Sotomayor, and even liberal ideologues agree.

And the knock of Kagan "defending" every one Obama's assertions of any policy is especially dishonest coming from a trained attorney, who knows full well that a SG (solicitor general) has the duty to do exactly that. She does not decide the policy, she defends it as a defense attorney would defend his client no matter his/her personal opinion on guilt or innocence. This is lawyering 101.

It's even less surprising that Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn't. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies?

And he continues his jihad that Obama is just another Bush, which is so laughable, it hardly warrants comment. Diane Wood, I think would have made a good liberal SCOTUS, but other than Kagan not having judicial decisions to study her judicial philosophy, he has nothing else of value to claim Kagan would not be as good on civil liberties. Mr. GG is the master at conflation with his Obama like Bush campaign. He takes powers that have long been held by presidents of both parties, that Bush exceeded with abandon and criminality, and since Obama wants to maintain the status quo before Bush == of powers legal if constrained by practice, and equates Obama is just like Bush. It is a lie. GG hates Executive Power of all kinds, it seems to me, in the zeal of a rabid ideological libertarian, but calls himself "progressive", to suggest his motives are pure and in the mainstream. Yet another lie.

UPDATE - Seems there is a record from Ms Kagan on zealous Executive Powers under GWB

"Hidden in plain sight, though, is a letter Kagan signed that neither liberals nor conservatives have commented on, though it is part of the public record.

"In a 2005 letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, Kagan and three other deans of major American law schools, wrote to oppose legislation proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to strip the courts of the power to review the detention practices, treatment and adjudications of guilt and punishment for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

" 'To put this most pointedly,' the letter said, 'were the Graham amendment to become law, a person suspected of being a member of al-Qaeda could be arrested, transferred to Guantanamo, detained indefinitely ... subjected to inhumane treatment, tried before a military commission and sentenced to death without any express authorization from Congress and without review by any independent federal court. The American form of government was established precisely to prevent this kind of unreviewable exercise of power over the lives of individuals.'

" 'When dictatorships have passed' similar laws, said the deans, 'our government has rightly challenged such acts as fundamentally lawless. The same standard should apply to our own government.' "

SCOTUS Pick Watch From Loony Right and Left

It seems the wingnuts are placing their orders for the upcoming Obama Supreme Court nomination like ordering a funny pizza with all the trimmings.

Concerned Women for America is demanding that Obama name a nominee that they supports their right wing views and Phyllis Schlafly is demanding that Obama name a military veteran ... and now a group of leaders are demanding that he name someone "who will support the right of the government to maintain a decent society and to protect children from indecent and other media content that is harmful to them":

Let's review, Schaffley wants a military type justice and some other nutters want apple pie for dessert with theirs. I suspect a "decent society" is a concept we can all rally around, maybe with mothers milk and plenty of diaper for baby jeevus. I am not against those things, and certainly the bouncing baby Christ I don't want stinking up the country with dirty diapers. But somehow, I think they want a little more than those things.

And the left. Well at least they keep it simple. It's want they don't want that is on their mind, and her name is Elena Kagan, by all measure a brilliant New York native jewish lesbian attorney and currently Solicitor General of the USA. She is reported as Obama's likely choice, and you would think that would bring cheers from the high minded progressive internet lords of the left, but you would be wrong. They want someone else, cause Elena might be a racist and a closet right winger, and because Glenn Greenwald says shut up, that's why. They are busy pre smearing her with speculation that because she didn't hire enough people of color from her time at as Dean of Harvard Law School, that ipso facto she could loves white folks to a fault. Of course, they have no evidence, and no records of those hires to demostrate there were actually equal or greater qualified applicants of color for the 25 faculty hires she made, but that doesn't matter cause they don't like her nor want her to be a SCOTUS justice, and that's good enough reason to bring out the tar and feathers, even before she is picked, or anyone picked. <i>Irresponsible to speculate, irresponsible not to</i>. The wankers credo.

This is using right wing tactics again, that we have seen time after time by the likes of Glenn Greenwald and other puma types claiming to be dems and Obama supporters. It is a lie, and they, and especially Mr. Greenwald, are lying liars of the worst kind. It is throwing up mud, that without context and more info seems true or at least plausible, but cannot be known without more evidence. On top of accusing, or insinuating that a person with a long record of supporting equal rights, and one who has faced bigotry due to her sexual orientation, could maybe possibly be a racist, and even white supremacist.

It is scurrilous tactics, and serves the purpose of validating an avenue of attack for the wingnuts once she is nominated. Or, giving them the creds, being racist themselves, or some of them, to point to good concerned progressive liberals like Mr. Greenwald as cover to go after her, based of a few hires she made in the past.

To quote Mr. Greenwald

Regardless of your particular views on these matters, that diversity is both vital and fair in the hiring process has long been a central plank in progressive thinking. It takes little creativity to imagine what Democrats would say about a Republican Supreme Court nominee with a hiring record similar to Kagan's. The question is whether they will be as consistent as these law professors are in applying their claimed beliefs to their own side. This is the issue that caused Linda Monk to rescind her endorsement of Kagan. Will Kagan-defending progressives now suddenly say that diversity is irrelevant? Will they try to claim that there were no qualified minorities for the Harvard Law School faculty? How will they reconcile everything they've always said about diversity with Kagan's record as Dean?

You really need to read the whole piece by this jackass. Complete with insinuation after insinuation citing other bloggers and such wanking the same shit he is, and all of it adorned with his usual "Obama Cultist" blind allegiance bullshit, at even the hint of anyone challenging, or thinking about challenging his nonsense. This is your Nutroots.

Good New Is Wherever You Can Get It

Via TPM

It's about fucking time this crook was put on trial. I had begun to think somehow it would get swept under the rug in The Republic of Texas. But it seems Tom Delay will finally be brought to trial.

DeLay Money Laundering Case May Finally Be Headed To Trial

Five years after he was charged with conspiracy and money laundering in an alleged scheme to funnel corporate money into the 2002 Texas elections, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may soon stand trial after a ruling by a state appeals court cleared perhaps the final remaining obstacles in the case.

And his lawyer tells TPMmuckraker DeLay couldn't be happier with the state of the case.

"He wants to go to trial. He's been wanting to go to trial from the very beginning," says Dick DeGuerin, the high-profile Texas defense attorney who is representing DeLay. "There's no evidence by any stretch of the imagination that could convict him."

Yea right. We shall see if Delay's giddiness will hold. Al Capone was giddy too, also.

It's Not Easy Being An Obamunist

Senator Jeff Sessions is pre condemning the SCOTUS nominee to replace the retiring John Paul Stephens.

“He said that he wanted a judge who would consider the impact the decision would have on ordinary Americans,” Sessions (R.-Ala.) said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “That’s a call to something other than the law and the facts. That’s a call to something more akin to politics than law. And so again I think the President’s presenting a troubling philosophy, and you have to assume that’s the kind of judge he’s going to nominate.”

Well, we can't have people in government worrying about ordinary Americans, now can we. /wingnut

Another Leap From the Overton Window

The Republican National Committee launched a new website on Wednesday that accuses the president of trying to shred the founding purposes of the Constitution in profound and inflammatory ways, chief among them: nominating sex-offender defenders to high courts.

just speechless. Next thing they will accuse Obama of being a socialist, or maybe not even an American. George Bush gets to torture people and that's called patriotism. Obama, well what has Obama done to shred the constitution. Oh yea, pass universal health care for the country.

The State of Baby Jeevus

Virginia is in a mad dash to outwingnut Arizona, or so it seems.

After months of lobbying by conservative activists, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has quietly reversed a policy banning Virginia State Police troopers from referring to Jesus Christ in public prayers.

I am not sure what constitutes public prayers for State Police Chaplains, but I am confident it means people having to listen to something they object to.