GOPVILLE HORROR

I tried keeping up with who's been indicted; who's been locked up; Mary "no more wire hangers" Matalin, the eternal apologist; the exploding Foley closet; cell block Abramoff; Scooter, the pooper; and every other GOP arrest that I totally forgot Halloween, or, more aptly Hallowgop. So in honor of the usual suspects, check out this post on Wonkette:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/prison/another-bush-official-sent-to-prison-210774.php

And this Wall Street Opinion piece by none other than Sister Peggy Noonan; she's a conservative, kids, and hoping for a loss.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

GEORGED

Just when I think it can't get any more absurd, it does. Is it a full moon? Could it be that all hallow's eve is upon us? Perhaps the literati are channeling Ionesco and Kafka? Or is there some sort of planetary alignment tilting the world off its axis? Maybe the WMD have been found?

Let's begin at the beginning: last Sunday, a day of rest. Woke-up. Got Nathan, our son, out of bed. Returned to Mommy & Daddy's room for a bit. Watched a kids' show on PBS--you know, the network that Maggie Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education, who's no more qualified than a substitute teacher, attacked with a "heckuva" of a punch. Went downstairs. Got the papers. Ate breakfast. Made sure Nathan was set with his Thomas the tank engine train set in the family room. Moved to the living room. Turned on ABC's This Week. Lo and behold: George and George.

As I was enjoying my third cup of coffee and a rather delicious apple crumb muffin, George asked George about the rhetoric of "stay the course." And George replied: "We've never been 'stay the course,' George!" I gagged. Muffin flew all over the place. Coffee splattered onto the paper. Nathan came to the rescue. Thomas derailed off the track, and so did his friends. Amy asked if I was alright. And I replied--to the TV, not to Amy: You've got to be kidding me?

If you haven't been conscious this week, let me drag you out of zombiezone. Our commander-in-denial, George W., appeared for a one-on-one interview last Sunday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week. Yes, a bit of a shocker since W. has been in huddles lately with the right wing echo chamber, including their cultural saint, Pill O'Shitty. Back to George and George. What seemed to be a routine interview took a most absurd turn when George asked George about the "stay the course" rhetoric, and George, well, flat out denied it. Granted, we've all backstroked or butterflied in the river denial, but George just bellyflopped into it like the fratboy he is. Hence, my spitup routine and Thomas flying off the tracks. Poor Thomas!

For sure, I thought that team Bush would throw W. a safety tube. No, not a chance. Instead, on Monday morning, captain Snow dived right off--no pun intended--the bridge of parsing, and virtually said the same thing, thus creating such waves that the blogosphere erupted with all sorts of commentary.

While I was still thinking about that yummy apple crumb muffin, I also thought that within a 24 hour news cycle, the media would've had this framed, settled, and doublespoke: "what he meant was 'stay the course' as a philosophy, not as the overall strategy and tactics. So we can argue this point, but this president is serious about the war against reality--oops--I mean, terroism." But no. Monday evening came, and so did more absurdity.

Like a recurring figure from Greek literature that creates all kinds of havoc, George reappears, and in my neck of the woods. That's George Stephanopoulos. He comes to SE CT to moderate the Lamont--Oedipus Lieberman--Cool Hand Al show-- debate. A routine political event quickly turned into a hybrid performance--Kabuki Theater meets Greek Tragedy meets Last Comic Standing. It was priceless: part debate; part transparent candidate preference on Mark Davis's part--that asshole; part unsolicited audience participation on behalf of the LaRouche Choir that responded to poor, tragic Joe; and a whole lot of comedy provided by Al. The most priceless moment, though, in my mind, was when Ol' Joe disavowed himself from "stay the course." Sunday collapsed into Monday. Absurdity rebounded: I was in a Kafka story. Thomas was tooting in the family room; the LaRouche choir harmonizing wouldn't leave my head; the apple crumb smell came back and made me hungry once again; and the shockwaves of denial flooded from my television quicker than a poltergeist.

What was it? Was it a sign of things to come? Was this the October surprise? Did aliens usurp my body to use it as a host? Should we all revisit Ionesco and Kafka to find the answers? Or could it be that I had been georged?

OEDIPUS LIEBERMAN: THEATER OF THE ABSURD

I'm concerned, very concerned. After last night's debate, if it did not become abundantly obvious that Joe has to go, then I can't help you. Al said it best: it was a performance indeed. The chorus chimed in, as it does in Greek tragedy; Oedipus Lieberman was still meglomaniacal, claiming that now he is for a phased withdrawal; and the hecklers rocked the house. Was I watching a debate? Kabuki theater, a la Joe? Theater of the absurd? No, just Joe and all of his bull.

Coming to a Classroom near You

Part 1—The Craziness

Yesterday was one of those days when I was wavering between suicidal and homicidal tendencies—yes, I’m being overly dramatic. But you know what I mean: it was too much to bear. So my overarching dilemma felt like: would I feel better off if I killed myself, or if I killed someone else? Interruption upon interruption. Paper after paper. Demand after demand. Mini crisis after mini crisis. E-mail “in” folder was full. Stop the madness!

Folks, this is just a brief description of the day of the life of a public school teacher—and every teacher feels this way, at least once a week. A bit crazy? Yes. A bit worrisome? Oh, yes. Completely insane? Absolutely yes.

Ten years ago, when I first entered this profession, it was a great time to teach. Masses of people were retiring; jobs were a plenty; practical instructive techniques were being implemented; and teaching was both challenging and exhilarating. During this time, I made some lifelong friends; some were already in the profession, some, along with me, were just entering; and I was even lucky enough to meet my wife.

At this time, there were so many initiatives. Technology was revolutionizing teaching; we were all learning new strategies; and students, for the most part, were changing along with us, or at least trying.

Being a new teacher, I was certainly overwhelmed but never overburdened. I distinctly remember a much appreciated, seasoned veteran tell me that if I were a “quick study,” I could possibly gain leverage on my teaching in three to four years. Leverage meaning: it would get easier and more manageable. Well, three to four years have quickly come and gone, and while I still love working with students, I have a newsflash that far too many teachers know: the job isn’t getting any easier.

Nowadays, teachers, those who actually do their job, have far too much to do. First and foremost we are supposed to teach, come up with plans, “align” our teaching with standards; correct work, and sometimes assign imaginary numbers to ward off a witch hunt that might ensue; do clerical duties that involve paper management—a Stephen King nightmare in the making; counsel students because we need to be concerned with how they feel and whether or not they like us—who cares if they are learning; communicate with parents to justify the grades we give; be on a committee that addresses the “need” for… more committees; attend professional development conferences that are usually hosted by…people who are no longer in the classroom or well-paid consultants; and bedeck our rooms with mission statements, standards, discipline policies and any other interior design item so that we can “flip” the room should another teacher come along, or more dreadfully yet, a walk-through or NEASC team. Can you imagine if we wallpapered the crib with the entire NCLB document? Now that’s what I call alignment!

I wish I were making this all up, but I’m not. Any good teacher worth his or her job, and many visit this site, knows that it’s just too much. And while there are some, just like in any profession, who make those of us who do our jobs, look bad by doing nothing; by pitching tent near a PC while the students do busy paperwork; and/or by going on a control freak rampage, attempting to micromanage everyone else’s day (that’s dedicated to JD and my conservative brethren SK), we all get the same amount of pay. Of course, this pay lags severely behind the salaries of other professionals, say accountants, insurance industry professionals, and, in some cases, store managers—not that there is anything wrong with these professions. I’m just saying that teachers who teach; who counsel students and do care how they feel on some level, just not with a social worker’s or psychologist’s level of expertise; who abide by what comes down from the Mt. Olympus of Administration and the Titans of Central Office; who care about their kids’ learning; who attempt to contribute to rather than contaminate the work environment; and who have a love for their discipline and actually “work” through assignments just as students should and/or do feel that sometimes, we would much prefer killing something rather than managing this inordinate amount of demands.

So in an effort to make us at least 1% more conscious about the current state of public school teaching, I have initiated a new strand on this blog, which both many teachers and, word has it, students read, called “Coming to a Class Room near You.” This is just part one in a long series to come, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

PREVIEW: Coming to a Classroom near You, part 2: The Jeri D. Hours Log: Sorry Folks: We Really Don’t Get Summers Off.

Corporate Dollar Baby

New parents of infants find themselves on a crash course of learning. And the quicker they learn the better off they are. The first learning lessons are about the crying baby. Lulled into the false reality that babies always sleep, we soon learn that babies cry a lot. And there are three basic reasons for an infant's cry: the baby is either very tired, hungry, or needs to have his diaper changed.

Would SOMEBODY please change Oedipus Lieberman’s diaper because he is so full of crap? The whining this week has made many of us go crazy-- and North Korea go nuclear. The noise has been unbearable. It doesn’t seem like he’s overly tired; it doesn’t look like he’s hungry. It must be that smelly, wet diaper on his bum that has him—and us—in such a stink.

From once again claiming that Ned Lamont is buying a senate seat when Joe has racked up more corporate contributions to surpass Lamont and an ENRON redux in fundraising, to flip-flopping on everything from social security to his “real Democrat” waffling on whether or not he wants the Dems to re-take congress, Joe has shown that mirror, mirror on the fall, his greatest flaw of them all: himself.

That real republicans have yet to recognize Joe’s part megalomaniacal, part narcissistic personality disorder is rather stunning; that’s why we told him to hit the bricks, not wear a diaper.

Joe doesn’t care about Democrats; he doesn’t care about Republicans; he just cares about himself. Acting too quickly to throw Alan Schlesinger, under the bus, or in a closet—their latest “uncolonized space,” the republicans witness Schlesinger coming up--or coming out—pun intended—swinging as a true conservative in the recent humorous debates . Who cares if he had a problem at Mohegan Sun? True conservatives would place their bets on Al.

A corporate dollar baby, Joe has to go. Oh—wait. I hear a baby's cry. Perhaps our baby Joe, like baby O’Reilly, that crusading cultural wart, in his latest interview with W., might once again blame the “bloggers” and their “vitriol.” I guess we’re 1 percent more conscious, and we approve our message.

The Rime of the Ancient GOP

Crash! Bam! Boom! Darkness falls. Winds gust to tornadic speeds. Lightening scorches the earth. Peals of thunder roar and roar. The ground begins to quake. A massive seismic wave undoes all. Buildings crumble. Cities fall. Bridges collapse.

Armageddon? No.

Osama has been found? Definitely no.

A new “Exorcist” movie? No, not yet.

Apocalypse Now? No way.

Apocalypse Redux? No, Brando, no!

Apocalypse recycled, renewed, reused? No, no, and no!

What, then?

The GOP closet door has exploded off its hinges, faster than RuPaul snapping her fingers, saying: “Get DOWN with your bad self.” Yes, my friends, I have a huge news flash for you all, left, right and center, so brace yourselves. Hold on tight. This may be a bit much. Seat belts buckled. Crash helmets on. Get in the launch position. 4, 3, 2, 1, blast off!: There are gay Republicans. OH, my GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As the Foley scandal reduplicates legs quicker than a xenomorph in some strange sci-fi flick, we, the electorate of the United States have two choices: to be conscious or not to be conscious. You see, so many have the Foley scandal completely wrong, especially those who shapeshift along my side of the isle, eager to look inside the closet. But let’s review the basics, so we can get the story gay—straight, I mean

Mark Foley was a congressman from Florida, who was first elected in that tsunami wave of Republican takeover in 1994. Too bad the wave’s undertow of hypocrisy immediately pulled several of its surfers down, including their demi god himself Newt, whose had more marital and extra-marital problems than Susan Lucci’s Erica Cane of All of My Children. The larger point is: the tsunami’s aftershock remains.

Thus, back to All My GOP Gays because even back then, sources claim that everyone knew Foley was a closeted homosexual. In fact, prior to the election cycle of 2004, rumors crept out from behind the door that Foley was then considering a run for the Senate, for the seat that Martinez would take. The Florida GOP world knew that Foley’s closeted life would become an issue in such a highly publicized race. The GOP knew that they couldn’t square, or triangulate in not-such-a-pink sort of way, Foley’s life with their traditional values, especially when they were making the case against gay marriage, with every nutjob from insane-in-the-membrane Ted Nugent to Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell. Several news organizations knew this information, too. Hence, no Senate for Foley.

What’s troubling here is that of course there are gays in the GOP. And I’m not just referring to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the gay male escort who posed as a reporter—and I’m sure as other things as well—in the White House Press Room. Yes, believe it or not: there was a gay hooker near chimpy, not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld has duly noted. But there are gay people in the GOP—learn it, deal with it. Just check out the Log Cabin Republicans, for heaven’s sake. Just check out Andrew Sullivan, for Will & Grace’s sake. Look at Lynn Cheney, for Deferment Dick’s sake.

Let’s face it: Gay people are us. They are in our families, our communities, our churches, our temples, and our mosques. They are us; we are them. They are part of our human family, and we should recognize this fact more often. What’s disturbing is how the GOP has systematically tried to strengthen its deathstar laser beams by brutally exploiting the very members that support their party.

On September 29, 2006, Mark Foley resigned, not because he was gay; rather, because he was embroiled in several allegations of inappropriate conduct with minors. And everybody knew, from the top down, or the top/bottom, in this case. The media then went nuts.

So as the GOP door ripped off its hinges, some ugly realities come before us. Who cares about Mr. Foley’s sexuality? Research abundantly shows that there is no correlation between one’s orientation and one’s inclination to engage in lewd acts with minors. In fact, like it or not, research compellingly singles out heterosexuals with an overwhelming trend of having sexual relations with minors. We do care, though, that Foley was messing around with underage pages, which is unconscionable. What’s even more unconscionable is how the GOP, the party of values, covered all this up, leading angry, irrational dems., who are still salivating revenge for the witch hunt of Billy Clinton, along a path of distraction.

But when you really think about this: is it a cover-up, or a gussied-up story to lead us astray? In this hot political climate, the answer is obvious. We are being led away from the more imminent horrors that have “come out” in the past couple of weeks. And these horrors all eddy around two black holes on this planet: Iraq and Washington.

While many people trotted along the Foley scandal path, there are several things they missed. This week, we learn that in Iraq the civilian body count hovers around 600,000, claims The Lancet, a highly respected British journal. This week’s Newsweek, with Foley on the cover and more about Iraq and Washington on the inside ironically, reports that last month there were 2,500 deaths in Iraq alone. Last week, we, Americans, lost 13 of our soldiers, just in seven days. And the sectarian violence—get a load of this shit—has spread to the Internet; go “inside” the Newsweek closet, bypassing the cover to learn more. So while everyone drools over Foley’s e-mails and IMs, they may want to refocus their interest on how the Iraqi death squads—not terrorists—use the Internet now as a way to kill. Like the bodies falling dead aboard the ship in Coleridge’s haunting, classic “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” bodies are dropping all over Iraq, both ours and theirs. But no need to worry: the other news this week that many ignored is that the Armed Services has, get this, dumb-downed entry requirements to attract more recruits. Several veterans and my dad tell me that is NOT a good sign.

A HUGE news item that many have missed, as they helplessly pitched camp inside the Foley closet, the news that may very well cause symbolic seismic eruptions and renegade jet streams, is the release of Tempting Faith by David Kuo, former deputy director of the Bush White House Faith-Based and Community initiatives. Talk about doors flying off their hinges. This brutal exposé shows, among many things, that Bush-Rove et al merely used the religious right for their political gain, calling many of its leaders “boorish” and “nuts.” That’s a surprise!

When will we learn? In Coleridge’s poem, the mariner relates the albatross around his neck with the enormous guilt he feels for randomly shooting at it. For him, it’s a horror. In our current state of politics, our leaders don’t want to acknowledge what they have shot at it or any “shooting” that’s going on, let alone redemption by wearing anything around their necks. For us, this is our horror, except, let’s keep it in the closet.

LET'S SPIN THE SCARINESS: NEW LAMONT AD AT

http://lamont.3cdn.net/61effdda5b1f300695_04m6b2hwl.mov

IT’S NOT OVER ‘TIL THE FAT LADY SINGS
(a special thanks to JM for the research on this entry)

Snap out of it! I’m tired of hearing Dems. whine and boo-hoo about the latest polling that shows Oedipus Lieberman up by ten points against Lamont. As my Italian grandmother Frieda, whom I loved dearly and who was a die-hard Republican, said: it’s not over ‘til the fat lady sings.

Granted, the polling doesn’t look all that good. And one would think that we, Dems., finally got rid of ol’ Joe when we threw his ass overboard on the primary day in August. But like the Rocky movies—yes, a new comes out this Fall—that never go away, Oedipus is back for yet another round.

A review of Connecticut political history, though, is much needed. During the 1988 senatorial election, before Joe morphed into the megalomaniacal Oedipus Lieberman, he was running against Lowell Weiker, a liberal republican—a quick lesson for my republican colleagues here: kids, you can be liberal and be a republican. Look at Lincoln Chafee. For Pete’s sake, based on this motley crew that controls the RNC, Barry Goldwater would be considered a left-wing radical. Back to ’88. Anyway, in October of that month, prior to the debates—and there were a couple, at least—on the 12th & 17th—Joe was running ten or so points behind Weiker.

With an endorsement from William F. Buckley, the arch conservative of National Review fame, Lieberman ran a campaign to the right of Weiker. Yes, so all this bullshit about Oepidus being the “true” liberal in his race against Lamont is for the birds. Anyway, Joe did amazingly well during the debates in '88, which gave him enough momentum, in less than a month’s time, to eclipse Weiker’s lead and win the seat. The point: it’s not over yet.

WHAT ARE YOU PRETENDING NOT TO KNOW?

Pat Benatar taught babyboomers’ babies—my generation—a thing or two. Benatar along with Chrissie Hynde, Ann & Nancy Wilson of Heart, and Joan Jett were the hard rock chics of the late 70s/early 80s who took no shit, who railed against weak men and weak women, who were far from afraid of being called an angry bitch, and who helped shift, I believe, the gender paradigm to a more equitable position. These women blazed a path that allowed Madonna to do her thing, for Tina Turner to resurrect from the 60s, and for several other no-talent assholes to walk, stumble upon, or just crash and burn. Stunning audiences with a three-and-a-half octave voice, Benatar waged war against the very things she had to confront: abusive power, outdated stereotypes, and being told you can’t do what you can do. When we listened to the classically-trained Benatar downshift from operatic highs to grungy, raging howls, we heard Puccini arias meeting Led Zeppelin rifts. It was like nothing we ever heard before. The one lesson we learned from Benatar and her ilk was that if we were in a bad relationship, then get the hell out.

Why oh why are we in these bad relationships with our current politicians, the people whom we elect to represent us? As Bob Woodward’s latest book suggests about Bush and company, are we, too, in a catatonic state of denial? If so, can we ever wake up? Or is it more analogous to a question Dr. Phil often asks: if you had terrible food at a restaurant, would you go back again? Are we truly going “back again” for the same old shit-on-a-plate that made us sick the first time? Let’s face it: the answers to these questions are very scary, and, strangely enough, make a convincing case for viewing daytime soap operas as much needed therapy. Perhaps repeated witnessing of blatant melodrama might well lead us to the ugly realization that we are stuck in an awful relationship with politicians, and we need to get out.

Regardless of which side of the isle you are on, things aren’t going exactly well for us, the American citizens. Polls consistently show that both Republicans and Democrats desperately want a split from our current political relationships. It’s bad enough chimpy’s approval ratings fluctuate between below freezing—31 and a whopping 40 or so; Deferment Dick’s stagnate in the teens. This congress, who just gave itself another record raise and more days off, isn’t doing much better either. Their approval rating is in the toilet, and we should definitely flush. Rather than being responsive to the American people, they are more concerned with their own agendas, their lobbyist friends, and their sex scandals. You thought Bubba and Lewinsky were bad? This Foley scandal makes that sordid narrative look like an Aesop Fable.

But let’s take a look at why we should dump these chumps. The “main street” American economy continues to get ravaged by the “wall street” American economy; CEO salaries continue to skyrocket while the middle class hits the dirt. Our true earning power measured against steroid-like, Jose Consecoish inflation rates is lower than ever. Home-heating and gasoline prices, albeit on a convenient downswing for now, aren’t exactly helping matters. What will they be like in January? Health care costs are rising, while health care benefits are diminishing; we pay more for less. Education costs, despite one’s talents and achievements, provide a fast track for a lifetime of debt rather than a lifetime of opportunity. And our foreign policy should be more aptly called our Foreign Horror. Now reportedly under the scrutiny of Henry Kissinger, who, like something from an Edgar Allan Poe story, has crossed over from the dead, this policy continues to create bad relationships all over the fucking world. What are we pretending not to know?

One would think that a much needed break-up is in the air, or at least a deordorizing stick-up is. But just like all the abusive relationships we have witnessed in soap operas or in our own lives, some people just can’t help themselves. They rationalize; they justify; they try to explain that while they should flush the crap down the toilet, they would much rather allow it to stay around and stink up the whole place. Gives new meaning to the notion of something being rotten in Denmark, doesn’t it? But there are more important questions to ask.

Why as an electorate, are we willing to stay in these bad relationships when all the evidence convincingly shows that, well, we are in very bad relationships? Do we like the abuse because we’ve become so used to it? Why don’t we vote in our own best interest? Or do we need to be “smacked out of it” by Benatar and the Wilson sisters of Heart to tell these barracudas: You Better Run?

Fear is Foul; Foul is Fear: When the Battle is Lost and Won

It seems that literature is hot again. All the Kings Men hits the big screen soon with Sean Penn in the lead. Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Told is creating quite a stir, a renegade maelstrom of sorts in right-wing circles. Bill O’Reilly, that literary virtuoso from Fox Fiction, has published yet another volume of shit. Or “crap” as David Letterman would say; George Allen would call it “macaca,” of course. O’Reilly’s latest effort is called Culture Warrior—perhaps in honor of his tragic, out-of-court settlement in a brutal “love is battlefield” against Andrea Mackis and her rather descriptive yet strange stories of Bill’s fetish for…falafels. Let’s not go any further. Thank the good Lord for O’Shitty’s arch nemesis, the one and only Keith Olberman, who has just released his own literary effort: The Worst Person in the World: And 202 Strong Contenders. Something tells me that ol’ spinboy tops that list.

Even Chimpy is reading lit. again. Yes, W. has returned to the classics. Let’s remember, though: the man isn’t that stupid; I’m serious. He just acts stupid to get votes, to appeal to “hawd wurking American menn,” and to seem like well, Tom Cruise in Top Gun—“major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” That’s as authoritative as Cruise pontificating about post-partum depression, modern psychology and Brooke Shields.

According to Maureen Dowd, Chimpy’s red-headed Achilles columnist, who has been forbidden from the White House Press Room albeit gay male escorts are certainly allowed, and whom Zell Miller says is daemonic because of her red hair and her heritage—Irish, W. has taken a liking to a rather eclectic taste in literary choices: from novels of history to The Stranger by Camus to Shakespeare’s Macbeth. An impressive reading list indeed!

I am glad he has time to do this and run the country, a war in Iraq, which he started, a reconstruction effort in the Gulf Coast, which he has neglected, and meet, greet, and, in some cases, like poor Angela Merkel who received an unsolicited, chimpy shoulder rub, terrorize world leaders at close range—better not bring Deferment Dick along, because if you get real close, he might shoot your face off, no pun intended.

So what is this sudden zeitgeist with literature? Given our leader’s selection from the Western Canon, one can’t help but speculate about what has inspired his choices. Take Macbeth, for instance. Could it be that W. sees something “uncanny” between him and the main character? Is it that Karl has been calling poor Hillary Lady Macbeth for so long that W. wants to find out once and for all what the hell he means? Or is it that he likes those weird sisters—the witches, and, since Halloween is coming along, well, what the hell? Could it be that just as the play states from the beginning, “the battle” has begun and when November 7th is here, we will soon learn who has lost and won? Bingo: I think we have a winner.

The 2006 midterm battle for political control has more than just begun; we have entered the heart of darkness, the final stretch, the “fear factor,” and nothing scares us more than scary stories. Who cares if the National Intelligence Estimate released this week declares that the Bush Administration is systematically causing more terrorism? Just remember that we are fighting ‘em over there to prevent them from coming here, and that’s scary enough. Who cares if Bubba Clinton resurrected from the land of bi-partisanship to kick the snot out of Chris Wallace with facts, personal admission, and candor in that now famous interview? Just remember that Bubba did almost sleep with Monica Lewinsky, and that’s scarier. Who cares if two-to-three star, republican generals testified this week on Capitol Hill that the war effort is a huge mistake and Rummy is an even bigger mistake? Just remember that they are unpatriotic leftists, and this is most scary. Who cares if we are now rejoicing that gas prices are falling from over three dollars a gallon to a “save-the-middle-class-vote” of just over two fifty a gallon? Just remember that the hurricane season impacts the oil production, and this is very, very scary. Who cares if manufacturing jobs are out-the-door? Just watch the Rob Simmons commercial to make you feel better, which will scare you into not voting for Joe Courtney.

These are some scary stories indeed. But lo and behold: fear is foul, and foul is fear. Let the battle rage on. And no, there aren't horns growing out of my head because I’m Irish!

LADY OF MASS DECEPTION

I just caught Katie Couric’s interview on 60 Minutes with Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. And what I can say? A lot.

I will begin with the reality. There’s no question: Condi’s one smart woman, and you’ve got to give her credit, like her or leave her. As an African-American woman, she never ceases to amaze me how the hell she navigates the GOP stratosphere, especially with the likes of Five Deferment Dick and Lunatic Rummy dwelling in the celestial realm. Especially since a large part of her party put up a stink in the House with renewing the Voting Rights Act in the spring. Especially since much of the right-wing talk radio echo chamber resounds with openly racist comments daily. And there’s no question that she along with likes of General Colin Powell are the GOP success stories of individuals who did not come from the best backgrounds and who truly pulled themselves up from their “bootstraps.”

Now let’s move to the deception. Did Dr. Rice have the right to talk with Couric about her childhood? Absolutely. Did Dr. Rice have the right to talk with Couric about the segregationist South during her childhood in Alabama? Absolutely. Did Dr. Rice have the right to comment on racism and its horrors? Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. Should Dr. Rice have equated the racist-motivated bombings in the South in the 1960s with the “war on terror,” against which she and the Bush administration have waged real war, against which she and the Bush administration propagandize on a daily basis, against which she, George W. Bush, and the Republic Party use as a campaign tool? Probably not. But it worked; it was convincing; and as Frank Rich has noted in his new stunning book, it’s another narrative strand of The Greatest Story Ever Told. And how clever of them to air this effort on the season premiere of 60 Minutes.

Couric did her best. She was as pointed as she could be. But this interview was with a high-profile politician; in such cases all questions, editing, and sequencing were probably checked by Condi’s people ahead of time. In a few instances, like when Couric asked Dr. Rice about whether or not—wait minute, the story shifted a bit—she believed in Bush’s plan of spreading democracy in the Middle East, Couric became a little tough; but Couric was no where near as tough as Senator Barbara Boxer’s questioning of Condi during her confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January ’05. Couric's pseudo moments of toughness were far and few between. The point is: Couric wasn’t certainly as tough as she should’ve been and it seemed that she may have been muzzled. That's because she seemed to be mesmerized by the ever brilliant Lady of Mass Deception, or at least Couric was told to look as if she were.

Condi was clearly allowed to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes in this interview. From claiming that she and the administration didn’t know about the scanty intelligence, pre-Invasion to Iraq to the claim that she “resents” it when people think that she—the “mushroom cloud” fear-mongerer—and the administration misled the country, Condi just made it all look as controlled and appealing as the gorgeous clothes she was wearing. Both the red and white dress suits looked great; you go, girl! My friends from Stanford tell me she’s one hell of a shopper. But let’s not forget, though, that although she’s brilliant and she has quite an inspiring life story, she’s one of the team. She was one of the team when the neo-conservative establishment was mobilizing in the late 90s to put together a foreign policy strategy for their established candidate, Chimpy Bush; she’s been part of the team and her dividends have paid off as she was (it’s uncertain if she still is) on the board of directors at Exxon Mobile; she was part of the team when she sold the war to the American people; and she’s been part of the team that has shifted the focus away from the now-proven-false justification of weapons of mass destruction to “freedom’s on the march”—nation building and “spreading” investment opportunities—better known as capitalism.

I don’t have a problem with Condi personally, and I unequivocally believe that she’s very good at her job: deceiving. Perhaps this is why talk show personality Randi Rhodes claims that every time Condi lies, that gap between her teeth widens ever so more. Well, Randi, it seems to me that those shiny fangs have been capped, and for good reason.

NEW LAMONT RADIO ADD: Joe calling in sick.

This is beautiful--follow the link

http://www.nedlamont.com/blog

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

I know I’m not the first to make this claim, and there are those who are far better informed than I to explicate it, but: We, Americans, are in the midst of a pandemic known as the “daddy” trauma. And we need to get help—quickly.

This can be scene in the best show in town: the 24/7 political theater, which is quickly going into warp drive as we jet into October. Just look at the political advertisements here in CT. Those congressional republicans who face a serious challenge from democratic opposition have the “daddy” fever like no one else. What’s the “daddy” fever? It’s quite simple; it’s the rhetoric of “fear not little ones, I am here to protect you simply because my party and--regarldess if I'm truthful or not--I have said so.” I wish I could say that there was more to it, but that’s the gist of the message and what’s even more frightening: it works.

With one part smear and four parts fear, both Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons, better known on this blog as Washington Rob, have launched commercials that look like they were produced by the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer of the Armageddon genre—you know, the action-packed, testosterone laden, special effects extravaganza that bedazzles the eyes and does nothing for the mind?

Let’s face it: Johnson takes the academy award for this one. Her newest commercial shows the map of the world, with “phone-links” allegedly between her opponent Chris Murphy and some random-ass terrorist in Pakistan, suggesting that Murphy talks to the terrorist, when in reality Murphy merely supports the federal FISA law as written: to do random phone-tapping, the federal government needs to get a court order within 72 hours of initiating such a program. Let me break it down for you: Murphy supports the law whereas Johnson does not, as does our favorite little chimp, W. But this is not about truth; this is not about reality. This is about who’s your daddy. Put simply, it’s about perception management, and, our gal Nancy looks like a better, stronger, ass-kicking Daddy. And poor law-abiding Chris looks like, well, a whimp.

Washington Rob, whom my republican friends keep insisting is a nice man, jumped on the Daddy Wagon recently with gusto. I have been telling the Courtney campaign that they need to turn aggressive and stay aggressive. But no. Albeit Joe Courtney gave a respectable performance in his debate with Washington Rob on Monday evening and can easily come off as a bulldog, Rob has got that formidable “daddy" fever that transfixes and controls. From the get-go, Rob cleverly conflated the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism—surprise! surprise! He then quickly referred to the McCourt mother and child, New London residents, who lost their lives on 9/11, with a grieving paternal tone, a despicable, disgraceful move on this part. And then he discussed how he has been responsible for saving the sub base from closure. This was just in his opening remarks; and you can see and hear the “daddy" fever all over the place. Who cares that time and time again, the links between Iraq and the 9/11 have been disputed, disputed, and disputed? Who cares if people invoke the deaths of 9/11 for political gain and exploitation; they’ll just say they are paying homage to those who lost their lives? Who cares if it was a delegation of Connecticut politicians, both state and federal, both republican and democrat, who were responsible for saving the sub base? Washington Rob and Oedipus Lieberman, another “daddy" fever addict, just want to claim it for themselves, regardless of the facts that both Electric Boat and Pfizer, Inc., have been laying off left, right, and center. Simmons, quite frankly, only got better as an “our father” in his closing remarks, when making one claim after another he turned to Joe Courtney, and in a condescending tone rhetorically asked if Joe could do a better job. While Simmons’s television ads pale in comparison to Daddy Johnson's, the message is the same. What’s slightly scarier, though, is Daddy Washington Rob is seen outside EB, shaking workers’ hands, as they leave the yard: only if people were focusing on the real truth that hundreds of workers have, in fact, really left the yard due to layoffs. A sad reality. But Daddy Washington Rob makes it all look better.

What is it with this daddy trauma? Reports have abounded that W. has had a long history of daddy trauma of his own; everyone knows that it was Jeb whom Momma and Daddy Bush had pegged for the White House, not chimpy. Everybody knows that chimpy was a big fuck-up pretty much all his life until he was reborn. Everybody knows that W. likes to look tough, masculine and…a bit like Tom Cruise in Top Gun to make such declarations that our missions are accomplished. But just like with Cruise, we all know deep down, an enormous disparity exists between the surface daddy and, well, the daddy in the closet. And let’s not even consider the strange, surrogate daddy relationships W. has with Darth Cheney and Lunatic Rummy. It’s daddy trauma overload!

Don’t mistake me: I think the “daddy” thing works for republicans. This is why I suspect that there will not be this tsunami wave of democratic take-over in November; it isn’t going to happen. There may be some gains. But the “daddy" fever taps into peoples’ unconscious fears and desires to blind them to the truth. It lulls them into feeling safe, secure and aligned with people who look like they know better simply because they claim to know better.

But there’s something enormously problematic about the “daddy" fever, and we can only sustain this cultural headache for so long. Just take a look at Jodi Rell’s political ads to know the difference: unlike her republican colleagues, Rell comes off as the good witch from the west. She uses no fear; she seems like you want to invite her to your house for tea; she refers to being “part” of the team that saved the sub base; and, well, she makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. That’s right: I am predicting a big Rell win in November. DeStefano doesn’t stand a chance. But what’s interesting here, though, is for all the dark and negative attributes of “daddy" fever that Daddy Johnson and Daddy Washington Rob have, our beloved Jodi has gone to the opposite pole--the good mother—and it works.

Because we’ve nursed the “daddy" fever for so long in American politics, because we’ve been like that speaker in Sylvia Plath’s poem “Daddy”—symbolically living in a black shoe seeing enemies all over the place, because the “daddy" fever has become so epidemic and has caused seismic rifts in the electorate, I can’t help but think if and when the paradigm will ever change?

Plato believed that a state was in part a direct reflection of those who lead that state and served as a paradigm for those who followed. In light of this consideration, are we doomed with more “daddy" fever because W. can’t appropriate his “daddy issues”? Are there too many “daddies” around him to swing the pendulum back to the center? Or is it that just maybe we need different daddies and some good mothers in the mix so that the center can and will hold?

JOE & A HOT TIN TRUTH

Unlike a cat on a hot tin roof who struggles to withstand the heat, Joe just lies and lies and lies and tries to be a cool cat that you just love to hate. Just take a look at his most recent television ad. At first, I thought I was watching a promotion for "Thomas, the Tank Engine & Friends" who usually cameo at the Essex Train Station in the Fall. Playful music accompanied serene sequences of nature--interspersed with Joe, of course, trying ever so desperately to hide his narcissitic personality disorder. Only if it were Thomas, that cheeky little engine. Instead, we get Joe doing what he does best: promoting himself in agonizing detail and lying. You know: attacking Ned Lamont for negative ads--blah, blah, blah. That he concluded with the statement he's running because it's not about politics, it's about people conjured up images of a Saturday Night Live parody in the making, with a part Bab Streisand rendition "People" along with a Linda Blair revival of the pea soup puke scene from "The Exorcist."

Check out Joe's high holy lies of Sunday, as documented by David Sirota:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/lieberman-insults-us-tr_b_29627.html

AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY, AN AMERICAN SOLDIER, & WHO'S AFRAID OF VINDICATING THE TRUTH

Visit Crooks & Liars at
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/15/jake-plummer-is-outraged-over-the-treatment-of-pat-tillman-they-knew-it-was-friendly-fire-then-it-makes-you-sick/

What happened to Pat Tillman boldly highlights how the Bush Administration has botched their foreign policy, manipulated the media to its own design, and shown time and time again a complete disregard for Americans, our needs and rights, and our families.

The Pat Tillman story is rather honorable and clear: Tillman, a star NFL football player, felt the call to duty, the call to serve. After the 9/11 attacks, he made the conscious and bold decision to enact the ultimate sacrifice: to serve our country. Leaving behind a lucrative and much publicized career in the NFL, a loving wife and family, Tillman entered the United States Army in May 2002. He served in Iraq and then subsequently in Afghanistan. In April of 2004, Tillman was killed on the battlefield. At first, the news media reported that Tillman was killed by enemy fire while heroically carrying out his orders in intense combat.

The Tillman funeral was a national event, as it should've been. Politicians and cameramen were there en masse to comment on and/or to document the passing of a hero in ritualistic detail. What made this even more spectacular, especially for those of us who have been following the war and the Bush Administration's handling of it, is that the media and the administration have virtually ignored the sad return of the fallen. When do we see the coffins? The ceremonies honoring loss and sacrifice? The families and loved ones who grieve? Hence, you can understand why Cindy Sheehan--like her or leave her--has responded so passionately and heroically to a president and his team who have predicated their ideology on a "culture of life," which more oftentimes than not paradoxically seems like a cold and insenstive culture of death. Shouldn't an integral part of the "culture of life" movement be to honor the dead, especially when a tragedy has ensued?

A month after Tillman's funeral, his family learned that the Pentagon managed to cover the story up: Tillman was, in fact, killed by friendly fire. Their quest to uncover this ugly truth, its details, and the cover-up that happened has been a painful, neglected story that every and now again resurfaces, which it has done as of late.

Granted, ugly realities like this happen in war. My father and two uncles who served in Vietnam have told me about stories like this that happen all the time and that never make a front page. What's disturbing here, though, is how the Tillman narrative embodies Team Bush's handling of things, which presents an extremely dismaying collage of cold, calculating politicians who are the polar opposite of what a genuine culture of life conveys; a lazy and controlled media that remains pathetically supine in hard times, when at its core a free media should be presenting all sides of what's happening in a truly fair and balanced way; and an American public that remains, sadly and understandably enough, largely unconscious of what unfolds around them.

From the beginning, the invasion of Iraq has been an enormous mistake. What the Bush Team thought what be a strategic move in an effort to redesign the Middle East, its politics, and its peoples, has devolved into a chaos from which we have no way of knowing how to extricate ourselves. Even now that Congress has released a declarative report asserting that no operational ties between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden existed before the invasion, the administration and its controlled media are still conflating things.

Our people, our children, and our future generations will grapple with this mess for years to come. What's even more troubling is that throughout this horror show our country has largely ignored our basic rights, which include the right to a free press, and on a symbolic level, the right to the truth.

FOR EDUCATORS:
A NEW SCARLET LETTER--"A" FOR ACADEMIC

"Tradition with a twist." It was a marketing slogan for Apple Computers for quite some time. In the ad campaign, which was launced approximately ten years ago, "tradition with a twist" was superimposed on photographs of some of the world's greatest minds: Pablo Picasso, Miles Davis, Gandhi, and several other thinkers who have made our planet and its history a better, more conscious place.

As a teacher in training during this time, I was drawn to "tradition with a twist" for good reason. Having received an undergraduate liberal arts education at Fordham University, I was entrenched in the Jesuit philosophy of education: wisdom and knowledge are essential for learning, essential to becoming human, and learning HOW to think is far more important than learning WHAT to think. This philosophy emphasized that studying the great texts, ideas, sciences, religions, arts, languages, and histories of our world were essential to becoming more educated, more enlightened, and more humane. The end goal: a well-rounded, thoughtful person will hopefully contribute to the fabric of humanity, making the world a better, safer place.

To me, "tradition with a twist" means fusing the old with the new; examining the past while keeping an eye on the future; going outside of yourself to learn but demonstrating a willingness to introspect to mature; and, last but not least, learning from as many different sources as possible to give back to the world that has offered you so much. A bit convoluted? A bit idealistic? Perhaps. But that's my philosophy on life, and my philosophy on education.

Since entering public education ten years ago, I have been rather stunned by how the word "academic" has become, on some level, the soucre of the new Scarlet Letter A. Every now and again, I am reminded of this by how many of my colleagues frown upon the word. When I had my first teaching job, many teachers considered the word "academic" to be elitist and snobby. Interestingly, I often found the same people to be the ones who thought the students to be to too "dumb" and unworthy of canonical texts like "The Scarlet Letter" itself. How these same critics could deem students not worthy of reading great literature was always beyond me, especially considering that some of the loudest had read very few classics themselves.

Fast forward to last year. A colleague of mine and I were heavily criticized by one of our very own for using the word academic in suggeting improving a particular course. In sum, we, the proponents of "academic," were simply stating that ninth grade students needed to be exposed to more traditional writing assignments that were "academic" and less "authentic" in nature. Note: for those of you who don't know what "authentic" means, the educational jargon translates to "real life application."

What was simply a concern for students and their needs quickly became an ideological (and in many instances) a personal battle that turned severly ugly at times. It was like we stepped aboard the death star. Seismic eruptions occurred; the silent treatment toward me and my "academic" ally went on for months; and to this day, the scab on this symbolic wound has barely transmogrified toward healing. I never fully understood why this individual took issue with us advocating for academic rigor within the confines of an academic institution. Go figure.

Recently, in a meeting with colleagues, in response to a discussion I had with one of my superiors, I discussed the importance of academic rigor in teaching reading and writing. I was trying to point out that it's important to expose all students to academic rigor, not just the honors and advanced placement kids. Part of ascribing to "tradition with a twist" involves the inherent belief that all students should have the same educational opportunities, especially in a public school, especially in a democratic society. It's sort of insane to suggest that "A great education is meant for you...but not for you. Just get on the right side of the tracks." It's even more insane to convey: "You're not worthy of these classic stories or challenging writing assignments because, well, we have deemed that you're not. Damn it--go read your young adult novel." Well, if I could've harnessed the energy emanating from the dirty looks on some my colleagues' faces, I could've easily created an IED--that's an improvised, explosive device. Obviously, some were deeply offended and it is unclear why.

Back to "tradition with a twist." Why is that in education once one fad, concept or theory comes along we "knee-jerk" to reject what we've done in the past? Why is it that we to tend to disdain anything that has to do with tradition in favor of innovation just because it is "new"? Have we educators become solely addicted to new, "out-of-the-box" approaches to teaching or learning without truthfully considering what these approaches have to offer, especially to our students? Why is that so many teachers and college professors have ignored or discarded some of the world's classic texts, when so many of our contemporary writers have beared witness to how these works have come to shape their craft? Why can't we accept what would perhaps practically work best: balance, tradition with a twist of the new. Combining the best of the old with the best of the new makes a lot of sense. We can't ignore modernity; the wave of the future moves too fast. But we do no justice to our students or ourselves when we neglect from where this wave comes. Call me crazy, but I appreicate the minds of Picasso, Davis and Gandhi, and I believe my students can as well. The world is a better place because of these thinkers, not because of their absence.

And why have we enshrouded the word "academic" with shame? Or, more importantly, why has the "a' in academic become the new scarlet letter a? Can we, like that chic Hester, transform the meaning of the word to mean great things instead of...shame?

A CUP OF JOE?: GAG ME WITH A SPOON!

HOLD ON: THIS SITE IS TRULY IRRESISTIBLE. DAVE SIROTA, THE HOST, IS A ROCK STAR. CHECK IT OUT: http://www.nedlamont.com/?s=truthaboutjoe

BOOK RECOMMENDATION

If you want to understand how & why the radical right (not decent & conscious Republicans) thinks and works the way it does, then you need to read this book and what John Dean, a Republican himself who worked in the Nixon administration, examines as an authoritarian complex/disorder. A must.

LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NOVEMBER

Like the Tyrone family who remains stuck in the past, the Republican Party finds comfort there as well.

With the 5th 9/11 anniversary upon us and bascially no good midterm election strategy for Republicans--the economy, at least for middle class Americans, is in the toilet; our foreign policy is creating more foreign mayhem; and our national security is more appropriately national insecurity, ABC decides to release an enormously flawed 9/11 docudrama that pins the blame on Bill Clinton--surprise!surprise!-- and everybody and their grandmother except the Bush administration. With no commercial breaks--you're going to love this one, the network has allowed for one, grand interruption: W, who will--I'm sure--beat his war drum as if he were Keith Moon in the flesh. I'm not kidding. And what's even more fascinating, several conservatives inlcuding the likes of Bill Bennet are stepping forward to condemn this "docu fiction." When we are with Bill Bennett, the stars and planets are aligning for who hell knows what.

But we need a little history, quasi literature lesson here: As Eugene O'Neill's Mary Tyrone says, "The Past is the Present, it's the future, too." Remember: the Republicans, especially the neoconservative psychos, love fear, fear, and more fear, especially during an election year. How the hell they made Kerry, a Vietnam Veteran, pale in comparision to chimpy, a Vietnam Dodger, is beyond many of us. Call it "perception management." What's so pathetic (and a bit sacrilegious, I think) here is that they will use the anniversary of a tragic event to make their message loud and clear.

For more information about the controversy: check out media matters: http://mediamatters.org/

It is becoming abundantly clear that Joe Lieberman needs a crash course in Western Literature. After socking Dan Gerstein last week as the last casualty in his termination of his campaign staff since his loss in early August, Lieberman seems more and more like an Oedipus or a Captain Ahab figure in a megalomaniacal quest to retain power rather than a dignified statesman.

Flip-flopping his way in temper tantrum after temper tantrum, Lieberman appears tragically addicted to contradictions and parsing: first he criticized those—in particular, congressional Democrats—for criticizing the Iraq war, then he appears on “Face the Nation” to rehash the very criticisms he criticized; first he accuses Ned Lamont to be a closeted, Greenwich Republican, then he casts Lamont as the patron saint of the left; first he insists that he is a true Democrat, but then ignores results, his former party’s will, and launches an independent run, with GOP influences in tow, only to undermine the efforts of other democratic congressional candidates.

As has been said before, Joe wants it both ways. Better yet, he wants things his way. This might explain why the GOP-backed Vets for Freedom (Swiftboaters, version 2006) that bombarded John Kerry and scudded Max Cleland, a Vietnam Veteran who sacrificed 3 limbs on the battlefields in Southeast Asia, have appeared from the shadows to support Joe.

As Sophocles and Herman Melville asserted in their most notable characters, Oedipus and Captain Ahab respectively, dangerous men are not only dangerous to themselves, but, more importantly, to those whom they represent.

I am back and better than ever. I apologize for not posting since the 15th; however, I have had to endure the "return to school trauma." I will be posting more in the next few days; until then, feast your eyes on this great video about Joe's "cameo" at the Newtown Labor Day parade. The video comes courtesy of Connecticut Bob, a nutmeg bad ass in the blogosphere. Happy viewing:

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/

ROCKY HORROR PICTURE JOE: Where's he going to with that gun in his hand?

Well, Joe isn't exactly homicidal, as Hendrix saw it in his famous song, in a literal sense. However, symbolically, he is causing all sorts of conflict, angst, and political horror in the Democratic Party in his megalomaniacal quest to retain power. And he dares to market himself as the politician of unity. You've got to be kidding me? Can we all do our impressions of Linda Blair in The Exorcist now?

At this point, Lieberman's campaign is beginning to resemble the theater of the absurd, and I cannot believe he is getting away with this indignant behavior. So while Joe preaches about unity, and the mainstream media has its grieving process, which is pathetic, let's review how the unifier gets away with it:

1. During the lead-up to the primary, Oedipus Lieberman had temper tantrum after temper tantrum, declaring that he is, in fact, a "true democrat." OK, then why not abide by the results of the primary? Why, after the primary, buddy up with your republican friends like twins separated at birth? Why not show some dignity and endorse Lamont, like he would have done for you had you won the primary? Because Joe is a horror, a modern day Cyclops ready to eat his own.

2. After the primary, Oedipus Lieberman, knowing full well what his wrath would bring, has now left most Democrats in the--let's face it--awkward position of either getting behind Lamont, which they should, or supporting Lieberman. That's a UNITER for you. In fact, I hear the tune of "We are the world, we are the people" while Joe has us all hold hands. Can I get an Amen?

3. After the primary, Oedipus Lieberman has gone Code Red, employing that GOP trick of: if you don't agree with me, you are DEFINITELY DOING DOPE with Osama-has-not-been-found-by-Bush and planning the latest terroist attack. Can YOU believe this shit?

4. After the primary, Oedipus Lieberman has gone on to attack several politicians from Maxine Waters to..get this...Bernie Sanders from Vermont--a true independent, the very thing Joe is not. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, Joe, is the most horrific of them all."

5. After the primary, a Swift Boat Group, called Vets for Freedom, which has been bankrolled by people in the White House and the GOP, has made its"target Lamont" death wish known. The horror, the horror!

6. After the primary, tonight--in fact, Alan Schlesinger, the republican candidate, whom no republican except John McCain has endorsed, appeared on Hardball bascially to admit that he is rather preplexed WHY he is not getting any support. Poor Alan: he looked like a person who had to contend with brutal horror that everyone and their grandmother knows he has been cheated on and with whom

Folks, if there's any DOUBT THAT ROCKY HORROR JOE is heinous and horrid, and not A TRUE DEMOCRAT, there's your evidence. Share this with your friends, who, may be divided over whether or not to support the...uniter.

Read MORE:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060815/cm_thenation/15112393_1

PLAYING WITH TIMING--A CODE RED STRATEGY: MSNBC reports that the Bush administration rushed disclosing the terroist plot to the public. I wonder why? Read below.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

Oedipus Lieberman & (Dis)unity

Something strange is happening here. Now that the voters in the CT primary have decisively expressed their wills; now that many of the heavy hitters in the Democratic party have given their endorsements to Ned Lamont; now that Oedipus Lieberman has been essentially fired from his job, and, in turn, has fired his campaign staff, which readers of this blog have noted; Joe wants to shift attention from his obvious psychotic torpor to a campaign based on "unity." Maybe it's me, but this has to be the biggest act of desperation since Dick Cheney said in 2005 that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last "throes."

So let's review: around July 4th this year, when Joe Lieberman announced that he would, in fact, seek an independent run should he lose to Lamont, was he thinking about unity then? Was Joe Lieberman thinking about unity when Ned Lamont, at practically the same time, said he would unequivocally support the three term Senator should he win the primary? When Joe Lieberman, in December 2005, criticized--this one always amazes me--fellow Democrats who criticized President Bush on his handling of the Iraq war, was he thinking of unity then? During Barbara Boxer's campaign against Condoleezza Rice's nomination for secretary of state in January 2005, when senator Lieberman joined the bandwagon of the republican motto--"elections have consequences," was he thinking about unity at this time? Perhaps Senator Lieberman thought of unity when he, granted, along with a few other senate Democrats, voted to censure President Clinton in 1998 because of his extra-marital affair. Maybe true democrat Joe thought of unity when he considered how Joe Courtney, Chris Murphy, and Diane Farrell might be impacted by his decisions in their bids to unseat repbulicans in their congressional races. Maybe Joe thought of unity when he pondered how his actions and words after the primary would have a seismic effect on the other Democratic candidates in CT. Or just maybe not. Unity? You've got to be kidding me.

Either Joe Lieberman has a basic reading comprehension problem with the word "unity," or, unfortunately, he just ashamedly assumes that we are as stupid as he would hope we would be.

Joe's clearly not about unity; he's clearly not about the Democratic party and their candidates; he's clearly not about CT and its constituents at large; and he's obviously all about himself--true, in this belief, despite his recent manifestations of a multiple personality disorder, he is, in fact, unified.

Read below

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-12-lieberman_x.htm?csp=34

Because I cannot get over myself and because I refuse to abide by election results, I'm running for U.S. senate nonetheless based on MY beliefs and MY conscience. You see, the voters in the Democratic primary don't know any better. They are silly, angry folks who believe in partisan politics and care less about the war in Iraq and the facts that Hussein did partner with Osama bin Laden and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. They don't know what I know: On the senate floor, Bill Frist was accurate in diagnosising Terri Schiavo's condition based on a two year video; Dick Cheney's energy policy, which resulted in you paying more at the pump, more for home heating, and more for electricty, is better for America, especially for residents in CT; and Fox News is the most reliable source for news and information. In fact, I am nominating Sean Hannity and Mann Coulter to be considered for Emmy Awards, for best actors in a prime-time drama.

I know that many of my colleagues will back my challenger, Ned Lamont. However, don't give them any mind. Hillary, who is trying to channel her inner-Pat Benatar tough image, refuses to acknowledge that politics is still dominated by men. Billy still can't control himself; that's why I voted to censure him in '98--and I would do it again. Infidelity is much worse than war crimes. And the other Democrats are still more concerned with wearing birks and going to Dead concerts because that bastard Dean has taken over the party. And the hell with those bloggers: they are terroists led by Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson, who campaigned for...Ned Lamont.

I know you, like me, may not like election results. That's why I am pushing ahead. You see, like W., I recognize that votes, well, don't matter. It's about me. It's about my conscience. It's about what I believe is right. Join me as we push forward to establish unity, a new party that welcomes all. But remember: it's about me :-)

THE RED SCARE: WHAT DID I TELL YOU? READ BELOW:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2301861

FOR EDUCATORS: August--The Eternal Sunday Night

As my friend Janis has said, "August is the eternal sunday night for educators." She's right: as I was in school today to stamp books as part of my department head duties, I realized that I am at about 7:30 in this drawn-out, metaphoric evening, feeling ambivalent about the return, looking forward to and dreading it all simultaneously.

At times, I find myself longing for the structure of the school day. At other times, I wonder what the hell I am doing in this profession. In moments of true appreciation for the craft of teaching, I can't wait to try out a new idea. In moments of reality, I hate the thought of the paper load and the oftentimes insanity that we have to deal on a daily basis.

So as I sit here at 7:30 in the educator's Sunday night, I wonder what the new school year will bring. What new responsibility will "they" put on us? What kinds of student success and problems will I have to deal with? What lunatic control-freak colleague will resort to his/her own version of on-the-job terror? Will I ever get a grip on the paper load, or am I just dreaming? For now, I think it's important to revel in what remains of summer because who knows what's coming to a classroom near you.

CODE RED: The politics of fear

Here we go: so as W. takes a day off his vacation--for the record, W. has had more vacation time than any other president--to go to Wisconson for a fundraiser, he manages to sneak in a speech about the foiled terroist attack in London. W.'s rhetoric and Oedipus Lieberman's sound very similar. In fact, they are operating from the same Karl Notes--as in the political version of Cliff Notes. No one disputes that terroists hate us; most of us realize that they hate us MORE because of this administration and their heinous policies. But there you have it: the GOP 2006 election strategy. And our--oh, I forgot, he left us--Joe has jumped aboard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_el_se/lieberman_28

CHECK OUT THIS PAGE FROM WONKETTE BLOG:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/terror/lieberman-terrorists-ned-lamont-worse-than-nazis-193452.php

AND, OF COURSE, CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE FROM THE NATION

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060811/cm_thenation/15111400_1

CREATIVE WRITING 101: A LIEBERMAN VICTORY!!!! UNITY AMONG DEMOCRATS AND CONNECITCUT VOTERS AT LARGE.
By S. P. McKenna, Associated Press

After a grueling couple of months out of his normal Washington D.C. habitat, meeting with Connecticut residents at house parties, family picnics, high school and college graduations, and parades, Senator Lieberman eked out a victory against challenger Ned Lamont in yesterday's primary. Realizing that the war in Iraq was a huge issue and realizing that the constituents were overwhelmingly against the war, the junior senator held a series of open invitation, town hall style meetings in each of the congressional districts in the past few weeks that allowed voters and Senator Lieberman to have civil discussions about the war. Attendance at these 10 events (2 per district) was enormous; however, these interactions allowed the senator to listen to and reconnect with his voters. Campaign managers said that this strategy was extremely helpful to their win because these meetings have encouraged the senator to be more critical about the war and failed Bush policies while simultaneously allowing the senator to be more attentive to consituent concerns.

Also helpful was Senator Lieberman's apppeal to the grassroots efforts of the Democratic Party, of which he has been critical in the past. Rather than demonize the bloggers and the more traditional activists, Lieberman embraced them by admitting that he knew very little about these new waves of political activism. In that vein, he has committed himself to be a frequent contributor, like other politicians and pundits, to some blogs. Because of Senator Lieberman's outreach, many bloggers were surprisingly none-too-late to get behind his campaign.

From these past few months of campaigning emerged a more humane, less detached Senator Lieberman. And this is what seemed to carry him to victory yesterday. Albeit he did not completely denounce the war, he recognized that it was a complete disaster at this point, and went so far, like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did last week, to call for Donald Rumsfeld's immediate resignation.

In a brillant stroke of party unity, challenger Ned Lamont, who said from the beginning that he would honor the will of the Connecticut democratic voters, urged his supporters not to recognize his loss as defeat, but to turn their energies and enthusiasm to Senator Lieberman's campaign and the campaign efforts of the Democrats who are challenging the Republican congressional incumbents: Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, and Nancy Johnson. According to Lamont, "Granted, we lost the first half of the game, but, together, with Senator Lieberman's renewed vows to Democrats and Connecitcut, we must focus on victory for all Democrats in November."

Hmm...

BEYOND LIEBERDOME: THE MORNING AFTER

There are some great insights and analyses at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

It is particularly stunning to me how Lieberman handled all of this. Unlike the good mayor of Stamford, Dan Malloy, who conceded with grace and dignity, Senator Lieberman put on a dismaying display of hubris, psychosis, and silliness last night during his concession--reality--/victory--Joe's reality--speech. Again, I thought of Oedipus Rex; sorry, I teach literature for a living. And what a heinous Oedipus Lieberman makes: unwilling to accept reality, unwilling to play by the rules, willing to consider himself above it all, and willing to be dangerous to democracy. I suppose if he loses in November he will discard the results and declare that Connecticut should not have 2 senators and only one?????@#?

On a more positive note, I was impressed (hold your breaths for a moment) with the commentary by Chris Matthews, the host of spitball and a show in his own name. Apparently, Matthews gets it: he said that while the Iraq war was the main issue, he had heard from reliable sources that Lieberman has been long out-of-touch with Connecticut, its voters, and its Democratic leaders. In fact, Matthews contended that many Connecticuters told him that they felt they had to go to Dodd to get things done.

Your thoughts/analyses? Have a great day.

"MEET JOE LIEBERMAN'S WORST NIGHTMARE": A great article from CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/politics/main1857038.shtml

"BUSH'S FAVORITE DEMOCRAT": From Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10963174/lieberman_bushs_favorite_democrat/4

WHAT THIS GENERATION THINKS: I have invited some of my students to post how they are more conscious than we think. Come back and visit; I think you all will be interested.

IMAGINE THAT: STANDING UP TO BUSH! HMM....Read this excellent post at the huffingpost.com by Rick Jacobs


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/bush-is-in-the-dumps-so-_b_26350.html

IT'S CONNECTICUT--STUPID. NOT THE SOUL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Below is a blog I posted to Eric Alterman's latest entry at Huffingtonpost, in which he emphasizes that the Lieberman/Lamont race is about CT, not the DC establishment.

Thank you, Eric--it is just Connecticut. I cannot read/hear one more D.C. establishment Dem. (especially those goons from the DLC) or other D.C. establishment person call this race the left takeover, or blog takeover of the party. Far too many have been mesmerized by the liberal myths of David Brooks et al. Scores of people, from the disgruntled employees at EB to college-aged students to public school teachers to former friends and colleagues of Lieberman himself are supporting Lamont. And we aren't channeling Karl Marx to execute our "liberal inquisition." Truly inane--get real.The bottom line is: Senator Lieberman has been a negligent politician (stories abound about how he & his offices have virtually ignored constituent concerns); Senator Lieberman has pandered far too often--not just to Repbulicans--but to the far right and their culture warriors; and Senator Lieberman, time and time again, has displayed an ugly hubris (he doesn't like to be questioned or challenged--just ask Colin McEnroe) that clashes with the reality we people Connecticut have witnessed for years. I don't think a quickly organized CT bus drive-by is going to undo what has been done. Perhaps Senator Lieberman should have done this long before. It is just CT--maybe Senator Lieberman should recognize this.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP: Yet another (very good) reason to support Lamont

Follow the link:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/07/they-get-letters.html

JUST LIKE BUSH

Just like at the Bush campaign speeches, the attendees at the Joe Lieberman/Bubba gig were carefully monitored. You all remember that when chimpy stumps, the audience is selected; it's never open to the public. That's right (no pun intended): only the very loyal could attend. Anyone known to be on the "other side" is not welcomed and usually turned away, if one so dares to approach the event.

To get tickets to the Joe/Bubba gig, one not only had to apply; one also had to give his/her social security number. Yeah. That probably had to do with a "secret service" check, given that Bubba is a former president and needs legitimate protection. So when the bloggers Spazeboy and Jane Hamsher applied and received tickets, they were rather stunned when they were attempting to be admitted and presented their tickets only to have a Lieberman staffer tear a ticket apart and tell them that they werenot welcomed. Hmm. Joe continues to seem like Bush in more ways than one. Check out the video at My Left Nutmeg blog: http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/frontPage.do

THE CLINTON APPEARANCE & THE AMY THEORY

Bewildered by both Barbara Boxer's and Bill Clinton's appearances today in support of Joe Lieberman, who, has burned both his political buddies in the past, I cannot help but conclude what my better half--Amy--has said: they know he's going down and they had to do it. Amy hypothesizes that both Boxer and Clinton realize that a campaign appearance for Lieberman now means no campaign appearances for Lieberman when he flies solo. In short, backing him in the primary lessens the blow that these Dems. cannot and will not back him should he, in fact, mount his independent campaign after the primary. And by briefly evaluating both appearances--Boxer seemed very annoyed and Bubba was supportive but certainly not passionate--the Amy theory may explain more than meets the eye. It's just a theory, but in light of the recent polls and how these politicians are polloholics, Amy's theory makes sense. Only time will tell.

A tribute to Maxine Waters, Fearless & Blue

Yesterday, as Senator Lieberman was making his conevenient cameos at African-American churches in CT, the great congresswoman Maxine Waters, known for her unwavering support of Civil Rights and voting rights, was stumping for Ned Lamont. Decked out in a dress-suit and high heels, Mrs. Waters did more than just cameo; she was greeting voters in the streets of Hartford and going door to door, getting the job done. So while the Democrat establishment quakes and cowers, hoping that Bubba will score big points with the African-American constituency today, the same constituency that Lieberman has dissed time and time again with his assualt on Affirmative action, the Lamont campaign made the wise choice with Mrs. Waters, a fighter, a believer, a poltician for the people.

"INSTEAD OF WONDERING WHEN WE ARE GOING TO BE ATTACKED, MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK HARDER ABOUT WHY THESE TERROISTS WANT TO ATTACK US." This was an observation Amy made as we were both watching that asshole Rudy Giuliani pontificate about national security on Larry King Live. In light of the recent developments in today's news, I am updating this post because people HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK!! It's a true eye-opener. Back to Rudy: now Larry has Arnold phone in. Excuse my cynicism, but this is becoming a bit much.

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man


This is a must read. If you want to gain a greater understanding of America's role in the world, if you want to learn more about why we have conflicts with so many countries, if you want to develop a true understanding of terrorism, then you have to read this book. A work of non-fiction, it reads like a spy novel. John Perkins, the author, reviews his life work as an economic hit man and explains to the reader why he became one per cent more conscious. Check it out.

There have been some compelling essays on the Lieberman dilemma on The Huffington Post. I could not agree more with Suzanne Nossel's analysis. If you have a chance, please check it out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-nossel/liebermans-problem-and-_b_24686.html

WHY WE NEED TO VOTE FOR NED LAMONT


I'll tell you: after last night's debate, it became real clear why we need to send Ned Lamont to the senate. The debate itself was like a greek tragedy, and the tragic hero was Lieberman himself; he even looked the part.

Granted, Lamont came in as a neophyte with little experience debating a seasoned veteran like Senator Lieberman. The first few minutes revealed Lamont's inexperience. However, the good news is that as the debate progressed Lamont was able to get leverage and pull off a strong performance, all things considered. This genuine (Lamont seemed more human and less mechanical than Lieberman) performance, in part, was made possible by Lieberman's over-reliance on GOP attack tactics and a rather pathetic fall from grace.

What was most shocking, as plenty of others have noticed, is how indignant Joe Lieberman was. His hubris, his self-entitlement, his rudeness, and his adopted GOP tacticis (smearing, distortion, diversion, etc.) became abundantly clear; revisit his debates with Cheney in 2000 to see a much more controlled and even-keeled Joe Lieberman. Quite frankly, I felt sorry for him by the end of the debate. Senator Lieberman seemed like an Oedipus figure, myopic and dangerous: unwilling to accept reality, unwilling to acknowledge that war is an awful thing--supporting it or not, and unwilling to embrace and perhaps pull in the voters on whom he once counted. Let's face it: many of us have supported Lieberman in the past. And had he seized this debate as an opportunity, maybe some of us would re-consider supporting him again. Not I. Not many. Especially after last night.

What we witnessed last night was the final stages of a fall, although it's important to point out that this fall has been in progress for quite some time. What we saw was a man driven by his own perception of power, oftentimes resembling the solipsistic figures of the Bush administration. What we encountered was a man who thinks that we don't think, that we should unquestioningly trust him because he knows better and that that should be enough (according to the senator) to dismiss Lamont. What we found was a man who doesn't understand that he is, like it or not, an elected official who is part of an opposition party that should offer an alternative to what's happening now; that's what we pay him approximately 150k a year to do. That he took issue with Mr. Lamont's wealth and income further revealed how pathetic Lieberman has become. What we hope the future will bring is change, healing among Democrats who are divided right now, and a shared understanding of why we belong to a party built upon the principles of equality and an inclusive vision of the future. Ned Lamont is unequivocally the candidate to make that happen.

TAKE IT BACK--ACTION LEADS TO ACTION: The 2006 midterm election is enormously important. Not only do we need to get out and vote, WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION NOW. Here are a few simple steps, especially for those of us in the 2nd congressional district in CT:

1. Support Joe Courtney: visit http://www.joecourtney.com/
Give whatever you can: $10, $25, etc.
2. Read the newspaper and stay up-to-date with the current events.
3. Check out the radio programming for Air America--A.M 1190.
4. Visit 1% More Conscious for updates and news.