Things to Keep in Mind as We Move Toward 2009

1. A different kind of Economics according to Paul Krugman

2. A different kind of Politics according to David Axelrod

3. The Bush Presidency was not a Failure according to Laura Bush

And so on and so on, according to Weird Wally...

You Decide

2/2 Naomi Klein: Bailout is 'multi-trillion-dollar crime scene'

Weird Wally wants you to know about Wall Street Extortion.

Stand By Me - Beautiful International Version

Weird Wally is full of hope.

Obama: Never Would Have Made It

McCain's Spiritual Guide

This is what John McCain would like the rest of the world not to see!

Rev. Jeremiah Wright hate

This is what Barack Obama would like the USA to forget (1 of 2)

Believe it or not, Weird Wally (WW) actually feels bad for Alan Greenspan.

Yes, WW realizes that we are in a major mess. The shit has hit the fan and instead of “ trickle down,” most of us are experiencing the “splatter.”


According to WW, it’s bad enough to experience “trickle down (being pissed on),” but it’s a whole different matter to experience the “splatter (being shat on).”


And for that, according to WW, we have Greenspan to thank. The way WW says he understands it, Greenspan was for deregulation because, he figured that the private sector would police themselves.

But “deregulation” is the same as saying that everything is legal and anything goes. The second that a government says that word, all the sociopaths in the world, will respond with a bogus plan to use deregulation, so that they can get the money.

So, the problem with Mr. Greenspan was one of innocence.

He just didn’t understand the nature of greed and how no matter how much you have, it is not nearly enough.

On the other hand, were the act of burglary “deregulated” and made legal, where would you park your pickup-truck and your extra-large visual display screen?

Meanwhile, WW, reformed second story-man and CIA Operative, says: “don’t leave home without them!”

The Worm Turns in Alaska

Breaking News from the Anchorge Daily News


Board's Troopergate probe casts wider net

ETHICS: Investigator hasn't said who else may be under scrutiny.

By TOM KIZZIA
tkizzia@adn.com

Published: October 13th, 2008 11:08 PM
Last Modified: October 13th, 2008 10:58 AM

The state Personnel Board investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of Walt Monegan has broadened to include other ethics complaints against the governor and examination of actions by other state employees, according to the independent counsel handling the case.

The investigator, Tim Petumenos, did not say who else is under scrutiny. But in two recent letters describing his inquiry, he cited the consolidation of complaints and the involvement of other officials as a reason for not going along with Palin's request to make the examination of her activities more public.

Two other ethics complaints involving Palin are known. One, by activist Andree McLeod, alleges that state hiring practices were circumvented for a Palin supporter. The case is not related to Monegan's firing. The other, by the Public Safety Employees Association, alleges that trooper Mike Wooten's personnel file was illegally breached by state officials.

John Cyr, the PSEA executive director, said Monday the union plans to amend its complaint to be sure the board investigates "harassment" of Wooten as well.

Petumenos has not spoken to the press, in keeping with the secrecy of the state process. But he gave a rough description of the investigation's course in two letters to an Anchorage attorney threatening a lawsuit over Palin's effort to waive confidentiality.

Attention is turning this week to the Personnel Board -- the state's official avenue for investigating ethics complaints -- after release of the Legislature's Troopergate investigation last Friday. The Legislature's investigator concluded that Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan as public safety commissioner, but abused her power and broke the ethics law in joining her husband to push for the firing of Wooten, who was once married to the governor's sister.

Palin reversed an earlier pledge and refused to cooperate with the Legislature's investigation, calling it politically biased. In an unusual twist, she filed the ethics complaint against herself before the board, saying she hoped to "clear the air" by an inquiry through proper channels. She asked the board to decide if she broke ethics laws or acted improperly in dismissing Monegan or in dealing with Wooten -- basically the same ground Branchflower covered.

Petumenos has requested a copy of Friday's legislative report, including confidential backup material, said Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau, chairman of the Legislative Council. Elton said the council will meet Thursday to vote on whether to give Petumenos all the material gathered by its investigator, Steve Branchflower.

Petumenos was hired by the Personnel Board to handle the case because the state attorney general's office, which normally investigates ethics charges, would have a conflict investigating the governor.

Under the state's inscrutable system for investigating official ethics complaints, there's no way to tell how long Petumenos' investigation might take. The Personnel Board, made up of three gubernatorial appointees, has meetings scheduled for Oct. 20 and Nov. 3. Agendas for those meetings mention confidential ethics matters to be handled in executive session.

Nor is there any certainty, if the complaints are settled or dismissed, that the results of the investigation will ever be made public. A review of recent Personnel Board cases, however, suggests it's likely most information will eventually be released.

Palin has been involved in Personnel Board investigations before -- though not as a subject of complaint -- and at the time complained about their secrecy.

In high-profile cases that established her statewide reputation as an ethics reformer, Palin helped with a 2003 investigation of Republican Party chairman Randy Ruedrich, who was working on a state oil regulatory panel, and she co-filed a complaint in 2004 against then-attorney general Gregg Renkes.

Both men were found by investigators to have crossed ethical lines. Details of the investigations were released in the end, as part of a settlement that stopped short of the full public hearing before an administrative law judge that the law requires in serious cases.

In the Ruedrich case, Palin resigned her state job in protest while the investigation was still secret, saying she felt implicated in a cover-up because of the shroud.

"I'd like to find a hero in the Legislature who can take on and change that law and make it more sensible," Palin said at the time she resigned. As governor, she has supported changes to ethics laws, but the secrecy of board investigations has not been changed.

Palin fired Monegan in July and the legislative inquiry began later that month.

Four days after her Aug. 29 selection as John McCain's Republican vice presidential candidate, Palin's lawyer filed an official ethics complaint over the Monegan affair with the Personnel Board, urging the Legislature to give way. The Legislature refused, creating parallel investigations.

Judging from Petumenos' letters on the case, he feels able to range as broadly as Branchflower into subjects related to the original ethics complaints.

One element will distinguish the Personnel Board inquiry: It will have Palin's cooperation.

Sarah and Todd Palin have agreed to be interviewed by Petumenos at the end of next week, said Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign. She said Monday she has no other details of the arrangement.

There's another distinction: While the Legislature's inquiry ended last Friday with vague talk of further action, the official investigation can bring legal consequences under the state ethics law.

The three current members of the Personnel Board were appointed by Gov. Frank Murkowski. Palin reappointed one, Debra English of Anchorage, last January.

The three unsalaried appointees usually handle less momentous matters at quarterly lunch meetings, said Dianne Kiesel, deputy director of the Alaska Division of Personnel and Labor Relations in the state Department of Administration. The board approves changes to state work rules such as promotion, pay and leave regulations.

Meanwhile, many ethics complaints filed against state employees -- accusing someone of driving a state vehicle after hours, say, or of providing rude service -- get handled by ethics supervisors inside the different state departments. The Personnel Board gets a summary report but is not involved.

It's the unusual case that becomes a big job requiring extra board meetings.

"Most all of these things get resolved before or at the accusation stage," said assistant attorney general Judy Bockmon. "Very few matters have actually gone to hearing."

Palin explicitly waived her right to confidentiality in her complaint to the Personnel Board. But days later, the McCain-Palin campaign said the investigation would remain secret at the request of Petumenos.

"The governor will respect that request, but will explore the means by which confidentiality may be waived once the investigation is complete," said Stapleton.

In two recent letters to Anchorage lawyer Meg Simonian, who was threatening a lawsuit to force more public scrutiny, Petumenos said the investigation had spread to other officials and other complaints.

"The Governor does not have the right, under such circumstances, to waive the right of confidentiality for others," Petumenos wrote. But he tried to reassure Simonian about the eventual release of the investigation.

"The Board is ... mindful of the public interest and the interest in the credibility to its processes that public disclosure would provide," Petumenos said.

Simonian, a registered Democrat who said she is pursuing the matter out of personal interest, said Monday she wants Petumenos to tease out the parts of his report involving Palin, so that those parts of the upcoming Personnel Board meetings can be public -- if, indeed, the board is discussing that topic.

"I'm in this bind where nobody knows what the board is doing," Simonian said.

Find Tom Kizzia online at adn.com/contact/tkizzia or call him at 1-907-235-4244.

The Basic Law of Karma and Troopergate

Weird Wally has always believed that, “what goes around, comes around.”

ALASKA
Troopergate: Not Over Yet
By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 11, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Oct 20, 2008

A new Alaska legislative report finding that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power and violated state ethics laws spells new trouble for the McCain campaign. Special counsel Steve Branchflower's report could lead to fines or legislative action to censure Palin. It also directly challenges the vice presidential candidate's credibility on key points related to the "Troopergate" controversy. Palin has said she fired Walt Monegan, Alaska's public-safety commissioner, last summer solely because of budget disputes and "insubordination" by Monegan. But Branchflower found that a likely "contributing" factor was Palin's desire to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law. While Palin had the right to fire Monegan, Branchflower found that she allowed her husband and top aides to put "impermissible pressure" on subordinates to "advance a personal agenda." The report also questioned Palin's public contention that her family "feared" Wooten, noting that shortly after she took office she ordered a sizable reduction in her personal protection detail.

McCain campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton dismissed the report as the product of "a partisan-led inquiry run by Obama supporters." But there could be more land mines ahead. Some weeks ago, the McCain team devised a plan to have Palin file an ethics complaint against herself with the State Personnel Board, arguing that it alone was capable of conducting a fair, nonpartisan inquiry into whether she fired Monegan because he refused to fire Wooten, who had been involved in a messy custody battle with her sister. Some Democrats ridiculed the move, noting that the personnel board answered to Palin. But the board ended up hiring an aggressive Anchorage trial lawyer, Timothy Petumenos, as an independent counsel. McCain aides were chagrined to discover that Petumenos was a Democrat who had contributed to Palin's 2006 opponent for governor, Tony Knowles. Palin is now scheduled to be questioned next week, and the counsel's report could be released soon after. "We took a gamble when we went to the personnel board," said a McCain aide who asked not to be identified discussing strategy. While the McCain camp still insists Palin "has nothing to hide," it acknowledges a critical finding by Petumenos would be even harder to dismiss.

© 2008 by Newsweek

There’s a Hole in the Bailout.

Should the McCain/Palin ticket actually get elected, what follows is a likely conversation between Sarah Palin and Henry Paulson.

To be sung to the tune of, “There’s a Hole in the Bucket.”

“There’s a hole in the bailout, dear Henry, dear Henry. There’s a hole in the bailout, dear Henry, a hole.”

“What about it, dear Sarah, dear Sarah. What about it dear Sarah, who cares and so what?”

“So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry. Just fix it!”

“With what shall I fix it, dear Sarah, dear Sarah. With what shall I fix it, dear Sarah with what?”

With the dollar, dear Henry, dear Henry. With the dollar.”

“But the dollar’s too small, dear Sarah, dear Sarah. The dollar’s too small, dear Sarah too small.”

“Well prime it dear Henry, dear Henry. Prime it dear Henry and prime it right now!”

“With what shall I prime it dear Sarah, dear Sarah? With what shall I prime it dear Sarah, with what?”

“With the bailout, dear Henry, dear Henry. With the bailout, dear Henry and that should be that!”

“But there’s a hole in the bailout, dear Sarah, dear Sarah। There’s a hole in the bailout, dear Sarah. A hole.”

copyright 10-12-2008 by weirdwally.org

How Hood Street Connects with Main Street Cuz Both Got Fucked by Wall Street


It was so obvious that Weird Wally almost blew it off...

About New York

The Crisis, as Seen by the Have-Nots

By JIM DWYER
Published: September 30, 2008

This article first appeared in the New York Times a few days ago.

On a chair outside Johnson’s Barbecue on Tinton Avenue in the Bronx, Keith McLean had thoroughly considered the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.


“That’s for C.E.O.’s,” said Mr. McLean. “And I am a P-O-O-R.”

Mr. McLean, who helps out in the barbecue stand, lives in one of the poorest Congressional districts in the country, a half-hour subway ride to Wall Street. On Monday, José E. Serrano, the Democrat who represents the district, voted against the bailout package. He was the only member of Congress from the city to do so.

In a walk through parts of the district, it was easy to find people who, while indifferent to the outcome of the vote, were intensely interested in the machinations leading to the drama of closed banks and astronomical bailouts. For many, the financial package was another in a series of manufactured crises.

James Jacobs, who cuts hair at Six Corners Barbershop, said he felt that an atmosphere of paranoia had been deliberately cultivated, leading to the war in Iraq and now to the financial alarm.

“They scare people with bomb threats,” Mr. Jacobs said.

Edwin Mitchell, who works in a car dealership, was sitting alongside him. “We got stuck up,” he said.

“It’s corporate America doing what corporate America does,” Mr. Jacobs said.

“Organized crime,” Mr. McLean said.

“It’s the new organized crime,” Mr. Jacobs said.

“Ain’t nothing new about it,” Mr. McLean said.

“We’re not going to see none of that,” Mr. Jacobs said. “Not one red cent. Whichever way it goes. We ain’t going to see it, we ain’t going to feel it. If we do it feel it, its going to be negatively, and a few of us might lose a few jobs.”

Mr. McLean had tracked the news carefully. “Washington Mutual, he was on the job three weeks, he got $11 million,” he said.

Actually, it was more. Three weeks before Washington Mutual failed, it hired Alan H. Fishman as its chief executive officer, and paid him a signing bonus of $7.5 million. He is also eligible for $11.6 million in cash severance.

For the men in front of Johnson’s, there was plain symmetry between the Iraq war and the financial crisis: Young people shipped out to a trillion-dollar bloodbath in the Middle East, in pursuit of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction; and banks collapsing on top of mortgages handed out to people without enough money for a bag of groceries. And how, Mr. Mitchell wondered, could it be that Osama bin Laden had not been captured? “You can look down from outer space and see a dime on a city street, and you can’t find him?” he said.

From personal experience, he said, he knew that credit cards were another species of mirage.

“How does a person get credit that never had a regular job, no bank account, no sign of being a respectable person, and he winds up with three or four credit cards?” Mr. Mitchell asked. “I was out of work there for a couple of years, and I ended up with three credit cards. American Express. Visa. I forget the other one. And the banks give all these loans to people knowing they can’t pay, but they get a commission. Let them pay their commissions.”

If disgust, or horror, at the bailout was universal, there was not unanimity on what had to be done. The owner of the barbecue stand, Dwayne Johnson, 50, said he was outraged that many members of the Congressional black caucus had voted against the bailout.

“They voted no, they don’t have that right,” Mr. Johnson said. “The only way you can help the community is get it passed. If you’re the president and you can’t get 10 votes to pass it, then that’s bad. If you’re Obama, you can’t get 10 votes, that’s bad.”

Midaglia Rodriguez, 60, said that she worried that a new Depression was just over the horizon, and that she believed the bailout was necessary. “It should go through, to fix the situation,” she said.

Regardless of the outcome of votes in Congress, Mr. Mitchell said, he would still face the daily struggle to make a living and keep a roof over his head.

“I love this country, the best country on the planet. I love this city, best city in the world,” he said. “I don’t see a change that is going to affect me. I’m going to do what I always did. Survive. The best way I could.”

Weird Wally Already Knows Who Barack Obama is, But Who is David Sirota?


Fall 2008: Purple America
Seeing Red, Feeling Blue in Purple America

by David Sirota

Print this articleEmail this article to a friend
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Dispatches from the Nation's Populist Uprising

Book cover of David Sirota's The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
This article was adapted from The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Copyright © 2008 by David Sirota. Published by Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
By all measures, those of us Americans not in the top 1 percent of income earners are under enormous economic pressure and most of us feel powerless to influence those who act in our name. Public attitudes toward Washington are reaching record levels of animosity. A Scripps Howard News Service poll in 2006 found a majority of Americans saying they “personally are more angry” at the government than they used to be. And there’s a growing backlash against the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests.

It’s the natural reaction from a country that is watching its pocket get picked. Wages are stagnating, health-care costs are skyrocketing, pensions are being looted, personal debt climbs—all as corporate profits keep rising, politicians pass more tax breaks for the superwealthy, and CEOs pay themselves tens of millions of dollars a year.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” billionaire Warren Buffet recently told the New York Times. “It’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

But that may not be true for much longer.


In a year of travel to report for my new book, The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington, I found those who are fighting back: shareholders running resolutions against corporate boards, third parties shattering the two-party duopoly, legislators kicking down lobbyists in state capitals, bloggers orchestrating primary challenges to entrenched lawmakers, or—on the darker side—armed, enraged suburbanites forming vigilante bands at our southern border. What connects these disparate uprisings is both the sense that America is out of control, and an anger at the government for creating the crises we now face.

In Helena, Montana, I watched Kirk Hammerquist testify before the state legislature in opposition to a tax measure designed to give more breaks to wealthy, out-of-state property owners. Hammerquist owns a construction company in Kalispell, and has got the whole cowboy look going—jeans, boots, and a mustache.

“I was driving down last night on an ice skating rink,” he says, recounting his journey through the snowstorm that just hit. “And I said, ‘why the heck am I doing this?’

“This state is really becoming a playground of the wealthy—we know it, we can’t deny it,” he says. “And don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealthy people—I’m trying my hardest to be one. … But to sit there and work on a three- to five-million-dollar home for an owner that is going to be there for a couple of months in the summer … and to think the guy that’s working with me [putting] all this pride and sweat into that house is going to get less [of a tax refund] than that person who is going to come play here for a few months—I tell ya, it made me drive all night. I speak for a lot of people, the guys that work with their hands. I had to come down and represent them.”

This is a populist uprising—a “politics that champions issues that have a broad base of popular support but receive short shrift from the political elite… It explains why today’s uprising defies the clichéd red and blue states that flash across our television screens every night.”


In Seattle, I talked to the founder of an unlikely high-tech labor union about the way a fundamental sense of unfairness is driving a growing number of high-tech workers to put aside the libertarianism that has in the past led them to vote Republican and dislike unions, as issues like wages and health care pull them in a populist direction. They are reacting to working conditions that keep them on a permanent “temporary” employment status. They have watched as 221,000 American tech jobs were eliminated by offshore outsourcing between 2000 and 2004. As one Microsoft employee told me, every tech worker now fears coming in to work to find their entire division outsourced to India.

In New York, I met with the grassroots organizers and campaign volunteers of the Working Families Party, which has used the state’s fusion voting laws to bring together voters across the political spectrum under the banner of higher wages, fair taxes, affordable housing, civil rights, and campaign finance reform—issues too often ignored in modern politics.

This is a populist uprising—a “politics that champions issues that have a broad base of popular support but receive short shrift from the political elite,” as the Atlantic Monthly’s Ross Douthat says. “This explains why you can have left-populists and right-populists,” he adds. And it explains why today’s uprising defies the clichéd red and blue states that flash across our television screens every night.

Those in the uprising are sick and tired of a political system that ignores them. Without inspiration, whatever uprising sympathies people may have are easily quashed under a sense of helplessness. But as the stories in my book show, when that inspiration exists, the uprising intensifies.

More than any time in recent history, people are ready to take action in response to the emergency that is the state of the world today.

Fear, Frustration, and Simple Answers
The Minutemen are gun-toting guys who patrol border areas looking for people trying to sneak into the United States from Mexico. They’ve been labeled everything from patriots, to vigilantes, to racists. Though they see different enemies and are plagued by paranoia, they too exhibit the pure, unadulterated frustration prevalent throughout the rest of the uprising.

As the world has gotten increasingly complex over the last thirty years, America’s public discussion about the world has gotten simpler. Issues like foreign policy, globalization, and immigration have added all sorts of gray shades to the political landscape. But with so much complexity and so many conduits of propaganda, the only messages that break through are the most crisp sound bites and the most simple explanations.

For someone like Rick, who spent 20 years developing a landscaping business in southern California, this has created a terrifying fog—one that eliminates any sense of security or control. He sees complex demographic shifts make whites a minority in his town. He watches global economic forces stress his business. He got involved with the Minutemen because he got sick and tired of trying to battle it out with other businesses that employ low-wage illegal immigrants.




JUST THE FACTS:


How the Middle Class Got Stuck
Food, Rent, Gas, Health Insurance, College… the price of things we need keeps going up



“They don’t gotta pay workman’s compensation, no liability insurance,” he says. “I just can’t compete with them.”

But he, like all of us, has become addicted to simple answers—so addicted, in fact, that he barely notices when those answers conflict with each other.

When we talk about the environment, he says, “This country is being destroyed from within by its own government.” He says environmental regulations “are running business out of this country faster than you’ll ever know.” Yet he complains that smog is destroying Los Angeles.

When we talk about his time at Douglas, the California defense contractor now owned by Boeing, he says the company moved many of its operations from Long Beach to China.

“We’re losing our jobs, and these are good-paying union jobs,” laments the same guy who was just ripping on unions.

Right after saying it’s time to arrest corporate executives who hire illegal immigrants, he’s railing on “these politicians who’re banging on large industry, saying big business is bad.”

Joining the Minutemen is his way of taking some action in response to the emergency that is the state of the world today.

Right-wing politics has thrived by using fear and resentment to divide socioeconomic classes along racial, cultural, and geographic lines. The big problem for working-class whites, Ronald Reagan basically said, was black “welfare queens” stealing their tax dollars and inner-city gangs threatening mayhem. The big problem for yuppie Midwesterners, George W. Bush says, is middle-class East Coasters who want to legislate secular hedonism and take away their guns. The themes and the villains change, but the story line stays the same: a set of people in the economic class just below you is taking your stuff and threatening your way of life—and if those people are dealt with harshly, your troubles are over.

Joining the Minutemen allows participants to immediately behold the illusion of results in a society whose problems are so seemingly immense and immovable that activism can feel like a waste of time. It also locks them into warfare against their natural socioeconomic allies.

In May, Working Families Party executive director Dan Cantor endorsed Maryland state Senator Gloria Gary Lawlah’s landmark Fair Share Health Care bill. The Working Families Party’s endorsement has become the most influential in the state of New York, and the mobilization of volunteers and votes is making the difference in key races. Photo: Drum Major Institute
In May, Working Families Party executive director Dan Cantor endorsed Maryland state Senator Gloria Gary Lawlah’s landmark Fair Share Health Care bill. The Working Families Party’s endorsement has become the most influential in the state of New York, and the mobilization of volunteers and votes is making the difference in key races.
Photo: Drum Major Institute
The Working Families Party
But in most places the uprising takes a positive form. In the bustling streets beneath New York’s skyscrapers, and in upstate towns far away from Manhattan, the Working Families Party (WFP) has become the uprising model with the most potential to convert all the populist anger and frustration into functioning political and legislative authority.

When I was reporting on the WFP, the party was channeling that anger into Craig Johnson’s state senate challenge in heavily Republican Nassau County, a key race in a strategy to create the first Democratic-majority senate in New York state’s recent history. When I visited the Johnson headquarters, it had the energy of a presidential campaign, and was the entire rainbow of races, colors, and ages. Though a Sunday, the office was packed with people running around making phone calls, preparing for door-knocking runs, and doing all the unglamorous tasks of local organizing. They were there because the WFP promises to champion their issues—and it delivers.

That scene is the WFP at its core: a somewhat chaotic, somewhat ragtag squad of political ground troops in the uprising. Need a crowd for a rally? Call the WFP. Need an expert field staff to help increase turnout in a contested election? Call the WFP. You ask Democratic politicians in New York what the WFP truly brings them, and they’ll all say one thing: people.

The WFP has created a space on every New York ballot for working people to organize around. It does this by taking advantage of New York’s election laws, which allow a minor party to cross-endorse another party’s candidate and effectively “fuse” with that party on the ballot.

On New York general election ballots in 2006, for instance, you could vote for Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Party line or the Working Families Party line, and either way your vote counted for Clinton.

Fusion’s benefits revolve around its ability to bring together culturally disparate constituencies under a unifying economic agenda, without risking a self-defeating spoiler phenomenon where a stand-alone third party candidate like Nader or Perot throws an election to the very candidates they most oppose.

A century ago, the culturally conservative, sometimes anti-immigrant Populist Party (or People’s Party) would often use its ballot line to cross-endorse Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party tended to be more urban-based and immigrant-dominated. But both parties were progressive on core economic issues like jobs and wages. Fusion voting helped make class solidarity more important than cultural division at the ballot box.

In a presidential election, a farmer could support progressive economic issues by voting for a Democratic candidate on the Populist line and not feel like he was betraying his feelings on, say, temperance. Meanwhile, an urban immigrant could vote for the same candidate on the Democratic line and not feel like he was endorsing the anti-immigrant views of rural America. By fusing their votes, they were more likely to get people elected who would serve their shared interest.

Fast forward to 1998, when New Party organizers—including Dan Cantor—joined with New York’s big labor unions and grassroots groups to try to use New York’s fusion laws to secure a ballot line for a new third party—one with a very narrow platform focusing on higher wages, fair taxes, affordable housing, civil rights, and campaign finance reform. The calculation was that the narrower and more populist the agenda, the more sharply the Working Families Party could define itself in voters’ minds, and the more clout it could have on its chosen issues.

“We want to stand for issues that often don’t get heard over the din of money,” Cantor told Long Island’s largest newspaper. Newsday reported that Cantor said he wanted residents to hear the name “Working Families Party” and remember: “That’s the party that thinks wages should be higher.”

The party began delivering the votes. In 2000, 102,000 WFP members voted for Hillary Clinton, including a significant number from demographics where support for Clinton was otherwise low. In 2001, the WFP provided the margin of victory for a Democrat in a tight race for a seat in the Republican-controlled Suffolk County legislature.

These and other victories have led to the WFP establishing a unique public image. A 2005 Pace University poll showed that the single most influential endorsement in New York City mayoral elections is the WFP’s—more important than the state’s major newspapers, current or former officeholders, or other advocacy groups.

The WFP’s work for Craig Johnson paid off. WFP canvassers knocked on 45,000 doors and roughly half of the 3,600 votes that provided Johnson his margin of victory were cast on the WFP’s ballot line. The New York press credited the WFP with playing a decisive role in the election.

The Future
The belief that people—not dictators, not elites, not a group of gurus—should be empowered to organize and decide their destiny for themselves seems so simple, and yet is far and away the most radical idea in human history. “Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy,” legendary organizer Saul Alinsky wrote.

Putting that principle into action requires genuine courage and selflessness, because participants in the uprising must make their own personal power a lower priority than popular control.

The activism and energy frothing today is disconnected and atomized. The odds against connecting it all into a true populist movement are daunting, but these stories and the others in my book show the opportunity. If more people become part of this uprising, we will not only transcend the partisan divide that gridlocks our politics, but reshape the very concept of what is possible.

Dan Cantor told me, “We have to go to people where they are on the issues they care about.” For the first time in many years, they are ready to put aside partisanship and work for shared goals. The question is whether or not we seize this fleeting moment and make it one of exponential change.

David Sirota wrote this article as part of Purple America, the Fall 2008 issue of YES! Magazine. David is a political organizer, nationally syndicated columnist, a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, and founder of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan research institutions.
www.davidsirota.com

This article was adapted from The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. Copyright © 2008 by David Sirota. Published by Crown Publishers, a division of Random House, Inc.
Buy The Uprising।

Could Weird Wally Actually Vote for John McCain?

First off, Weird Wally (WW) is convinced that Barack Obama is way better than John McCain.

But were John McCain running against Clarence Thomas, WW would vote for John McCain.

On the other hand, were John McCain up against Ron Paul, Mr. Paul would get WW’s vote.

The funny thing is, if it were Ralph Nader vs. Dick Cheney, WW would have to stop and think.

Just for the fun of it; Ralph Nader and The Obama Girl!


TTYL,

Weird Wally

The OBAMA GIRL and RALPH NADER Show!

Just for the Fun of it

What is Obama’s Arts Project?

Weird Wally (WW) has heard of it but is not sure he understands.

It sounds like a good thing, but please contact Cassandra Cole for more info.

Meanwhile, the Stranger gives his view.

One more thing, is John McCain “Lost in Space and Time?”

Weird Wally Approves this Message.

Weird Wally

Debate and Debt, What’s the Difference?

Debate: “I owe...I owe, so it’s off to work I go.”

Debt: “I owe...I owe, wish that I could find some work.”


Peace on the debates,

Weird Wally

The Definition of “Crisis.”

Weird Wally (WW) once saw the perfect definition of “Crisis.” on the office wall of his very good friend and Mentor. It looked something like this...

“Crisis...

Opportunity Riding a Dangerous Wind!”

The Wall Street “Rescue” might bring our leaders to their senses and with luck we’ll rediscover a little bit about “Economic Oneness” (call it Spiritual Economics) and, John Maynard Keynes.

But maybe that’s a little to much to hope for, even from Barack.

On the other hand, consider the possibility of building roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, universities and a ton of other things. Putting people to work so that they are able to afford stuff is not such a bad idea. Or, we can give the money to Wall Street and Corporations and they will do the very same thing for a huge profit while shipping the jobs overseas.

Keynesian Economics According to Wise Geek:

Keynesian economics is an economic theory named after John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946), a British economist. It was his simple explanation for the cause of the Great Depression for which he is most well-known.

His ideas spawned a slew of interventionist economic policies during the Great Depression. Keynes' economic theory was based on an circular flow of money. One person's spendings goes towards anothers earnings, and when that person spends her earnings she is, in effect, supporting anothers earnings. This circle continues on and helps support a normal functioning economy. When the Great Depression hit, people's natural reaction was to hoard their money. However, under Keynes' theory this stopped the circular flow of money, keeping the economy at a standstill.

Keynes' solution to this poor economic state was to prime the pump. By prime the pump, Keynes argued that the government should step in to increase spending, either by increasing the money supply or by actually buying things on the market itself. In the times of the Great Depression, however, this was an understandably unpopular solution. It is said, however, that the massive defense spending that United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated helped cure the US economy.

Since Keynesian economics advocates for the public sector to step in to assist the economy generally, it is a significant departure from popular economic thought which preceded it — laissez-fair capitalism. Laissez-fair capitalism supported the exclusion of the public sector in the market. The belief was that an unfettered market would achieve balance on its own. Proponents of free-market capitalism include the Austrian School of economic thought, of which one of its earliest founders, Friedrich von Hayek, also lived in England alongside Keynes. The two had a public rivalry for many years because of their opposing thoughts on the role of the state in the economic lives of individuals.

Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving (underconsumption) and not enough consumption (spending) in the economy, and it also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level. Keynesian economics, also called macroeconomics for it's macro look at the economy, remains one of the important schools in economic thought today.

John McCain: Economic Disaster

JOHN McCAIN is the CANDIDATE of CHANGE!

After all, he changes his mind, positions and beliefs several times a day.

Or, is change for him just another way of saying “severe mood swings?”

Weird Wally Wants to know...
Do you?

Now this is What Weird Wally is Talking About...

Weird Wally lifted this post from Randi Rhode’s (the Goddess of Talk Radio) site and he hopes she doesn’t mind. But her site today is too good not to share.

TRILLION

It wasn't that long ago that using the number 'one trillion' truly was like saying 'a gagillion bazillion'. Well it’s time we learn how many zeroes are involved in that number. It's 12. We have a Trillion Dollars to offer and The Bankers want it. Who knew?

Do NOT make that deal. NO NO NO NO NO.

The unchecked right wing Free Market, No Regulations, No Oversight, No Adult Supervision ORGY of spending and lending over the past 8 years is OVER. Of course it failed because it had to. You can’t take money out of people’s pockets and steal their assets. We are the Economy. Doh.

But the pain of ignoring or worse, agreeing with the solution cooked up by the people who robbed us is ridiculous.

We have a “money shortage”. The only question is how do we put money back INTO the credit market. We get people paying for their homes again and give them a little extra cash to spend. That’s how.

What to do now? THIS IS A FORECLOSURE CRISIS. Deal with FORECLOSURES. Or put another way, IT’S THE FORECLOSURES STUPID.

Anything that is presented to you that doesn’t include at its core, foreclosure relief should be ignored. Any piece of legislation that does not include an immediate Foreclosure Freeze should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that does not give people in foreclosure, or who have missed 3 payments in one year the ability to renegotiate their home loans should be dismissed instantly. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t include oversight by the GAO should not be taken seriously. Any piece of legislation that doesn’t force this down the throats of the giant Banks and Investment Banks who played with your loan going in and coming out is the wrong solution. Any legislation that hands over all the money to one guy at once is a HEIST.

We do have to put money back into the credit market. Allowing people to pay SOMETHING on their homes NOW puts money IN. Add a little stimulus check for us to spend and we’re BACK from the abyss. PERIOD.

Their solution is to put money in the hands of one guy who knows exactly where to put it. That’s WRONG and SILLY on it’s face.

Yesterday you think you saw 1.2 Tillion lost. It wasn’t lost! It was a negotiation. What happened in the Stock Market yesterday was a “dead cat bounce”. People were selling but no one was buying so prices went down. This wasn’t a sell off. It was the exact opposite. NO selling. I predict today there will be lots of buying at new lower prices.

John McCain gave us nearly a week of slapstick, melodrama and photo-ops....and ended up as useless as his theater was. First he said The Fundamentals of the Economy are strong. Then he said the workers are the Fundamentals, Then he declared a Depression-like crisis. Then he said he was suspending his campaign to forge a deal, and then he announced he saved the day by forging a deal. Then when the deal failed? He blamed Obama for all of it??? What?

This is a serious problem and we need serious people to solve it. Anyone who takes John McCain seriously should not be taken seriously. Seriously!

Meanwhile Obama understands it’s a Foreclosure Crisis not an opportunity to leave a Trillion Dollar tip on the table for the gruel we’ve been served for 8 years. He also knows not to panic!

And Congress? Oh Dear God. Literally minutes after 'The Rescue' failed and the Big Board numbers were heading south in double digits every time they refreshed, we got John Boehner, Roy Blunt and a collection of Right Wing Enablers who blame the whole thing on a Floor Speech that hurt their feelings? So let me understand this. You would allow a Great Depression to take root in this country because you had problems with a speech? That is LOW. Even for Republicans.

Let's be clear. We saw a lot of dramatics on Monday from The Republican “Leadership” None of it helpful. The economy took a massive hit yesterday and that is not in dispute. But the Democrats didn’t do much better. Their plan is a non starter and they know it so they went looking for cover. Republican cover. When they didn’t get it, they went home. UNBELIEVABLE.

What should we be doing now? Screaming for a Foreclosure Freeze and legislating so that people can renegotiate their home loans and get a stimulus check sooner rather than later.

We finally get to have that conversation that has been put off for way too long. What about the Middle Class??? We keep saving the day every day we go to work, and buy lunch, and put gas in our cars and pay our bills. We deserve to be at the table here. If we get our money we will put it into the Economy and save the day once again. We will pay our mortgages, and buy cars, and make payrolls. FDR knew that, and you know it whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. The Middle Class is the backbone of this country. The only way to fix this mess is to get the money in the hands of those who built this country. Money in anyone else’s hands is just stupid and more greed run amok.

Jerry McGuire was correct! SHOW ME THE MONEY!

White Privilege in America

Since Weird Wally cannot even imagine what it must be like to be borne white in America, he never thought much about it. “When you’re black stand back, because, when you’re white you’re right!”

So, why did it take a white dude like Tim Wise to tell WW about “white privilege?”

Silly folks; WW isn’t white, so how could he have known?

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”


White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.


White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.


White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.


White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.


White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”


White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.


White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.


White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.


White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.

White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…


White privilege is, in short, the problem.



(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)

John McCain is the Candidate of Change...

After all, he changes his mind and beliefs several times a day.

Or is change for him just another way of saying “severe mood swings?”

Weird Wally Wants to know

Weird Wally’s Problem With Michael Moore...

Let’s face it, Michael Moore looks like he just stumbled out of his trailer park and into a KKK meeting. So, when Mr. Moore first stumbled upon Weird Wally’s (WW’s) radar screen, WW ignored him.

In other words, WW fucked up because he didn’t recognize a kindred spirit and all WW can do now is to give Mr. Moore a “High-Five” and, advise him to keep on fucking with people’s sterotypes.

After all, sterotypes are what we are all about and, with major sterotypes we will reach niether bliss nor, even understanding.

So, what is Mr. Moore up to now?

-30-

Who Are the Money Changers in the “Temple of Right Now”, and Where Are they Hiding?

Look, Touch, Feel, Smell the shit and follow the money.

They are a tricky bunch.

And will try and convince you that white is black and black is white...

And all the while, denying that a different shade of gray is as real as anything they say that the colors are!

-30-

Google Phil Graham...

John McCaine is a maverick for new times and is talking the talk about throwing money changers out of the Temple.


But who does McCaine listen to when it comes to throwing them out?



And how will John McCaine and Phil Graham clean the Temple together?

-30-

Remember the Keating Five

For all of John McCain’s rants against Wall Street and corruption, his role in the Lincoln Savings and Loan scheme never came clear.


Was he a crook, or just plain stupid?


Weird Wally wants to know...


***

Slate Magazine
explainer
Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000, at 2:35 PM ET

The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.

Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.

In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.

(Keating himself was convicted in January 1993 of 73 counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud and served more than four years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Last year, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and was sentenced to time served.)

McCain defended his attendance at the meetings by saying Keating was a constituent and that Keating's development company, American Continental Corporation, was a major Arizona employer. McCain said he wanted to know only whether Keating was being treated fairly and that he had not tried to influence the regulators. At the second meeting, McCain told the regulators, "I wouldn't want any special favors for them," and "I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."

But Keating was more than a constituent to McCain--he was a longtime friend and associate. McCain met Keating in 1981 at a Navy League dinner in Arizona where McCain was the speaker. Keating was a former naval aviator himself, and the two men became friends. Keating raised money for McCain's two congressional campaigns in 1982 and 1984, and for McCain's 1986 Senate bid. By 1987, McCain campaigns had received $112,000 from Keating, his relatives, and his employees--the most received by any of the Keating Five. (Keating raised a total of $300,000 for the five senators.)

After McCain's election to the House in 1982, he and his family made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, three of which were to Keating's Bahamas retreat. McCain did not disclose the trips (as he was required to under House rules) until the scandal broke in 1989. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.

And in April 1986, one year before the meeting with the regulators, McCain's wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating strip mall.

The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.

Next question?
Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/

Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

How Wall Street Ripped off Your Street

This link is said to have been sent to Weird Wally (WW) by one of his best friends from high school. And although one might have to stretch one’s imagination and assume that WW actually got as far as high school, according to the McCain/Palin Campaign and FOX News, WW wants to thank EB for sending this insightful link.

The how and why of it all.


TTYL,
WW

If You’re retired and depending on Social Security, Why Would You Vote for McCain?

Why do so many of us seniors think McCain is so cool that we would vote for him and cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Well, it’s probably because McCain hasn’t told us about his plans to “rescue Social Security.”

In short, McCain believes that if we give our money to an unregulated Wall Street, the money changers now currently occupying the Temple (Washington and Wall Street), will honestly look out for the rest of us.

Now that is the dumbest shit Weird Wally (WW) says he has ever heard.

See for yourself...


Published on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
McCain Would Privatize Social Security

by Dean Baker

The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security.

McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately one percent a year for many workers.

Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their benefits cut by close to 40 percent.

This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half this size.

The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and commissions over the next 40 years.

According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich needy.

Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash.

A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009 [1]. This figure includes 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity.

A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to cut.

While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances [2].

The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year.

The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall.

The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage.

The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the privatizers.

The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.

Dean Baker [3] is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research [4] (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer [5]." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press [6]," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/16

Nothing Else Need be Said

After assessing the two mentioned articles below, all Weird Wally can say is, “vote for McCain/Palin at your own Peril!” And although Palin doesn’t have a clue, McCain did a lot to help make this happen.

Bush flees questions and the press

A very long weekend for the rich and powerful


Trust me on this...

better yet, trust yourself.

Weird Wally

09-16-2008

A Weird Wally Problem Poem...

What’s the opposite of OCD

I don’t know...



But that would be me (sometimes)...

DNA vs. Parenting Skills

Weird Wally (WW) doesn’t know what to think about this। But suppose it is DNA and not parenting that makes all the difference in the world. No matter what you do right or what you do wrong, your children are and, will become what their DNA dictates, “parenting,” be damned.

Weird Wally has mixed feelings on the upcoming “Parenting vs। DNA Wars,” but it’s something we are all going to have to deal with in the near future and, maybe, in this lifetime.

What Weird Wally is trying to figure out is, “does our DNA have an affect/effect on our temporal/spiritual lessons and choices or not?”

And how do we know we are right?

Let’s start with an article from Sharon Begley for Newsweek and go from there.
This might just be our first inkling...

But I Did Everything Right!

DNA discoveries are revealing why even the best parenting doesn’t have the effects that experts promise and why we are all .

Trust me on this...
Weird Wally

Sign of the Times

Over the past few months Weird Wally has gotten turned off to politics. Even to the point that WW has found nothing worth blogging about.

Instead, WW choose to get into some really cool DVDs and escape from the political blessings and curses of these “interesting times.”

Star Trek: The Next Generation: was my first excursion, and it was good.

Star Trek: Deep Space 9: my second excursion and even better then my first.

Star Trek: Voyager: hard to beat Deep Space 9, but worth the trip.

Star Trek: Enterprise: wake me when it’s over.

Trust me on this,
Weird Wally

Hillary Billary Boc

Hillary Billary Boc
They stole the election clock
they fuss and they pout
but they will not drop out

Hillary Billary Boc

Q: How Does Weird Wally Interpret a Little White Lie?

A: Any Way He Wants Too...

Trust me on this,
Weird Wally

Weird Wally Doesn’t Know What to Think...

Of Course Weird Wally has been getting a lot of unwanted phone calls because he is a registered Democrat.

All Weird Wally asks is that he stops getting calls from the Hillary/Billary Democratic bullshit team because both of them have lost more respect then either of them can even imagine in his eyes.

Please get a fucking grip and let us know who the fucking hell are you?

Hillary, I have always liked you, but what the fuck are you doing now?

How cool is it to give McCain talking points against Obama even if you are lying?

Meanwhile WW lives in Denver and is considering saying "fuck you Hillary!" and not doing anything to help you out in any way shape or form. Quite frankly, you are a lot like Karl Rove. What the fuck is up with that?

You just lost love from another one who thought you may have been...somebody!

Weitd Wally

Weird Wally

HOME ABOUT TAKE ACTION DONATE T-SHIRTS

JOHN MCCAIN: WRONG ON KING HOLIDAY

As John McCain heads to Memphis on the anniversary of Dr. King’s death, it’s worth noting his record on the issue of a holiday in King’s honor. When he was a Congressman in 1983, McCain voted against creating a federal Martin Luther King Holiday and his home state rescinded recognition of the holiday in 1987. While he has claimed his position has ‘evolved’ and that his original vote was ‘wrong’ his record of support for racist individuals, and his consistent votes against civil rights legislation belie that claim. And he has employed controversial individuals on his own campaign whose own nasty comments about Martin Luther King undermine McCain’s claims of inclusivity and evolution.

McCain’s Contorted Position on Federal King Holiday

McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday. In 1983, McCain voted against a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of the late civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The motion passed 89-77. [HR 3706, Vote 289, 8/2/83; CQ 1983]

McCain Said His Position Has ‘Evolved.’ During a 2000 interview, McCain compared his evolution on this issue to former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater. "I believe that Barry Goldwater, to start with, regretted his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act," McCain said. "I think that Barry grew, like all of us grow and evolve. In 1983, when I was brand-new in the Congress, I voted against the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King. That was a mistake, OK? And later I had the chance to ... help fight for ... the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King as a holiday in my state." [ www.salon.com 4/18/00; Accessed 4/2/08]

Arizona Governor Rescinded Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In 1987, One of newly elected Governor Evan Mecham’s first acts in office was to rescind Arizona’s recognition of the Martin Luther King Holiday. “Mecham strikes many voters as a simpleminded ideologue who is giving a bad name to the nation's second-fastest-growing state. After rescinding the Jan. 19 holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., Mecham defended the use of the term "pickaninnies" for blacks.” [Time 11/9/87]

McCain Said He Thought Governor Was Correct in His Decision According to the Huffington Post, “In 1983, McCain voted against passing a bill to designate the third Monday of every January as a federal holiday in honor of King. Four years later, then-Arizona Governor Evan Mecham rescinded Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday, saying it had been established through an illegal executive order by his Democratic predecessor. McCain said he thought Mecham was correct in his decision.” [Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 4/1/08]

McCain: Wrong on Key Issues for People of Color

McCain Consistently Voted Against The Civil Rights Act Of 1990. In 1990, McCain voted against a bill designed to address employer discrimination at least 4 times. According to the Washington Post, the “Civil Rights Act of 1990 is designed to overturn several recent Supreme Court rulings that made it much more difficult for individual employees to prove discrimination. The legislation, being fought by business, also would impose new penalties on employers convicted of job discrimination.” [S 2104, Vote #304, 10/24/90; Vote #276, Vote #275, 10/16/90; Vote #161, 7/18/90; Washington Post, 7/9/90]

McCain Avoided Directly Answering Question on Affirmative Action, Finally Said He Opposed Quotas. While appearing on Hardball, McCain was asked about his views on affirmative action. After criticizing teachers’ unions, McCain said, “I want to test voucher programs. Cindy and I have chosen to send our 15-year-old daughter to a Catholic school, because we think that's the best.” He added that he’d ensure that, “Every school and library in America is being wired to the Internet… But, no, I do not support quotas, and have seen the results of it.” [NBC, “Hardball,” 2/9/00]

McCain Would Not Support Affirmative Action for College Admissions. In a 2004 questionnaire, Senator McCain indicated he would not support affirmative action policies in public college admissions. [2004 National Political Awareness Test- Senator McCain]

McCain Voted Against Addressing The Disproportionate Number Of Minority Children In Prison. In 1999, McCain voted to table an amendment that required States to address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without numerical standards or quotas, disproportionate number of juvenile members of 'racial minority groups' who come in contact with juvenile justice system. The motion to table passed 52-48. [S 254, Vote #130, 5/19/99]

McCain Strategist Opposed King Holiday

McCain Defended Controversial Spokesman Richard Quinn, McCain's who called the MLK Holiday "Vitriolic and Profane." Richard Quinn, was a South Carolina "strategist" for McCain in the 2000 campaign. In a Partisan View column, Richard Quinn wrote, "King Day should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane. By celebrating King as the incarnation of all they admire, they [black leaders] have chosen to glorify the histrionic rather than the heroic and by inference they spurned the brightest and the best among their own race. Ignoring the real heroes in our nation's life, the blacks have chosen a man who represents not their emancipation, not their sacrifices and bravery in service to their country; rather, they have chosen a man whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state, a terrible bondage of body and soul.” Quinn has also advocated electing David Duke, and sold T-Shirts through his magazine celebrating Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. [Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Fall, 1983; Partisan View, Southern Partisan, Winter, 1989, PFAW Release, 2/17/00] [Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 12/23/05; Vanity Fair, 11/04]

How Might Bill and Hillary Vote?

With all the praise that the Clinton's have heaped upon John McCain of late, Weird Wally can't help but wonder who might Bill and Hillary vote for if it came down to McCain vs. Obama. After all, Bill and Hillary can't seem to praise McCain enough. Perfect sound bites for for a McCain media blitz, thank you very much Bill and Hillary.

So, Bill and Hillary; which box might you check?

A: Democrat Barack Obama

B: Republican John McCain

And as for Barack, Weird Wally is starting to tire of the races to come together card. WW needs to know where you stand on health care, tax cuts, the Iraq occupation, the Bear Sterns bailout, outsourcing of our government functions, outsourcing everything, ignoring individual home owners and feeding the big banks.

BTW, is anyone reading this post besides the FBI, CIA and various local law enforcement agencies?

Please let me know,
Weird Wally

Is Weird Wally (WW) Ready to go off the Deep End...

A few days ago, Weird Wally was willing to hold his nose and vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

But the more WW sees of Hillary’s behavior, the more he would rather hold his nose and vote for Ralph Nader.

Hillary, WW loves you, but he does not like what you are doing.

Fact of the matter is, if you run in 2008, WW might just vote for Ralph Nader and if you run again in 2012, he just might hold his nose and vote for Ralph Nader again.

Weird Wally does not like stinking thinking, but he is not sure who stinks the most; Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader

Trust me,
Weird Wally

Who are the Baby Boomers and what does Walt Haldelsman have to do

With Anything?

Weird Wally got this post from a good friend who is often very close to the edge. On the other hand, WW also realizes that the edge is where things are happening.


Wonder why so many kids are having so many health problems?

As a result, WW makes this post with strong instinct and no comment.


You have probably heard all about lead in children's toys, but did you know many children's PVC toys contain additional harmful chemicals such as phthalates? Phthalates have been linked to birth defects in baby boys, testicular cancer, liver problems and early onset of puberty in girls-a risk factor for later-life breast cancer. What's worse, when children play with and chew on their toys, they can be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of these harmful chemicals.

We have an opportunity to prevent harm and get these nasty chemicals out of our children's toys, and need your help today to make it happen. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced an amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Reform Act, WHICH would ban phthalates in children's toys.

What can you do to help right now? Take action! Please contact your senators today and urge them to prevent harm by supporting a ban of phthalates in children's toys by voting yes on S.2663 and to oppose any amendments which would weaken this all too important bill. A sample letter and talking points are found below.

Don't know how to contact your Senators? Look up your Senator by going to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

American children are at risk simply by playing with their toys. This is unacceptable in our country! The European Union and 14 other countries, including Japan, Argentina and Mexico, have already banned these toxic chemicals from their children's toys. In October 2007, California became the first state in the nation to enact a statewide ban on the manufacture, sale or distribution in commerce of children's toys and child care articles that contain phthalates. In addition, approximately a dozen states have introduced - or are considering introducing legislation - to ban phthalates in toys and other consumer products.

Senator Feinstein is planning to offer her toxic toys legislation as an amendment which is expected to be voted on by the full Senate as early as today or tomorrow. Senator Feinstein's amendment (S.2663) would ban six types of phthalates from children's toys and childcare articles, reducing kids' unnecessary exposure to these toxic chemicals. In addition, manufacturers would be required by law to replace the banned phthalates with the "least toxic" alternative and are prohibited from replacing phthalates with chemicals known or suspected of causing cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects.

Thank your for your help in preventing avoidable harm from coming to our children.

Sincerely,

Mike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator
Center for Health, Environment and Justice

***Sample Letter***

Dear Senator:

I am writing to urge your support of Senator Feinstein's amendment (S. 2663) to the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act which would treat phthalates as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and prohibit their use in children's toys and child care articles. I also urge you to support this amendment and oppose any weakening amendments of this important measure.

The CPSC Reform bill will do much to improve the safety of children's toys. However S.2663 is needed to additionally ban six very harmful chemicals from children's toys and child care articles. This is a common sense approach that prevents avoidable harm from coming to our children simply by playing with their toys. American children need your support on this bill to protect them.

All six substances belong to a family of industrial chemicals called phthalates (pronounced "THA-lates"). Phthalates are used in many soft, plastic toys like rubber ducks, teething rings and bath books and can leech out of these toys when children chew on them. Scientists worldwide have linked phthalates to birth defects in baby boys, testicular cancer, liver problems and early onset of puberty in girls-a risk factor for later-life breast cancer.

The European Union and 14 other countries including Japan, Argentina and Mexico have already banned these chemicals from children's toys, and in October 2007 California passed a measure to ban these six phthalates from toys sold in the state. Moreover, nearly a dozen other states have introduced - or are considering introducing - legislation that would ban phthalates from toys and personal care products for kids. All American children deserve the same protection and truly comprehensive reform for product safety.

These chemicals have no place in our children's toys, especially when safe alternatives exist and are being used by Brio, Chicco, Evenflo, First Years, Gerber, and Safety 1st. Additionally, Wal-Mart and Toys-R-Us have stated that they will begin phasing out children's toys containing phthalates in the coming months.

Government must be proactive in providing protections for our children today and for generations to come. In considering major reform of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I urge you to include a ban on phthalates in the final version of legislation.

I applaud Senator Feinstein's leadership on this issue and urge you to support her amendment - and oppose any weakening amendments - that would provide comprehensive protections for our children's health.

Sincerely,

Weird Wally Freaks-Out


Until recently, Weird Wally has been in hog heaven cuz all of us real Americans; those who don’t hate (or try not to) have been blessed with two candidates who might get elected and change our depressing and hateful lives...

But something happened. If Obama is the Democratic Candidate, Hillary has given the McCain folks the perfect sound bite for national elections when she said that John McCain was more qualified to be president then Barack Obama.

And then, a person very close to Hillary said that were Obama not black, he would not be running for president. As an African American, I am very much offended by what your very close friend said. It’s like I don’t deserve anything I might have accomplished because I am African American and I got a few beaks?

Hillary, I am getting to know you via your words and deeds as you run for world leader. And I don’t like what I see and hear.

Please understand that Barack Obama is not a neo-con (neocon) Republican and means you no personal harm.

So why are you acting like such a shit?

Trust me on this,
Weird Wally

Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'

Barack Obama on race and poltics.

Saul Alinsky is Alive, Well and Kicking Ass!

Weird Wally recently decided to take a break from renting old Star Trek re-runs via Netflix and rented a DVD of the off beat documentary category.

Initially, WW thought it was just a documentary about some gay guys showing off. But after a few more minutes he realized that the “Yes Men” were taking some light-hearted approaches to serious situations. The Yes Men and their DVD

WW, if the truth be told, is highly envious of "The Yes Men". As adults, they are acting like children and having a lot of fun. The most recent thing WW remembers about having that kind of fun was as a middle school student. Whenever he knew that the English teacher was going to sing praise to Kipling, WW would always stop at a friends house before going to school cuz his mom usually had an extra bean and egg burrito or two to share for breakfast.

The smelly farts were a blast and the English teacher tended to keep his bullshit short!

Check here for the latest updates on the Yes Men

Trust me,
Weird Wally