Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Why I Am Voting For Jill Stein


I know it is election day, and we are all celebrating the two party candidates.  Most of you anyway.  I am not one of those people. 

Yes, I voted for Obama back in 2008.  I did this knowing that I would likely cast my vote for someone else in 2012.  I anticipated his betrayal on economic issues, since he was never dedicated to issues like social spending or a progressive tax policy.  I knew he supported the 2008 Wall Street bailout, which remains to me probably the worst piece of domestic legislation and ripoff of the American taxpayer in the last generation (in fairness, the Republican Congressional leadership and last GOP presidential standard bearer also supported the bailout of their friends on Madison Avenue).

However, even I, as cynical as I am, never anticipated the betrayal of candidate Barack Obama on so many national security and civil liberties issues.  Because of those failures and betrayals, of our values and our Constitution, I am not voting for Obama's reelection and will be, instead, casting my vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala.

I understand why many progressives are voting for Barack Obama today.  They know he is not one of us, in spite of what the right-wing says (the same people who claimed Bill Clinton was a Communist for signing an assault weapons ban [even though then-Governor Mitt Romney signed a similar ban into law in the 2000s]).  Yes, if Romney wins, in some ways things will get worse.  I have to concede that.  Yes, Romney would probably be as bad (if not worse) than Bush Jr., and worse than Obama and many important issues (reproductive health, healthcare in general, Supreme Court nominations, etc.)  I understand all of that.  However, for those progressives who remain undecided, I would posit the following reasons to not vote for Obama.

1.  President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which allows the U.S. Army to arrest any accused terrorist (based solely on the word of one person), even American citizens, and detain that person without a warrant, held indefinitely without charge, and without access to an attorney or family.  For all intents and purposes, our government now has the power to legally disappear American citizens on American soil (with no respect for your Fourth Amendment rights, never mind habeas corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act [which bans the U.S. Army from being used for domestic policing purposes]).

This is without a doubt the greatest assault on our Constitutional liberties in the history of this country, and Barack Obama signed it into law, even though he conceded this violated the Constitution.  His reasoning is that he will never abuse those rights, which does not matter because it is now the law.  This means any future president (even Obama himself, if he is lying) can and will almost certainly use that amendment of the law to legally disappear American citizens (with no legal recourse).

And the reaction of the right? The same as those liberals who continue to kowtow to Obama, nothing (if anything, overwhelming support).  If an honest person is going to take to task George Bush for signing into law the Patriot Act, it would be an act of supreme hypocrisy to ignore the 2012 NDAA, which is far worse in terms of its violation of our Constitution.

2.  President Obama has in the past supported the Patriot Act, when he was a member of the Senate. However, he never voiced support for having American whistle blowers detained and tortured.  In fact, candidate Obama expressed the exact opposite sentiments when he ran in 2008.

 
What a pity Bradley Manning was not doing what he did back then.  Instead, he waited until after candidate Obama was elected.  We all know what happened next.  Again, there has been no debate among people in the respectable right or left in this country about the ethics of having American citizens detained, denied food, force-stripped, basically tortured, for committing the crime of revealing the crimes our government (at our expense) is committing in our name. 

If Daniel Ellsberg were in government today, it is not an exaggeration to say that we would not know his name.  He would have been arrested, tortured by his own government, and held indefinitely, and imprisoned for life.  In fact, some members of Congress think Manning should be killed as a 'traitor.'  How grand, coming from people who think the Confederacy was right, but I give them credit for being consistent in continuing to support state-sanctioned murder.  That is the stock and trade of the other side.  To see so few liberals and civil libertarians taking up the cause of Bradley Manning, almost certainly because his torture has occurred under the orders of a liberal POTUS, speaks volumes of the cowardice of the left in the U.S.
 
3.  President Barack Obama has turned our foreign policy into a Terminator movie with the use of drones, attacking and murdering American citizens and civilians.  As I write this, President Obama has a personal hit list with names, many of them Americans, who are to be killed on sight, either by drones or American forces (if they can be reached).  We have already killed at least one American, as well as his underage teenage son, by such means.  Yes, he was an accused terrorist.  Notice, he was never charged with a crime.  He was never formally charged, going through presenment of evidence, afforded an attorney, prosecuted before a jury of his peers, etc., you know the kind of stuff you expect as a citizen of this country from your government (the kind of stuff that serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer received, but not Mr. al-Awlaki and his 16 year old kid).
 
So, if the POTUS, or technically anyone in our government, accuses you of being a terrorist (not charged or even given a chance to answer to the charge), you can be murdered by our government based on that on accusation from either the POTUS or any figure in our government.  No Congress, no courts, no prosecutors, just one person's word and you are dead.  Think about this.  People are debating whether it is Communist to have a private healthcare plan subsidized in part by the government, but no one (on the right or left) dares to publicly criticize the notion that the state can simply kill you if it does not like you.  What is the point of having a Bill of Rights if the government can do this to you?  Better yet, if anyone is still reading, why does anyone care if they refuse to even say anything about this rank violation of our rights?
 
Lastly, you should consider that this foreign policy is being brought home.  We currently have thousands (by some estimates over 10,000) unarmed drones flying over our own soil, put there by the U.S. Air Force as training for future drone-bombing missions abroad.  What is to stop our government from arming those drones and using them on us here at home?  Absolutely nothing.  For those who think this is some type of conspiracy, we are already killing Americans abroad based on one person's word, even the person's kid, and our government can legally disappear you on American soil.  It is no stretch to see in the future the POTUS having an American citizen on a hit list and deciding to have that person killed on sight on our soil (and doing it). 
 
And if/when that happens, how many liberals and conservatives will care or say anything about it?  Probably about as many who said anything by the 2012 NDAA.  Not very many.  Only seven Senators voted against these provisions of the bill.  Let this list of honor (including a few Republicans) be noted.  They deserve some recognition for refusing to vote away our Constitution.
 
Tom Coburn (Republican-Oklahoma)
Tom Harkin (Democrat-Iowa)
Mike Lee (Republican-Utah)
Jeff Merkley (Democrat-Oregon)
Rand Paul (Republican-Kentucky)
Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont)
Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon)
 
And this does not even take into consideration that we are killing the underage children of an accused terrorist, someone who has not even been accused of being a terrorist himself.  This does not also include the civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan who have been killed in air strikes by our government, deaths that include children and even babies.
 
I understand that the Green Party is not perfect, but I am certain of this much.  Jill Stein would dismantle this militaristic state and our terrorist foreign policy of ours.  I know she would never support shredding our Bill of Rights.  I know she would never support drone-bombing innocent people, even American citizens, without a care in the world.  For those of you who remember that third presidential debate.  Notice the agreement between the candidates on those issues.  More than anything else, that is the reason why you should not vote for either Romney or Obama.  I know I am but one person, one voice, and that my candidate has no chance of winning, but if and when I am ever called to account for the crimes of my government I can at least say I never supported it.  That is why I am voting for Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala for President.  If there is anyone else out there reading, I respectfully ask you to do the same.  Let us send a message for the so-called party of the people.  Until you stop acting like imperialists and killers, you will not have our support.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Our Penn States

If the reactions over Penn State's fate following the release of the Freeh report this week are any indicator, Penn State University should lose its football program, Joe Paterno should have his statue removed, and the university itself should face endless punishment for all of its misdeeds.

I am not going to defend Joe Paterno and Penn State.  I have not regularly followed sports in years and purposely ignore college sports as much as the pros.  And no, I have never attended Penn State University.  All of the aforementioned notwithstanding, while Joe Paterno's memory is going to be rightfully marred by this scandal and crime of omission, the real problem goes much deeper than Penn State University.  If you looked at Happy Valley before this scandal, it was probably the last place that you would ever anticipate a child sex scandal.  In 46 years of coaching, Paterno did not incur a single NCAA investigation, never mind sanctions, won over 70% of his games, won multiple national championships, had the highest graduation rate of any top 25 division I-A college football program.  Compare that to all of the investigations and misdeeds in places like USC, University of Miami, Ohio State, and just about every SEC school (arguably the most corrupt conference in college sports).

For all of those people calling for Penn State's head, ask yourself, could you imagine this happening at your favorite big school that you go crazy for come college football season?  The University of Miami had boosters paying for prostitutes and strippers for its players, has had more than one of its players killed while on the team, and has a system so corrupt the university's president is at a loss to try to reform it.  In that environment, I would dare say there are many budding Penn States out there.  Consider that according to sociological studies about one out of six people in this society experience some form of childhood sexual abuse, and 90% of those cases are committed not by strangers but family members, neighbors, and friends of the family.  That is exactly what Jerry Sandusky was to those children he sexually abused (a father figure in the minds of many single moms who allowed this man to have access to their sons).

Many years ago, when I was a youngster (OK, 19), I worked many hourly wage slave jobs.  In those days, I usually worked two or three jobs just to pay the bills, and it was not much (barely above minimum wage).  My night job was at a convenient store in a high crime area of my hometown, by myself.  The cops would come in at least once a week and show me pictures of people wanted by the police and who were last seen in the area. Basically, all I had to defend myself with was a two dollar bill in a cash register, and a hope that the police would get there before anything happened.  Needless to say, it was not a pleasant job.

Anyway, in those third shift hours, while waiting to get possibly robbed by a practitioner of our Second Amendment, there was an old time cop who would stop by, sit down, have a cup of coffee, and talk with me.  He was a nice enough fellow, looked to be in his late 50s, and talked to me about what it was like being a beat cop.  He mentioned how the worst aspect of his job were 'the domestics,' where he would have to answer calls from (usually) wives and girlfriends and children being abused by the men of the house.  What was most poignant to him in his young days as a cop is that he would answer these calls, see the marks of obvious beatings, and not being able to do anything because of the unwillingness of the victim to press charges.  'The family.  The family!'  That is all he would say about such occurrences, but he did not need to elaborate.  I understood even then what he meant.  They used to call it 'keeping it in the family,' as a means to rationalize the abuser and prevent punishment, separation, or help for a victim (even children).

The most depressing part of the Sandusky case, outside of the crimes he committed, is how much it is treated as an outlier within the institutions caught in the vortex of these scandals, but how it is treated is the reason why so few abusers are ever punished in this society.  What happened at Penn State is not that unusual, sadly.  It happens all of the time.  In most cases, it is a step-father, brother, uncle, or neighbor, and the veneer of the family (like the cult status that college football has at many universities) is the cover for which no charge can ever be made outside of the institution's walls.  That wall of silence has existed since time immemorial and is in virtually every society on this planet.  The only way we are going to break down those walls is not just to talk about Penn State, but for people to talk about their own lives and openly express the same disdain when such acts are committed against them by trusted authority figures.

Jerry Sandusky's crimes have had an impact in that regard.  We now know about sportswriter Bill Conlin's abuse of his nieces after they stepped forward, in part because of what happened at Penn State.  Sandusky's own son, at trial, finally testified, to the prosecutors, media, and his family, revealing that his stepfather's behavior was not isolated to the children outside of his immediate family.  That is what we really need more than anything else, to break down those last walls and force us as a society, as a polity, to confront ourselves as stridently as a Penn State football coach.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Up From Catholicism

I know, I know, it has been literally forever, five months, since I last posted.  To my tens of readers, what can I say?  I work the equivalent of two (sometimes three) jobs, logging around 60-80 hours a week.  It has put a cramp on my blogging.  I have added my blog to my tablet and hopefully will have more opportunities to post.  If not, please, follow my twitter account.  I post there more often and it is much easier on my editing skills than making sure everything is the correct font size in here.

As it is, I suppose I should get to what I want to write about.  Apparently, there is or was a 'prominent' atheist blogger on the internets who recently decided to give the pope a try.

---------------------------------------------------------
Prominent Atheist Blogger Converts to Catholicism
By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) She went from atheist to Catholic in just over 1,000 words.
Leah Libresco, who’d been a prominent atheist blogger for the religion website Patheos, announced on her blog this week that after years of debating many “smart Christians,” she has decided to become one herself, and that she has begun the process of converting to Catholicism.
Libresco, who had long blogged under the banner “Unequally Yoked: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend,” said that at the heart of her decision were questions of morality and how one finds a moral compass.
“I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to,” Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. “And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn’t let go of. And that is something I can’t prove.”
According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled “This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church’s positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.
“There was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth,” Libresco wrote about Catholicism in her conversion announcement post, which has been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook. “I asked my friend what he suggests we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together.”
At the end of the post, Libresco announces that she is in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults class and is preparing for baptism. She will continue to blog for Patheos, but under the banner, “A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.”
According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco’s post has received around 150,000 page views so far.
“Leah's blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views,” Welch wrote in an email. “Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic.”
Libresco’s announcement has left some atheists scratching their heads.
“I think atheists were surprised that she went with Catholicism, which seems like a very specific choice,” Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger at Patheos, told CNN. “I have a hard time believing how someone could jump from I don’t believe in God to a very specific church and a very specific God.”
Mehta says that Libresco’s conversion is a “one-off thing” and not something that signals any trend in atheism. “The trends are very clear, the conversions from Catholicism to atheism are much more likely to happen than the other way around,” he said.
But while atheists were puzzled by the conversion, others commended Libresco.
“I know I’ve prayed for her conversion several times, always thinking she would make a great Catholic,” wrote Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger. “And with this news, it looks like that will happen. Today heaven is roaring with joy.”
Thomas L. McDonald, a Catholic Patheos blogger, welcomed Libresco to the fold: “Welcome. I know this was hard, and will continue to be so. Don’t worry if the Catholics make it as for difficult for you as the atheists. We only do it to people we love.”
Libresco says one of the most common questions she has received is how she'll deal with atheists now.
“The great thing about a lot of the atheist and skeptic community is that people talk more critically about ideas and want to see proof provided,” Libresco said. “That kind of analytical thinking is completely useful and the Catholic Church doesn’t need to and should not be afraid of because if you’ve got the facts on your side, you hope they win.”
Libresco is just switching the side she thinks the facts are on.

---------------------------------------------------------

Seeing how I average about a couple dozen page views a day, and in need to up the traffic for the advertisers at Google, I would like to take this time as an atheist blogger to announce my conversion to.....just kidding.

I do not want to sound too harsh on this lady, and maybe I am just out of the loop, but who in the world is  Leah Libresco?  I have never heard of her.  Granted, I work for a living, but I scour the internet for my news source material on average three hours a day, occasionally more, and while I do not hit the blogs as much I used to I have never heard of Ms. Libresco.  I will leave her increased fame by converting to Catholicism for someone with the resources and time to dissect.

As for the substance of her 'conversion,' it is nothing new or remarkable.  Anne Rice, the writer of vampire fame, converted from secularism to Catholicism back in the '90s (and recently back to atheism).  Religion has survived and thrived for all of these years for a reason.  It fills a void in a person to find something larger than him/herself to believe in, even if you have to suspend common sense and delude yourself into thinking that some person survived in the belly of a whale for three days.  This is also one of the biggest weaknesses of atheism (and I write this as an atheist who spent the first two-plus decades of my life as a Catholic).  In spite of what some religious people say about non-believers having a worldview, atheism is denoted by a marked absence of belief in things outside of the real world.

The problem is the real world sucks a big one.  It is filled with poverty, hatred, murder, rape, starvation, disease, and ignorance on a massive scale.  If you have nothing but reality, it can become a disheartening atmosphere.  I should know, I have been living this life since I left the world of fairy tales and it has instilled in me a hardened cynicism.  You get the feel oftentimes that there is no hope for our species.  It is kind of a corrosive existence, if you do not have some overarching belief or value system, and unfortunately some atheists are like that (for me, of course, the overarching belief and value system is in socialism).  My guess is Ms. Libresco did not have any larger cause and began looking for answers to this world.

Whatever else I think of organized religion, it can give you a lot of answers.  Yes, they are answers provided by a bunch of sexually repressed men thousands of years ago, but the benefit of religion is you can be completely wrong, have no evidence whatsoever for what you say, and still offer up simple answers.  They have a way of attracting people looking for that kind of certitude in their lives.  This is why Christianity has survived two mellinnia, even though it has a track record of repression, bigotry, and mass murder.  It is why Islam is here, more popular than ever, with a track record just as bloody as Christianity's.  It is why Judaism is still here, even though you see the logical conclusion of that religion in the right-wing government of Israel today.  They provide clear, concise answers for people looking for reassurance.

Do I have any solutions to what Ms. Libresco is looking for?  Well, I do for me, but whereas her newfound religion would tell her yes and if she does not convert she will go to hell, I lack invocation.  Leah has to discover these things on her own terms.  I wish her the best.  On the positive side, she will not have to worry about the priests.  They prefer underage boys.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Glenn Greenwald's Fallacies on Progressives and Ron Paul


If anyone needs further evidence of the devolution and diffusion of the left in the West, you need to look no further than Glenn Greenwald's paternalistic piece on why progressives should stop acting like petulant children and vote for a person who will cut his taxes.

Here is but one snippet by this progressive-turned-libertarian shill:
Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial.
Whatever else I can say about Glenn Greenwald, he thinks I should be supportive of Ron Paul (oh, wait, only telling us about the candidates and why Ron Paul is so much better [which is his way of saying an endorsement]).  That is an ironic choice of a word when describing what I should feel for Ron Paul, seeing how the doctor does not seem too enthused about someone like Glenn Greenwald, if one believes Rep. Paul's ex-staff worker.  I guess being homophobic is acceptable, so long as you think correctly on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.  Who knows, maybe he will dedicate some of his column space in the future on the greatness of Pat Buchanan (whose politics closely resembles Rep. Paul's).

And yes, Glenn, I actually do think of myself as flamboyant about civil liberties, to the point I have dedicated a good part of this site to criticizing President Obama, but as a progressive I am also flamboyant about other crucial issues, like civil rights--a strange omission in Glenn's column (until I emailed him my criticisms and he changed his article to address it at the end) and with good reason.  That's because Greenwald's preferred (I mean compared) presidential candidate is not only non-flamboyant about civil rights but opposes it absolutely as a violation of the rights of property owners (the favored caste of all libertarians).  In fact, Rep. Paul has opposed the Voting Rights Act throughout his entire political career, along with the Civil Rights Act.  You see, Ron believes a property owner should be allowed to exclude anyone from his/her business, including people based on their race.  Of course, Glenn does not have to worry about getting himself excluded anytime soon.  The Jim Crow laws in the pre-civil rights era did not make him sit in the back of a bus.

But when it comes to violating the Constitution, Ron Paul has no problems whatsoever, on the condition that you are born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented.  That is right, Ron Paul wants to roll back the 14th Amendment, which he never liked as an apologist for the Confederacy in the Civil War, and advocates eliminating the clause that grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.  And he wants to abolish public assistance to undocumented immigrants, including schooling for their children (even those born in the U.S.).  Naturally, Glenn, as a native born citizen of the U.S., is not acquainted with people who will be impacted by this policy (or not enough for it to be a priority for him), so the lack of care over such folk is of no consequence to him or his presidential vote.

And it is not just the right of people born in the U.S. to undocumented parents that Rep. Paul wants to do away with.  He is not too supportive of the living ones who would dare demand a living wage, as well.  Rep. Paul opposes the Wagner Act, which gives every American the right to collectively bargain in a labor union (which is what created the middle-class of this country after World War Two).  And he opposes a minimum wage law as a means of "helping" poor people by subjecting them to the whims of companies would prefer slave labor, if they could get away with it.  In fairness to Dr. Paul, he is not only an advocate of abusing adult workers.  He supports spreading the social Darwinistic joys of this survival of the fittest (and starvation of everyone else) by 'liberating' our children from those evil public schools and sending them to the workforce, like Henry Frick's 10 year old dynamite specialists in the mines of late 19th century Pennsylvania.  Apparently, none of those issues should count to me when considering a presidential candidate. 

Another issue I am flamboyant about is reproductive choice.  Like most progressives (should), I see women as full human beings who should be treated equally as men, and that most certainly includes the right to decide when/whether to terminate a pregnancy.  Ron Paul is an opponent of allowing women to have such a choice.  Indeed, Rep. Paul claims to be "strongly pro-life" (anti-choice).  Glenn will not have to care about this issue anytime soon, as a man who thinks I should either ignore or downplay something that is not on his horizon, and as such not vital, but that which providers of women's reproductive health have to live through every day--and by live through every day, I mean a country filled with religious zealots and terrorists (almost all Republican voters) who may attack and kill you for reaffirming a woman's Constitutional right.

Another Glenn Greenwald item that was not mentioned in his column for Ron Paul is the one issue that all libertarians care about the most, greater than civil liberties, greater than foreign policy, and that is economics.  Of course, as a new-fangled supporter of the rights of the proprietor, Glenn should know all about this, as he would benefit mightily by the abolition of the progressive income tax and its replacement with a regressive national sales tax.  After making himself a millionaire off the backs of (mostly) progressive readers who purchase what he writes, the recension of the income tax would be a blessing and clear financial motive for his vote (oops, I mean his comparison).  That is because Ron Paul has been a longtime supporter of the elimination of the income tax, including the proposed "fair tax" (that is, if by fair, you mean to wealthy people).



Another issue Glenn completely bypassed (until the end, when he put in a paragraph addressing some of the aforementioned, following my criticisms that I emailed to him), again, for the same obvious reason he did not want to address his views on taxes, the supposed violation of the Constitution that Rep. Paul thinks Social Security has become.  Naturally, Glenn does not have to worry about this.  He has enough money saved up from years of legal practice and book sales in the 2000s to keep himself in a position of ease, but over half of all elderly people in the US depend on Social Security as their primary source of income.  Rep. Paul believes we should rollback and eventually abolish Social Security.

And what about the corporate ownership of our campaigns?  Yes, that is another issue that I, as a progressive, am very flamboyant about (it might arguably be the most important issue in American politics), because corporations have a corrupting influence on our polity and have contributed profitably to our wars and increasing police state.  Ron Paul not only supports this, he supported the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. FEC decision, which further humanizes corporations and equates corporate money with speech.  Then again, Glenn feels the same way as Ron Paul and every Republican presidential candidate, so it is more than understandable why he conveniently absented any mention of the criminal enterprise that is our system of private campaign sponsorship.

But most offensive of all, even worse than the omissions (until I pointed it out to him), even worse than the apologia for a man who sees Glenn as a moral defect, and the rest of us as individualistic atoms waiting to be freed into a world filled with unaccountable private corporations, is the fact I am having my intelligence insulted as a progressive for not bowing to (an endorsement masquerading as a phony informational session on the progressive credentials of) Rep. Paul because he is good on about one-third of the issues, as if the other two-thirds are not crucial enough for me to care (well, not crucial to Glenn Greenwald because he has healthcare and a house to live in, and an education that is paid off).  As if my only choice is between Ron Paul and Barack Obama, since that is the only comparison allowed for progressives, an offense not only committed by Glenn but even other progressives (when attempting to browbeat me into voting Democratic).  

Has it ever occurred to the ex-lefist-turned-libertarian lemmings (i.e., people like Glenn Greenwald and Alexander Cockburn) that I should not have to choose between a libertarian and a neo-conservartive/liberal like Barack Obama?  Of course they do not know about the Greens or Socialist Party because as libertarians the thought of voting for people who would more heavily tax or regulate Mr. Cockburn's country estate or Glenn Greenwald's income is beyond the pale of consideration.  Well, as a progressive, it is not beyond the pale of consideration to me.

I know of no laws that will restrict me, as a Democrat and progressive, from voting or writing in whoever the Green Party or Socialist Party nominates.  And guess what, Glenn?  That is who I will likely be voting for.  A candidate who is good on 100% of the issues, not two candidates (Paul and Obama) who are, at best, good on a third and are really two sides of the same corporatist coin (since they have the same views on trade, deficit reduction, and single-payer healthcare).  Mr. Greenwald, sadly, does not see that because he is a Cato Institute-funded libertarian, disingenuously attempting to obliquely fool people into voting for a person who sees fetuses and corporations as being more human than we are.

But hey, that's OK.  No need to worry about deporting babies born in the U.S. for having the wrong parentage.  No need to worry about poor people having to pay a 27% national sales tax on everything to subsidize the rich.  No worry about abolishing or rolling back what little social safety net we have in this country.  No need to worry about having Supreme Court appointees who will view women as broodmares.  No need to worry about states continuing to be allowed to violate the due process rights of gay couples who want to marry.  At least we will not be spied on or go to war, while we live in rags (after the minimum wage and unions are outlawed), die from a lack of healthcare in a ditch, and not allowed to vote after states (upon the repeal of the Voting Rights Act) require us to submit our DNA as the price of admission to get into a voting booth.  After all, you don't have time to address any of this when doing a positive writeup on Ron Paul.

Post-Script: Hey Glenn, thanks for re-writing your column to address my critiques after I posted this.  You have a strange way of responding.