Middletown Elections Are Coming- Be VERY Afraid!

Sorry, well not really, that I have not kept up with Middletown politics.  I do know some of what's going on due to visitations, not the daily snooze (they charge).  Truly, it's not very high on my list since I no longer reside nor own property there!
I do know about the referendum question (above) and some of the local yokels running (I say this most affectionately).
I'll be short & sweet.  If you don't elect Ed Silveira, Barbara VonVillas, and Dick Adams- you are nuts & deserve what you get.  I've only heard mention of a few other names- "I've heard that song before." Feel free to check the archives!  Check Projo's, too.  Change is extremely difficult, if not impossible for most, so past performance matters!
It's highly questionable why ANYONE would want to run for Town Council/School Committee, but aren't you lucky that they do!  Hat's off to one and ALL of them!   
Pay special attention to State Lege races.  Often these candidates are ignored and get a free pass every year.  They Should Not!  High property taxes- thank them.  Tolls raised?  Look to them.  School woes?  Hey, cast your eyes towards Prov.  But, damn, they do know how to look effective and duck. It's often a beauty contest.  If you haven't got the physical attributes- spin city. So don't let the philistines escape!
Hang tough & buckle down!  Ask those  hard questions & duck the incoming. "Eggheads of the world- unite!  We have nothing to lose but our yolks!"  Adlai Stevenson.

Cap'n Mike Cries "Mercy"

What's this I see in the weekend edition of the NDN? Why, it's a LTE from our favorite right-wing corporate jet pilot, Middletown's own Warren "Cap'n Mike" Caldwell! Cap'n Mike, it seems, is all hot n' bothered about Arlen Specter's switch from God's Own Party to those eeeeeevil, socialistic Democrats, as is indicated by the title the paper assigned his letter, "Specter's defection puts us at mercy of Democrats."

Cap'n Mike starts things off with a bang, demanding to know "how much?" i.e. "What was the price you commanded from the Democrats, and how much were they willing to pay for your defection, Mr. Specter?" It would be awful to suggest that Cap'n Mike expects the answer to be "Thirty pieces of silver, just like that other dirty Jew," so I'm not going to suggest it. Instead, I will simply note that despite rumors that Pennsylvania Democratic boss Ed Rendell would be pulling strings to let Specter run unopposed in the Democratic primary, Specter said on Meet the Press this morning that he was offered no incentives from Democrats to switch parties, and that he did expect to face a Democratic primary challenge next year.

But the meat of Cap'n Mike's rant is his fretting that with Specter joining the Dems, America is "on the verge of one-party rule at the hands of the most radical, leftist collection of liberal Democratic socialists ever to walk the halls of Congress." Well, I'd like to reassure Cap'n Mike that he's wrong, that the party of Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, and Evan Bayh is nowhere near as radical as, for example, the party that passed all those New Deal programs back in the 1930s.

I'd like to do that, but I can't.

The plain fact of the matter is, Cap'n Mike is right. Nelson, Carper, Bayh, Steny Hoyer, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, and all those other alleged moderates were just putting on an act. Speaking as someone on the secret ACORN payroll who was personally responsible for recruiting hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to flood North Carolina and Virginia with fraudulent votes, I have to admit that Cap'n Mike is right on the money.

I happen to know that President Obama is planning to appoint none other than ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers to the newly-created position of Secretary for the Department of Rounding Up and Liquidation of Class Enemies. Secretary Ayers will also be responsible for nationalizing all industries and outlawing private property. The President himself will openly admit to being a Muslim and will suspend the Constitution in favor of Sharia Law. Representative Barney Frank will be crafting legislation that will not only make gay marriage mandatory, but will outlaw heterosexuality itself! All women will be required to undergo in-vitro fertilization just so that the resulting babies can be aborted and harvested for stem cells. Oh, and say hello to the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court: Jane Fonda!

Finally, I'd like to assure Cap'n Mike that he hasn't been forgotten. As a major figure in the Vast Islamohomosocialist Conspiracy, I'll be personally seeing to it that Cap'n Mike is gay married to the secret leader of the Democratic Party himself, Osama bin Laden. Enjoy your honeymoon, Cap'n Mike!

UPDATE: Whoa! Great minds think alike! Hello, Eileen, nice post!

Why We Fight

A couple weeks ago, I posted a rebuttal to Captain "Mike" Caldwell's latest guest editorial in the Newport Daily News, in which, among other things, I alluded to Eileen's questions about whether Cap'n "Mike" was a real person. In comments, Eileen pointed out that Cap'n "Mike" is actually named Warren, which was why she couldn't find any public information about him before.

Also in comments was one by Bill Gauch of the Rhode Island Review Blog. Along with the standard right-wing talking points about the ARRA, Bill asked an interesting question: "If you know (or strongly believe) that this guy is either a crack-pot or make believe, why bother to respond here or in the paper?" That question, at least, merited a reasoned response, so this is it.

The answer is that even if Cap'n "Mike" wasn't a real person, the opinions he expresses are shared by a lot of people (including Bill Gauch). That makes it worth my while to respond, because right-wing talking points should never be allowed to go unanswered, no matter the source.

For instance, take my response to last year's Cap'n "Mike" two-part epic, in which Our Captain bashes Anderson Cooper for playing a videotape of Iraqi insurgents killing American troops. The roots of Cap'n "Mike"s fauxtrage go back to the 1960s, when another president from Texas got the United States stuck in another overseas military quagmire through another act of blatant dishonesty. Back then, it was LBJ using the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to justify sending American combat troops into South Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a bit of Cold War madness that was marked by nonstop misinformation and disinformation by the Johnson administration and the Pentagon, so it's no surprise that there was a lot of opposition to the war, especially as American casualties mounted and it became clear that the government was lying its collective ass off about the whole thing.

However, what conservatives like Cap'n "Mike" took from the Vietnam War was the odd conviction that if the TV networks hadn't broadcast images of the fighting, and of American casualties, everything would have been all right. They decided that the only way to prevent the public from opposing military action was to keep the public as ignorant as possible. That was the rationale behind the Poppy administration's tight control over information during the Noriega takedown and the Persian Gulf War, and the Dubya administration's equally tight restrictions on media coverage of the Iraq War (such as the policy prohibiting the display of images of flag-draped coffins). This is also the reason why Cap'n "Mike" and his fellow conservatives scream like angry babies whenever the media manages to show the public things like dead bodies, especially dead American bodies. And this is the reason Cap'n "Mike" accused Anderson Cooper of destroying America's cultural soul.

It would have been irresponsible of me to let Cap'n "Mike"s ridiculous and ahistorial World War 2 analogy to go unanswered, and it would have been equally irresponsible to let him get away with pretending that his own fake outrage over realistic war coverage was shared by the general public.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to point out to Cap'n "Mike" and his fellow conservatives that the Iraq War disproves their thesis that "negative" (ie realistic) media converage of combat drives public disapproval. The media has largely (and cravenly) knuckled under to government pressure to whitewash the Iraq War, but the public turned against the war anyway. And the reason they turned against the Iraq War was the real reason they turned against the Vietnam War: because it was an unnecessary war based on lies, and people naturally dislike that sort of thing.

Anyway, I hope this answers Bill Gauch's question about why I bother to respond to a possibly imaginary right-wing-talking-point-spewing person. However imaginary the person, the talking points are very real and malignant, and must be countered.

Cap'n Mike versus the Porkulus

Cap'n Mike Caldwell, the possibly mythical Middletown corporate jet pilot and spewer of right-wing talking points, is back in the pages of the Newport Daily News. The fact that he was discovered to be using fake quotes culled from right-wing chain emails to attack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama hasn't kept him from vomiting forth more of his worthless opinions, nor has it kept the NDN from printing them.

Tuesday saw another warm, steaming pile of wingnuttery deposited on the paper's op-ed page under the title "Stimulus bill avoids hard choices." I won't bother with a line-by-line rebuttal this time, because Cap'n Mike drivel just isn't worth it. Instead, I'll provide the text of my emailed response to the paper. I'll let you know if they print it.

In his Guest View piece on March 3, "Stimulus bill avoids hard choices," Captain Mike Caldwell spends a lot of time worrying that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (which he refers to simply as "the $787 billion spending package") has "no clear direction, no feedback mechanism, no system and no means to determine or measure success or failure" of its "ostensible objectives." As such, says Capt. Caldwell, "no hard choices need be made regarding either cuts in government spending or distinguishing among key economic determinants or programs."

If I were a cynical man, I might think that Capt. Caldwell was engaging in mere partisan sniping, since his worries about hard choices being left unmade would have been more timely a few years ago, when President George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress were spending money like drunken sailors. But I am a stranger to cynicism, so I will assume that Capt. Caldwell actually wrote this piece in 2004 or so, and mislaid it, and only recently found it again, and decided to have it published after updating the names.

If that is the case, then I salute Capt. Caldwell for his wise words. President Bush did indeed defer hard choices, and the result has indeed been, as Capt. Caldwell presciently says, "a recipe for disaster." I only wish Capt. Caldwell hadn't mislaid his wise words, so he could have delivered them five years ago when they actually needed to be said.

UPDATE: Well, they printed it in the weekend edition, but it was overshadowed by a longer, better letter by Thomas R. Beall of Middletown.

Concerned citizen is concerned

From the Wingnut Thursday edition of the Newport Daily News, comes, appropriately, the following LTE from Helen F. Flynn of Middletown under the headline "Hillary Clinton and Obama need to answer constitutional questions":

Should we as citizens of the United States be concerned about the questions posed to us daily in the media concerning two constitutional issues? The first question concerns the qualifications under the U.S. Constitution as to who can be president of the United States, namely, "No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President." That is what is clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Several groups have requested that President-elect Barack Obama produce his original birth certificate (everyone has one) so that everyone can be assured that he is indeed a natural-born citizen, which is different from a naturalized citizen. His original birth certificate showing the place and the physician who signed it would help to end all questions about Obama's natural-born status.

The other question that comes up now and presents a constitutional issue has to do with whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is qualified under constitutional law to be appointed to the job of secretary of state. Article I, Section 6, in regard to compensation, states clearly "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the emoluments [salary, fees, etc.] whereof shall have been increased during such time." According to information in the press, salaries were increased while Sen. Clinton has been holding office, thus eliminating her candidacy for the post.

These two clauses in the U.S. Constitution were included to protect the country and the candidates. Are Americans supposed to be so stupid that we have to sit back and accept being told that these valid issues raised are so much "garbage"?

My reply will soon be flying through the internets to the waiting inbox of the NDN:

To the editors,

Helen F. Flynn of Middletown raises important questions in her letter of December 4. I hope I may be of assistance in answering them.

To take Ms. Flynn's second constitutional question first: the problem of members of Congress being appointed to cabinet posts which have seen salary increases during their terms is one that has come up before. A workaround known as the Saxbe Fix has been established to deal with the problem, as noted by Wikipedia: "Historically, the solution has been to reduce salaries of Cabinet positions to the level they were before the offending salary increases. Although the method originated in 1909 during the Taft Administration, it is named after Senator William B. Saxbe, who successfully was appointed to be United States Attorney General in 1973 after Congress acted to "fix" the violation of the clause by reducing the Attorney General salary to the previous level. The fix subsequently has become relevant as a successful solution for Presidential appointments to the United States Cabinet of sitting members of the United States Congress." If the Saxbe Fix was good enough for Philander C. Knox, William B. Saxbe, and Edmund Muskie, then it's good enough for Hillary Clinton.

As for Ms. Flynn's first constitutional question concerning Barack Obama's citizenship, I have to confess that Ms. Flynn has a very good point. Obama's actual birth certificate has never been passed around among members of the press, since Hawaii state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest in it, i.e. the individual himself or a close family member. That being so, it could certainly be the case that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health, could have been lying when she said that she and Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin Onaka personally verified the existence of Obama's State of Hawaii birth certificate. It could also be the case that the Certification of Live Birth that has been available online since June could be a forgery.

What I find particularly troubling about the birth certificate controversy is that fact that Senator Clinton never brought it up during the Democratic primaries, and neither did Senator John McCain or Governor Sarah Palin during the general election campaign, and all of them certainly would have had good reason to do so. I can only conclude that Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and even Governor Palin are all involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the true facts surrounding Obama's possible disqualification for the presidency.

I think Ms. Flynn's course is clear. She must continue to press the question of Barack Obama's dubious citizenship claims. I would advise her to get together with other likeminded concerned citizens of Rhode Island and demand that the state's political leaders speak up on the issue. In particular, I think that she and her allies ought to confront Rhode Island Republican Party Chairman Giovanni Cicione. If Mr. Cicione does not accept the validity of Ms. Flynn's concerns, she and her allies ought to take steps to remove Mr. Cicione from his position as party chairman and replace him with someone with the proper concern for the U.S. Constitution.

I believe that the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate is just what the Rhode Island Republican Party needs to regain the support of the people of Rhode Island. Ms. Flynn and her allies ought to focus on this issue like a laser -- if necessary, to the exclusion of all else. If they do, and if they succeed in gaining control of the state Republican Party, I think they can make this issue the centerpiece of an Ocean State Republican rennaisance.

Ms. Flynn, your duty as an American is clear: go to it, and good luck!

Got a Story?

I didn't doctor this ad from the NDN (check out the bottom).

Yeah, "Daily News," do I HAVE A STORY!! And I'm not alone. Stay tuned.

This is just so wrong on SO many levels. I've had so many complaints about this "team" that I could just scream. And I didn't even solicit them.

ARRRRGGGHHH!

Yes, anyone was better than some actual Democrats, yet alone some actual discussion on whom (not to mention WHAT) local monies (the Middletown Democratic Town Committe) would be paid to support.

Sorry, no votes from me. Yes, we do indeed deserve the Council we elect.

Fool Me Twice...

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 5

For those just joining us, this is part 5 in a series of posts in which I respond to Captain Mike Caldwell, local wingnut extraordinaire, who has just published the second half of his screed on the vanishing soul of America in the Newport Daily News. After my first three posts appeared last month in response to the screed's first half, Eileen noticed that Cap'n Mike didn't seem to exist in Middletown's public records, even though the NDN said he was a Middletown resident. This led me to speculate that Cap'n Mike might actually be a Colbertesque spoof, a parody wingnut being perpetrated by a fellow liberal. If you are a spoof, Cap'n Mike, please let us know. It doesn't have to be something blatant, just devote a few lines in your next piece to denouncing bears as godless killing machines.

But just in case Cap'n Mike is a real wingnut who really believes the things he publishes in the paper, I'd better carry on with mocking him. If you want to get up to speed, you can find part 4 of the series here.

When we last left Cap'n Mike, he was listing three instances of "notable policy shapers" who were destroying America's political soul by promoting big-government liberalism. The first two big-government liberals Cap'n Mike cited were Barack Obama and John McCain, so you can imagine what the rest of his rant was like. We pick up the thread as Cap'n Mike lists his third and final political-soul-destroying notable policy shaper: Speaker of the House Nancy "San Francisco values" Pelosi:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, regarding the enforcement of a "windfall tax" on individual retirement income: We need to work toward the goal of equilizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest. We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. We have an estimated 12 million immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."

When Cap'n Mike is quoting a Democrat, it's always a good idea to try to find the original source of the quotation, since he has, frankly, a poor record of verifying his quotes. A quick spin through the magical Google machine finds, surprise surprise, another page from Snopes.com. You will, I am sure, be shocked to find that Cap'n Mike is quoting from another chain e-mail, this one dating all the way back to 2006. As the good people of Snopes.com note, what Pelosi was actually proposing after becoming Speaker in 2006 was to eliminate $33 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies going to the oil companies. The quote from Cap'n Mike is not anything Speaker Pelosi actually said. In fact, it's a bit of pre-election satire based on liberal stereotypes that was falsely attributed to two New York Times reporters.

Do I have to point out the level of intelligence being displayed by Cap'n Mike here? No? He has two quotes which he attributes to Democratic politicians, and both of the quotes are bogus, pulled from right-wing chain e-mails. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that, yes, Cap'n Mike is actually a liberal spoof. More evidence is provided by the rest of Cap'n Mike's rant. Take it away, Cap'n Mike:

Folks, the above is but a sampling of pure Marxism-by-the-drink being fed to the American electorate -- and the most disturbing part

Is that I actually believe the quotes I cited above are real.

is that they appear to be swallowing every bit of this socialist bile as quickly as it is poured --

You kind of have to admire the way Cap'n Mike milks (so to speak) this metaphor.

predominantly by liberal Democrats, but nonetheless by both sides of the political aisle, the only difference being in terms of degree and volume.

In other words, Democrats are pouring a greater volume of socialist bile into the American electorate, and their socialist bile is a different temperature from the GOP's socialist bile. At least, I think that's what he meant by "in terms of degree". But does Cap'n Mike think the Democrats' socialist bile is warmer or colder than the Republicans' socialist bile? He really needs to be more specific about this sort of thing.

We appear prepared to give up, one by one, al the individual rights, political freedoms and liberties that have served to make this country, while perhaps not perfect,

Careful there, Cap'n Mike. You know as well as I do that only dirty smelly hippies think America is imperfect. Keep up this sort of talk and they'll take away your Rush Limbaugh Wingnut Decoder Ring.

the one to which people around the world look with longing.

Just as long as looking is all they do. We definitely don't want any more damn foreigners actually trying to come here and enjoy all our liberties.

Just ask the Chinese, or the Georgians of the former Soviet Union.

Cap'n Mike gets a gold star for topicality. Though I was rather under the impression that the Georgians were looking to us for more military aid rather than more liberty. They may have even been looking to us to go to war with Russia on their behalf. Too bad for them our military is bogged down in Iraq.

I suggest a twofold solution of sorts --

Ah, this is the good bit, where Cap'n Mike tells us What We Need To Do to get our country's soul back.

one near-term, the second of a more extended nature.

Ah, a phased implementation of soul-restoring activities. What should we do first, Cap'n Mike?

First, a return to traditional American values embodying the primacy and rights of the individual,

In other words, disenfranchising women and blacks and reinstituting slavery. Because those are the traditional American values that served our country so well during the first four score and seven years of its existence.

recognizing that with those rights also comes personal responsibility, accountability and consequences regarding one's choices and decisions.

Unless you're a famous right-wing radio blowhard, in which case you can become a drug addict and go on a sex holiday in the Dominican Republican without going to jail or losing your nationally syndicated radio show or having any of your devoted followers bat an eyelash.

That, and the exercise of individual freedom to succeed or fail one own's own merit.

Unless you run a big Wall Street investment bank and make a lot of really really bad decisions that cause you to go bankrupt. In that case, the government will be happy to bail you out and stick the taxpayer with the bill, and wingnuts like Cap'n Mike will be cheering all the way.

Reject the Faustian promises of socialist utopia, the "nanny state" providing for your needs -- needs to be determined, of course, by the "state".

Because, let's face it, nobody actually "needs" food, or a place to live, or medical care. That's why we can rely on the wonders of the free market to supply these things (or not, if that's how things work out), without having to bother with the wicked old nanny state.

Second, a return to educating our young people in the fundamentals of civics, American history and American government.

Though there's no need to bother their innocent minds with things like Indian massacres, overthrown governments, or crushing political dissent.

We should be demanding the education of our youngsters regarding the positive qualities, factual history and achievements of their country,

So, no need to dwell on the Sedition Act of 1918.

its system of governance and their eventual civic duties and responsibilities as adults.

Such as, when protesting the actions of a political leader, you must not be allowed within visual range of said leader.

Our nation's cultural and political soul can be reclaimed.

All you have to do is remove people who think like Cap'n Mike from power, and prevent them from ever regaining power.

It may require a Herculean effort,

An effort, in fact, reminiscent of Hercules' fifth labor.

but I'm confident the American people are up to the task -- all it takes is determination and guts.

And the permanent defeat of the GOP.

And that's it. So, what have we learned from our punishing five-part survey of the mind of Cap'n Mike? Well, we've learned that Cap'n Mike is a pompous git, that he gets his talking points from right-wing chain e-mails, that he doesn't bother with even the most elementary research, that he looks suspiciously like the late Don S. Davis, that he may be a parody of a wingnut rather than an actual wingnut, and that he can get his dumbass opinions printed in the Newport Daily News every month.

I hope you've enjoyed my mockery of Cap'n Mike as much as I've enjoyed mocking him. And if you find yourself becoming ticked off because there's so much wingnut stupidity afflicting our politics, remember to speak up, blog out, and vote Democratic.

Good luck.

(this post has been cross-posted to The Spirit of 75)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 4

Unless a merciful God has erased it from your memory, you'll recall that last month Newport Daily News Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney chose to punish her paper's readers with the first half of a two-part rant by Cap'n Mike Caldwell, alleged Middletown resident, former Navy pilot, and spewer of right-wing talking points. Cap'n Mike's piece was called "Are we losing our nation's soul?", and it was every bit as grim as you'd expect from such a title. In my capacity as a smartass local liberal blogger, I chose to post a line-by-line rebuttal of Cap'n Mike's tirade, which the interested reader can find here, here, and here (it was necessary to break the rebuttal up into three parts for fear that a full column's worth of Cap'n Mike's wingnuttery might lead to a stupid overload).

Now, some might question the need for such a rebuttal. If the guy is such a tool, why devote so much time and effort to him? There are two reasons. First, it's necessary to document the atrocities. Skeptical future generations will question whether there ever was such a beast as Cap'n Mike Caldwell unless we trap his words in the electronic amber of this blog. Second, full-bore wingnut-bashing snarkiness is a skill that has to be honed occasionally in order to be kept in a state of razor sharpness. Cap'n Mike provides me with a monthly opportunity to keep my brain cells in perfect working order.

Yesterday's edition of the NDN brings us the second heaping helping of Mikeitude, this time under the title "Reclaim freedoms, regain our soul". And lest you think that the freedoms Cap'n Mike wants us to reclaim involve reinstating habeus corpus and ending warrantless wiretapping and officially sanctioned torture, the subtitle makes clear what's really gnawing at the Cap'n's vitals: "Dependence on government is not what founding fathers intended." Hoo boy.

Last month's chunk of Mikery was preceded by an editorial introduction, possibly composed by Mullowney herself. This month, we are given no such buffer. We plunge right in with Cap'n Mike's unique brand of pomposity:

Ladies and gentlemen,

And chiiiildren of -- whoops, already used that one, haven't I? Sorry.

I am genuinely concerned for America's political soul.

But not for any of the reasons that a sane person would be, like the way the Republicans have politicized every department of the executive branch, filling the civil service with incompetent party hacks like Monica Goodling and Michael "heckuva job" Brown.

The Constitution, as originally constructed by the founding fathers, has provided a roadmap for governance in a document unlike any other; the foundation of a governing system embodying not merely the will of the people via the ballot box,

As modified by proprietary voting machine software.

but the consent of the people as well.

Although, if the people won't consent to something the government really, really wants to do, the government will go ahead and do it anyway.

And while America's unique form of government is institutionally sound, it appears recent history has witnessed its morphing

When someone like Cap'n Mike starts using the word "morphing", that's a pretty good sign that "morphing" has outlived its usefulness and needs to be retired to the Old Words' Home.

into something virtually unrecognizable, an entity which would undoubtedly prove anathema to its framers.

Damned if I don't agree with this statement. Something tells me, though, that Cap'n Mike doesn't have the same problems with recent history that I do. Something else tells me that his definition of "recent" is "anything after March 30, 1933".

This system of representative government, which has proven the bedrock of America's prescription for limited government for 227 years, may be in danger of being usurped and overturned by elected officials and appointed judiciary at all levels. Rather than providing a mechanism for restraining the power of government, the Constitution now bears witness to a government increasingly out of control, one which incrementally restricts, regulates or eliminates one individual freedom or liberty after another through policies, mandates, laws or regulations designed to foster not only increased control over every aspect of our daily lives, but also increasing levels of social dependence on a beneficent, centralized bureaucracy.

For those of you keeping track at home, the preceding sentence contained sixty-nine words and seven commas. I'm starting to get the feeling that Cap'n Mike used up most of his material in the first half of his jeremiad, and is now forced to pad things out a bit. (By comparison, btw, my last sentence contained thirty-two words and one comma.)

This is afforded

Yep, padding. A normal person would use a word like "done" here.

through the promise of, among other things, "equality" through redistribution of both national and individual assets.

Because everyone knows that all this talk of "equality" is just a ploy by all those inferior people to bring us superior people down to their level.

Consider but three recent examples from notable policy shapers:

Yeah, Cap'n Mike definitely used up most of his ammo last month. From six soul-destroying America-bashers, we're reduced to three soul-destroying notable policy shapers. It's just not the same. You're letting us down, Cap'n Mike!

Anyway, here's the first soul-destroying notable policy shaper, just in time for this week's Democratic National Convention, it's none other than presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

"Globalization and technology all weaken the position of workers . . . " and as such, "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably." (Sen. Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal interview).

Say, readers, did you see what I saw in that quote? That's right, elipses! If there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that when a Republican elides part of a quotation by a Democrat, he's trying to pull a fast one. Let's fire up the magical Google machine and see if we can find just where Cap'n Mike got that quote from.

whirwhirwhirwhirwhirwhirwhirclunk

Ah, we've hit the jackpot! Cap'n Mike's quotation from Barack Obama actually turned up in this item from Snopes.com. It seems Our Captain is pulling his talking points from chain e-mails. Now that's the Cap'n Mike we've all come to know and love.

As the good people of Snopes.com note, this quote comes from a WSJ article from June 17, based on an interview of Obama conducted by Bob Davis and Amy Chozick (yes, that Amy Chozick). Although the phrase "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably" does appear in the article, it is not a quote from the interview. That was Davis and Chozick providing their own interpretation of what Obama said in the interview. Here's what Obama actually had to say on the subject of globalization:

WSJ: What about the role of taxation? ... For the most part, the way I look at your tax policy, seems to me that you look at it and say, tax policy over the past decade, and maybe even before that, has produced an outcome that has benefited people mostly at the top, and your goal is to try to redistribute it in a different fashion.

Sen. Obama: Here's what I would say: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.

If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates -- corporate tax rates -- on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest … You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that.

WSJ: You talked about the last eight years and the question of redistribution goes way back …

Sen. Obama: Oh, there's no doubt about it.

That's why I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II, we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers.

We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family.

What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things -- fair distribution and robust economic growth -- are mutually exclusive.

You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth … and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor.

There you have it, folks. That's Barack Obama saying that "a strong government hand is needed to ensure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Scary, huh?

Of course, some might say Cap'n Mike looks kind of like an idiot claiming that Obama said something he didn't actually say. I disagree. Just because Cap'n Mike got the quote from a chain e-mail and didn't bother to actually check to see whether the quote was accurate or not doesn't mean he's an idiot. It just means he was too lazy to do the thirty seconds' worth of online research that I did that allowed me to discover what the next President of the United States of America actually said.

Mind you, a heads-up from Mullowney might be a good idea. Perhaps she could run a disclaimer along with Cap'n Mike's piece, something along the lines of, "The author of this article has demonstrated a tendency to acquire his talking points from chain e-mails, and has also demonstrated a disinclination to perform basic research in order to verify said talking points. Reader discretion is advised."

So that's political-soul-destroying notable policy shaper number one. Who's our next contestant, Cap'n Mike?

Sen. John McCain's arguable shortcomings on critical domestic issues, and attendant "big government" solutions, as well as an irresponsible pledge to commit "the entire resources of the United States" to combat manmade global warming.

This one is kind of a disappointment. Apart from that one reference to combating global warming (and half an hour with the magical Google machine has failed to turn up a pledge by McCain to commit "the entire resources of the United States" -- I guess Snopes.com hasn't come across that chain e-mail yet), it's all vague generalities. What shortcomings on what critical domestic issues? What "big government" solutions? What's going on here?

It's true that after losing the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000, McCain spent a few years tacking to the middle, and that he spent the summer of 2004 nagging John Kerry to pick him as his running mate. And even though McCain has been moving to the right again as he positions himself for another run at the Republican presidential nomination, diehard conservatives like Cap'n Mike have never trusted him since. What I think is going on here is that Cap'n Mike still suspects McCain of being a closet liberal, which of necessity means that McCain wants "big government" solutions, even though Cap'n Mike can't actually think of any. So we get that one quote of dubious origin along with dark mutterings about some unspecified "shortcomings" on unnamed "critical domestic issues". To be blunt, Cap'n Mike's got nothin'.

And a quick glance up at the stupidometer shows that we've reached critical and will have to scram the control rods before our brains melt down. So join me next time as I continue my critical examination of Cap'n Mike's critical examination of the de-souling of America.

(this post has been cross-posted to The Spirit of 75)

I Take It Back

Yeah, I know I've just spent three days fisking Cap'n Mike Caldwell's latest tirade in the Newport Daily News, but I've changed my mind. As Eileen has pointed out below, Cap'n Mike, although allegedly a fifteen-year resident of Middletown, is not on any of the recent tax rolls, is not listed in the phone book, has no voting record, and is not a current pilot listed as residing in M-town. What's going on here?

I think Eileen and I have just made an oopsie. I think we may have just accidentally exposed a bit of subterfuge on the part of the NDN staff. I suspect that Cap'n Mike might have been invented by Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney and the rest of the liberal media types at the NDN as a wingnut spoof.

Every month or so, someone at the NDN (I suspect City Editor Frank Carini, who has exhibited advanced symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome) pens a piece by this alleged former Navy pilot for the specific purpose of discrediting conservative ideas. I mean, come on, there's no way an actual flesh-and-blood human being could hold as many odious opinions, expressed in such repugnant language, as "Cap'n Mike", right? It's got to be a put-on, right?

If you want further proof that there is no actual Cap'n Mike, just check out the photo accompanying Tuesday's rant in the NDN. You know who that is? That's Don S. Davis, a recently-deceased actor who specialized in playing military characters (he played General Hammond in Stargate SG-1 and Major Briggs in Twin Peaks). Someone at the NDN probably downloaded a photo of Davis off the internet and ran it with the piece to give a face to "Cap'n Mike".

Well, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the editorial staff of the Daily News for having exposed their well-intentioned (and, I now realize, rather amusing) attempt at covert political satire. Sorry.

(this post is cross-posted to The Spirit of 75)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 3

For those just tuning in, this is the final part of a 3-part series (the first two parts are here and here) fisking Cap'n Mike Caldwell's plaintive wingnut lament "Are we losing our nation's soul?", as seen in the July 29, 2008 edition of the Newport Daily News. (John McDaid calls it deconstruction, but I prefer the traditional internet term, since I am aware of all internet traditions.) Cap'n Mike has chosen to put his career as a corporate jet pilot on hold and go into business as America's newest and wingnuttiest soul doctor. His diagnosis? America is losing its soul, and it's ALL THE LIBERALS' FAULT! Yeah, it's all the fault of those America-bashing, soul-destroying liberals! And to prove his point, Cap'n Mike has dredged up, from deep within his encyclopedic (or, at any rate, conservapedic) knowledge base, six examples of soul-destroying, America-bashing liberalness. And not just any soul-destroying liberalism, either; Cap'n Mike has chosen to focus on cultural soul-destruction this time. Next month, in the second half of his loopy tirade, he'll regale us with examples of political soul-destructiveness.

We join Cap'n Mike now as he brings us cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #5. Come in, Cap'n Mike!

Increasingly, we bear witness

Or witness bears, as the case may be.

to a generation who may be proficient with their iPods, laptops and Blackberries, know which young celebrity has the latest "baby bump," but couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c" and the "a," form a cogent sentence or identify in what war the Battle of Gettysburg occurred.

It'd sure help to make Cap'n Mike's case if he could quote some, y'know, facts to support his assertions, but that is not the wingnut way. As Saint Ronald of Santa Barbara reminds us, facts are stupid things. As a matter of, erm, fact, the College Board's last report on national SAT scores, released last August, showed that "the long-term trend for critical reading scores has been essentially flat", while the "long-term trend in mathematics scores is up, rising from 501, 20 years ago to 511, 10 years ago to 515 this year."

I can understand, though, how Cap'n Mike might get the idea that "the kids" can't form a cogent sentence, since he doubtless spends a lot of time listening to our current president and visiting conservative blogs like RedState and Free Republic. Cap'n Mike might have a better opinion of the intellectual capabilities of the Modern Generation if he spent some time visiting places like Hullabaloo and the Daily Kos. Incidentally, it might be interesting to ask Cap'n Mike himself what war the Battle of Gettysburg occurred in, since so many of his fellow right-wingers insist that it took place in something called the War Between the States, which would of course be the wrong answer, since it occurred in the American Civil War.

Anyway, Cap'n Mike's going to tell us what those soul-destroying liberals want to do about his imaginary stupidifying youngsters. The floor is yours, Cap'n Mike.

The liberal government solution: throw money at public schools and the National Education Association.

And the conservative solution? Abolish the public school system, let wealthy parents send their children to private schools, and allow everyone else to remain uneducated. Because conservatives know that the less education someone has, the more likely he is to vote Republican. (And needless to say, it wouldn't be a proper wingnut rant without at least one swipe at organized labor.)

Oh, and make sure the youngsters know how to put condoms on bananas.

Oh, Cap'n Mike, you slay me! You positively SLAY me!

What Cap'n Mike is referring to here is a story from way back in 2003 about a Florida high school teacher who was fired for showing his 9th-grade students how to use condoms. With a banana. This story has become a legend in wingnut circles, and is always trotted out whenever someone like Cap'n Mike wants to show us all How Awful Public Education Is.

And finally,

Finally,

Cap'n Mike presents cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #6. May I have a drumroll please?

[sfx drumroll]

And our final contestant is . . . future First Lady Michelle Obama!

[sfx cymbal crash]

And here to explain Mrs. Obama's cultural-soul-destruction-related program activities is our own Cap'n Mike Caldwell! Let her have it, Cap'n Mike!

the wife of senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that our nation's history and traditions must be "rewritten" and that America is a "mean country."

What's this? No whitey tape? No terrorist fist-jab? All right, you imposter, who are you, and what have you done with Cap'n Mike?

Aherm, yes. Anyway, regarding Cap'n Mike's actual outrage-items, they come from two different venues. First, during a visit to Puerto Rico on May 14, Mrs. Obama gave a speech in which she said,

"What motivates him today, and what will motivate him for the rest of his presidency, if he is blessed enough to receive that honor, will be the future, the world that we can build for the next generation. Our children, these beautiful little faces, they come here open and ready and unburdened by all of our hurts and pains from the past; they come fresh to this world, and we owe them the best that we can provide them as a country. And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices, we are going to have to change our conversation, we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history, we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want desperately for our children. And he is the man to do it."

So, no, Michelle Obama didn't say that American history and traditions would have to be rewritten. The word "rewritten" is in fact an invention of Cap'n Mike's fevered wingnut paranoia.

Second, The New Yorker ran a piece by Lauren Collins in its March 10 issue which includes the following paragraphs:

The four times I heard her give the speech—in a ballroom at the University of South Carolina, from the pulpit of Pee Dee Union, at an art gallery in Charleston, and in the auditorium of St. Norbert College, in De Pere, Wisconsin—its content was admirably consistent, with few of the politician’s customary tweaks and nods to the demographic predilections, or prejudices, of a particular audience.

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

Cap'n Mike probably hasn't noticed, since he views the world through his wingnut blinders, but life in America is just downright mean. We're faced every day with mean, petty, nasty people like a certain corporate jet pilot I could name. Of course, if Cap'n Mike were capable of noticing just how downright mean things are in this country, he wouldn't be a wingnut.

You mean the America that saved Eureope and the free world -- twice -- during wars in which literally millions of our countrymen served and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice to bring those victorious outcomes about?

No, Cap'n Mike, that's not the America that Michelle Obama means. After all, you and your fellow wingnuts have spent the last forty years trying to kill that America and replace it with one where the government spies on its citizens and launches pointless invasions of other countries and tortures prisoners and drives down wages and eliminates old age pensions. And you've done such a good job that the America that fought fascism has been replaced by an America that is duplicating fascism's worst features.

The Founding Fathers, with divine guidance, provided not just a political roadmap, but a moral compass and cultural soul that has served as the bedrock of American exceptionalism for 232 years.

I think you mean 224 years, Cap'n Mike. After all, your fellow conservatives have spent the last eight years demagnetizing that moral compass so it points in the direction of greed, cruelty, and barbarism, while tarnishing that cultural soul until it's as black as Dick Cheney's heart.

It's long past time we reassert among ourselves as individuals, communities, states and country a return to more fundamentally traditional American social, moral and cultural values.

Well, duh! Of course it is! Why do you think we're working so hard to remove the Republicans from power?

Those values reflect qualities of family, faith, pride in country, rugged individualism, toughness, self-reliance and respect for others -- to mention but a few -- all of which have served America's past generations so well.

Well, duh! Of course they have! That's why it's so disappointing to so many of us that you and your fellow wingnuts have chosen to embrace cheating, lying, slander, theft, corruption, dishonesty, and divisiveness -- to mention but a few -- and have devoted so much misdirected effort to trying to remake this country in your own twisted image.

In that regard, I emphatically reject those who advocate that America needs to be "more like the rest of the world," and in doing so not only sacrifice her essense,

"We must preserve the purity of essense of our precious bodily fluids."

but douse the flame of the last remaining beacon of hope for mankind.

Why, you may wonder, does Cap'n Mike regard America as the last remaining beacon of hope? Aren't there plenty of other freedom-loving nations in the world? Isn't Western Europe packed with 'em?

Sadly, no. Wingnut doctrine holds that Europe will soon be overrun by islamofascist hordes, leaving America as the only remaining Christian nation in the world. Only America is free of the taint of socialized medicine, decriminalized marijuana, and enthusiastic soccer fans. That's what makes America the last shining beacon of true white civilization in a world seething with brown-skinned heathens and infidels.

Don't take my word for it. Just ask Cap'n Mike.

(this post has been cross-posted to The Spirit of 75)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 2

For those just joining us, this is part 2 of a 3-part series (part 1 is here) in which I fisk Cap'n Mike Caldwell's plaintive wingnut lament "Are we losing our nation's soul?", as seen in the July 29, 2008 edition of the Newport Daily News. Cap'n Mike thinks America is losing its national soul, and being the hopeless wingnut that he is, he's certain that whiny America-bashing liberals are to blame. Cap'n Mike has chosen six instances of America-bashing whiners whose America-bashing whining is unsouling this country. Mind you, this is America's cultural soul he's talking about here. Next month, Spaghedeity help us, Cap'n Mike is going to regale us with examples of political national-soul-elimination.

We pick up our fisking with Cap'n Mike's third example of cultural-soul-destroying America-bashing. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!

Noon meal prayer at the US Naval Academy, a tradition since its founding it 1845, has again come under attack.

Oh nooooooooes! Not again! Man, that noon meal prayer at Annapolis just can't seem to catch a break! Tell us, Cap'n Mike! Tell us who's trying to destroy America's cultural soul at the US Naval Academy!

The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter on behalf of nine present and former midshipmen to the academy superintendent demanding an end to the 163-year-old tradition. The letter alleges those who don't participate feel they are forced to stand out among their peers.

As this Washington Post piece from June notes, the Anti-Defamation League has also asked the US Naval Academy to end its mandatory noon meal prayer, though for some weird reason Cap'n Mike didn't mention them. The WaPo piece also notes that the Virginia Military Academy's traditional noon meal prayer was ruled unconstitutional by a Virginia appeals court in 2003, and that the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs had to adopt guidelines that discourage public prayers at official events or meetings after a scandal involving, per the New York Times, "expressions of anti-Semitism, official sponsorship of a showing of The Passion of the Christ, and a locker room banner that said athletes played for 'Team Jesus'.” Both West Point and Annapolis have been feeling the heat since the Air Force Academy scandal brought officially sponsored religious activity at military facilities into the public discourse.

So, how does Cap'n Mike respond to these midshipmen, brave men and women who have chosen to serve their country in the United States Navy, but who find themselves being singled out because their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are out of favor with the Powers That Be at the Academy?

Poor lads. Wait until they get into combat.

I guess this is what conservatives mean when they talk about "supporting the troops". Cap'n Mike's classiness just shines through, doesn't it?

Oh well. Time for us to take a gander at cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #4. Who's the next contestant, Cap'n Mike?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that executions are too severe a punishment for child rapists. The ruling restricts the death penalty to murder and -- interestingly -- "crimes against the state". Forcibly raping a 5-year-old child may simply have one sent to the lockup for incarceration and perhaps even a college education (at taxpayer expense), but "crimes against the state" provide for execution. Swell.

Cap'n Mike's raising-of-eyebrows about the phrase "crimes against the state" seems odd coming from someone who -- interestingly -- has never publicly voiced any objections to the Bush administration's extra-legal policy of warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, routine torture, and Kafkaesque military tribunals in pursuit of its Glorious War On Terror. If Cap'n Mike is really worried about the threat to individual liberty posed by an overbearing government, he's been curiously silent about it.

I also note that conservatives are never happier than when they're lamenting the fact that 1) the government isn't executing more criminals, and 2) the government is spending their tax dollars. Here Cap'n Mike manages the impressive feat of complaining about both at the same time! Well played, sir!

Curiously, the same conservatives who complain about their taxes being spent on criminals are the same conservatives who would rather see the government spend thirty million dollars on a prison than thirty thousand dollars on a social worker. This is why you can't trust conservatives with your money -- their ideology always trumps their (hypothetical) common sense.

And I would be remiss if I failed to honor Cap'n Mike for the trenchant social commentary implicit in his terminal "swell". With one word, Cap'n Mike has disproved that old saw about brevity being the soul of wit.

Well, that's it for this installment of "Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers; or, The Fisking of Cap'n Mike". Tune in whenever for the thrilling conclusion!

(this post is cross-posted to The Spirit of 75)

Sheila Mullowney Punishes Her Readers, Part 1

From time to time, the Newport Daily News runs an op-ed by Captain Mike Caldwell, a retired Navy pilot and current corporate jet pilot. Cap'n Mike's op-eds always consist of a series of Republican talking points. In fact, when the story of the Pentagon's program of using retired military officers to spread White House propaganda was revealed, I seriously wondered whether Cap'n Mike was part of it. However, as far as we know, the Pentagon only targeted TV networks, and not third-tier local newspapers, so it's possible that Cap'n Mike's parroting of the GOP party line is not part of a larger government-run propaganda effort.

Nevertheless, my heart sank when I found in today's issue of the Snooze the first of a two-part series by Cap'n Mike titled (and heaven help me, I'm not making this up) "Are we losing our nation's soul?" Without even glancing at the piece, I was able to guess two things about it: 1) Cap'n Mike would not be citing the Bush administration's policy of torturing prisoners, even though that is probably the clearest example you could wish for of our nation losing its soul; and 2) either Barack or Michelle Obama would figure somewhere in Cap'n Mike's catalogue of lost-national-soulitude. A quick perusal of Cap'n Mike's piece revealed that both guesses were correct.

At this point, you have to wonder what Executive Editor Sheila Mullowney has against her paper's readers. You'd think that subjecting them to a weekly dose of Kathleen Parker's wingnuttery would be punishment enough, but apparently not. Well, if Sheila can take it, so can I. Time to hold our collective noses and see just how bad "bad" can be.

First, a note from Sheila herself (presumably), informing us in italics that This is the first of a two-part series. Today's installment examines the proposed question, "Are we, as a nation, losing our soul?" (BTW, Sheila, the short answer to this proposed question is, "Yes, but not for the reasons Cap'n Mike thinks.") from a cultural perspective. (Yes, that's right, we get to hear a lecture on culture from a right-wing corporate jet pilot. When I die, I'm goin' straight to Heaven, 'cos I've done my time in Hell.) The second installment, which will appear in August, will explore the question from a political aspect. (Or maybe, if we're lucky, the Earth will be destroyed by a Cylon battle fleet before then, and we'll be spared the second installment.)

What follows is something we in the blogging biz call fisking: Cap'n Mike spews out his wingnut jeremiad, and I respond with my own rebuttal. Take it away, Cap'n Mike!

Ladies and gentlemen,

and chiiiildren of aaaaaaaallll aaages!

how the heck did we get here, to this point in our great nation's history where it appears we may be losing both our cultural and political soul?

Well, it probably started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, when the GOP cynically decided to pander to the worst instincts of millions of white bigots. But it really began to pick up steam when we let a mean-spirited, arrogant, overprivileged, incompetent dimwit with a messiah complex and some serious daddy issues steal the presidency.

Each day bears witness to yet another example of America-bashing by citizens and media apparently convinced that the "evil" United States is singularly responsible for the woes and ills of the world.

Given that the United States has launched a war of aggression against another nation resulting in over a million civilian fatalities and several million refugees, and has set up its own version of the gulag archipelago, complete with inmates suffering indefinite detention and systematic torture in a series of secret prisons, those scare quotes around the word evil are looking pretty damn unnecessary to me. Any nation with that on its record can jolly well expect to suffer some "bashing" from its citizens and media. If you ask me, the United States ought be getting a lot more bashing on that score from its citizens and media than it actually is.

While those parties are free to express their views,

For now. You traitors.

it is at once discouraging and depressing to see those benefiting from the unequalled blessings, bounty and opportunity afforded by this great nation -- a nation to which a goodly number of the planet's population owe their very existence and survival -- abuse her in such a visceral and misguided fashion.

In other words, shut up, you whiners!

Some notable examples include:

Here are my top six whiners. And bear in mind, I find it both discouraging and depressing to learn that these people are saying that the United States isn't living up to the high standards our founding fathers set for it, because as a good wingnut I believe that the United States is the GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD (or would be if we could just get rid of these dirty hippie liberals).

According to Joe Bish, outreach and program coordinator for the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population

What's that? You say you've never heard of Joe Bish, or the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population? Don't feel discouraged, because neither had I before Cap'n Mike mentioned them. A quick trip through the magical Google machine turns up this website, and this blog, where we learn that the NECSP is an organization consisting of ten board members and two staffers (one of whom is Bish). Originally founded in 1996, the NECSP was "revitalized" in 2006 (ie somebody started it up again). So, what has Cap'n Mike gleaned from this organization that consists of ten board members, two staffers, one website, and one blog?

" . . . highly consuming and polluting nations like the United States need to look in the mirror and ask themselves what sort of world we are leaving for the next generation."

Yeah, gotta hand it to Cap'n Mike. Pretty inflammatory stuff there from Joe Bish.

I can't help but notice, though, that contra Cap'n Mike, Bish doesn't actually say that the United States is singularly responsible for the woes and ills of the world. He does in fact also point his admonishing finger at highly consuming and polluting nations like the United States, such as, I assume, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Russia, and such up-and-coming consuming-and-polluting nations as China and India.

And what is Cap'n Mike's verbal riposte to this dirty liberal hippie tree-hugger Bish?

It would be a much better one than the thugs in the United Nations have in mind.

Yeah, run, Joe Bish! Run and hide, you dirty smelly hippie! Cap'n Mike has pwned your sorry ass! Bow down and grovel before the rhetorical might of the mighty Cap'n Mike Caldwell!

Aherm, yes. Anyway, so that's Joe Bish, cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #1. Who's our next contestant, Cap'n Mike?

In October 2006, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 began airing of a terrorist propaganda video obtained, as CNN put it, "through intermediaries from the Islamic Army of Iraq." For the uninitiated, that means "the bad guys."

For the even more uninitiated, the Islamic Army of Iraq is mainly (though not wholly) composed of Sunnis, the Iraqi minority group that Saddam Hussein belonged to. They organized after Saddam's fall for the purpose of fighting the American troops and their allies. For a while, they specialized in kidnapping and killing foreigners. Later on, they divided their time between fighting the Americans and fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2005 they participated in the October constitutional referendum. In recent months, they've been unofficially aiding the Americans against Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Shia militias.

Now, it may seem that Cap'n Mike is being a little simplistic, or possibly even simple-minded, in referring to this group as "the bad guys" in scare quotes. Some might even accuse Cap'n Mike of relying on childish name-calling in an effort to divert attention from the complex reality on the ground in Iraq, in which yesterday's enemy becomes today's ally.

The tape showed enemy snipers killing American troops. Cooper claimed that this story "is one we believe needs to be told." One wonders how long a news service doing the same thing during World War II would have survived the resultant American outrage.

That's actually a pretty good question, Cap'n Mike. Suppose the German government had released footage in 1944 showing German troops shooting at and killing American troops, and suppose that an American news organization had obtained this footage. Well, they didn't have television back in 1944, so no American news organization could have broadcast it. They could have passed it along to one of the Hollywood movie studios for inclusion in a newsreel, though this kind of dilutes the question, since it would be the studio showing the footage and not a news organization. But suppose it just the same. A 1944 moviegoing audience is sitting in a theater, and a newsreel comes on showing German troops killing American troops. I imagine the people would be angry at the Germans for killing the Americans, but would they be angry at the movie studio or the news organization for showing it? I'm pretty sure that the American people in 1944 had a pretty clear idea of the fact that Americans and Germans were trying to kill each other in combat, and that sometimes the Germans succeeded in killing Americans. There were even, if I'm not mistaken, works of fiction called "movies" that occasionally showed actors playing American soldiers being shot and killed by offscreen German soldiers, so it's not like movie audiences in 1944 had never seen portrayals of American soldiers being shot. Would the audience be angry at the movie studio for showing American soldiers dying in a newsreel? I have to believe they wouldn't.

Of course, this raises the question of why Cap'n Mike thinks TV audiences ought to be outraged by the sight of Iraqi snipers killing American troops. Does Cap'n Mike think that the audiences are unaware that there are Iraqis shooting at Americans? Does he think that this will come as some horrible shock to the American viewing audience? Well, we know that Cap'n Mike and his fellow wingnuts have conniption fits themselves whenever any news organization shows a flag-draped coffin, or lists the names of American soldiers who have been killed in action. From the evidence, it seems that Cap'n Mike himself is indeed unaware that people, even American soldier-type people, are killed in wars. He apparently finds the very idea utterly shocking, and no doubt he believes that the rest of his fellow citizens will feel the same way. Again, though, I have to believe that most of the people in this country are more worldly than Cap'n Mike, and are indeed aware that Americans are occasionally shot and killed in Iraq. They might be angry at the Iraqi snipers for killing American troops, but they won't be angry at CNN for showing them doing it.

Oh, and props to Cap'n Mike for picking Anderson Cooper, someone I've actually heard of, as cultural-soul-destroying America-basher #2. (Fun fact: Anderson Cooper's great-grandfather, Cornelius Vanderbilt II, built a Newport mansion called The Breakers.)

A good fisking tends to take up a lot of space, which can lead to some unwieldy blog posts. With that in mind, I'm going to stop here and take up Cap'n Mike's other four America-bashers in a couple of subsequent posts. Stay tuned!

(this post is cross-posted at The Spirit of 75)

Farewell Rodrigues & Mello

It's hard to change your mind when the "Daily News" prints it. Although we may have disagreed politically sometimes, make no mistake about it. I have the highest respect for BOTH of them. Just running for office merits applause in my book. Let alone more than once.


A Councilor for ANY town/city is a time-consuming job. The pay is ridiculous, the responsibility is enormous, & someone is ALWAYS angry with you. My hat is off to both of them.


Mistakes made- surely. That marks them as- human.

Shirley has family concerns to focus her attention on as does Paul. Not only does he have a demanding job often taking him out-of-state (yes, he has to cross bridges), but he has a baby. Kids change your life, not to mention your priorities.


Sometimes it's just time to move on. And this is it.


The article also lists the Republicans running: current Councilors Santos ("Mother Theresa") & Barrows. The latter has no nickname because she rarely speaks (or smiles). She also has aspirations for Sen. Gibbs' job in the future, so I hear. Can you pass these positions along?

They also have Antone Viveiros who is a writer here but has yet to post (hint, hint) and Cheryl Foster. I have a LOT of respect for Antone & his group. He's persistent, determined, & has his facts. We don't always agree politically, but his party in the past has given him short shrift, to be sure.

I'm sad to hear that neither Ned Draper nor Bill Coogan will be running for non-partisan School Committee again. I've heard (Dem) Liz Bozyan's name mentioned but that's it. If you're interested, this is the time!


The Dem. Town Committee also gave endorsements to Lou DiPalma for St. Senate (current- Sen. Gibbs). & Deb Ruggiero for St. Rep. Dist. 74 (current- Rep. Long), but since they don't actually have the power to do this, these are symbolic gestures. Both Long & Gibbs will run again (opinion). Why not?


“Paul and Shirley really should speak for themselves on their reasoning [for not running],” Lavine said. “With that said, I’ve talked with quite a few people and I have to conclude that the average person is a little unsettled with the recent back and forth on the council. It’s been very difficult. … It’s supposed to be fun and you’re supposed to feel like you’re accomplishing something, but it hasn’t been much fun recently.


And who's fault is that? Let' see. When a Town Committee officer refers to other members at meetings as "bitches" ... When the Chair decides on a litmus test of no non-partisan elections (and blames Newport's Cicilline's loss on this)... When neither Bob Sylvia nor Ed Silveira are ASKED by the nominating committee (headed up by Arlene Kaull) if they want to run again (now THAT is unusual), what do you expect? But they are both bad boys. Why is that?

I find the Dem. Town Com. meetings no "fun recently" either. But you wouldn't want to ever speak with me. The Chair has never even had a conversation with me and many other current members in two yrs. But like Ed & Bob, I'm a "bad girl." Sorry, just don't like to be controlled- been there, done that. Now mind you, I'm speaking of current leadership only. Members are A-ok in my opinion. God bless 'em for fighting the good fight in trying times. Currently there are just too many things going on in my life to surround myself with negativity- at least on purpose!

Yup, it's going to be an interesting election in Middletown. This Wed. "Declaration" forms are due in Town Hall. Both parties could still come up with last minute candidates. They're digging as we speak. And then there are the Undeclared candidates. Could belong to any Party or none.

So the main issue on the Dems. side is- restore "fun" to politics? Yup, works for me.

Check out Jim Gillis' "Spare Change" column. "Who needs reality TV when we have Middletown politics?" EXACTLY. Why stay home with nothing to do when you could witness reality politics? And people think politics is dull? Heck, it's got everything- mystery, suspense, surprise endings, sex, money, cops, lawyers, you name it. Dull people- sometimes. Lively topics- frequently.

Any other names for candidates that anyone wants to throw out? I'm speaking figuratively here, not literally.

Take the new poll!

R.I. Republicans Love Workers - Not!

“... [Democrats] whose primary base of support is unions…the last vestige of institutional racism in this country.” This from the recently elected Chair of the R.I. Republicans.


I hope every Dem. or Independent will remember this quote & others come the next round of elections - like in Newport. This is what this political party thinks of working people who join together. Institutional racists? Finally, the truth outs.


What are unionists looking for - good pay, fair working conditions, help and support when they can no longer work, medical care, a home, and better lives for their kids. Don't we all want those things? Wouldn't we all belong to a union if we could?

I went to Las Vegas a few years ago & saw a thriving economy. Much of this is built on most workers being unionized.

I've read on "Anchor Rising" a reference to the cancerous blight of teachers' unions in Tiverton (among others). How insulting to any working person, let alone a union of working people to refer to them in this way. I know cancer. To connect anyone with this devastating disease is unconscionable.


At some point the strike in Tiverton schools will be over. Teachers are no saintlier than the rest of us and harsh words are not quickly forgotten. To portray teachers as dupes of union officials is at best naive, more properly idiotic.


So Sen. Gibbs, Rep. Long, what say you? Council persons of the Republican ilke, what say you? We certainly know what Sen. Chafee said, "Adios."


So we finally get down to what Republicans always said their party was not about - economic status & class warfare. Gone are the days of Republican moderates, even liberals, being welcome in this state. Can it be any clearer that this state Party is now the home of the neo-cons, the "compassionate conservatives" a la Bush.

Racist? I have a reprint sign in my house- "Irish Need Not Apply." I remember my grandmother who was born in Worcester & lived there much of her life, telling me how hard it was for her as a young woman to find a job. "No Irish or Dogs Allowed" read the signs. Now that is racism. And the "Whites" & "Colored" signs I remember in the South for restrooms & drinking fountains - racism pure & simple. To associate this with being a Democrat is just plain stupid & ignorant. Words do matter.

Local Republican Defections to Democratic Party

My husband likes to listen to the Business Channel. The other day I heard the stat that 7% of those who term themselves Republicans have left the Party. Meanwhile those identifying themselves as Democratic increased by 4%.

I know these stats to be true because of recent events right here in Middletown. Monday night the Dem. Town Chair was so impressed with the dedication & admiration of this new group that he "nominated" one of them for appointment to a town partisan committee - and one previously. The Town Council is also so enthusiastic over this recent trend that his choices have been backed unanimously (Republicans & Democrats). The local Board of Canvassers consists now of 3 senior women with a new member appointed last night. This group guarantees the validity of our elections.

Don Lavine, the Dem. Town Chair, is so enthused that former Republicans have "found the light" that his "nominee" is a Democrat of less than a month (what a guy). He seems quite sure that she can now "convert" her husband, too.

Only a few months ago, he placed a former Republican member, who had viewed enough light to become an "undecided" to the same group. Alas, the Rep. Chair has yet to come up with a prospective member's name.

Even businessmen are deserting the GOP - down from 44% to 33%.

I applaud the Council's efforts and those of Chair Don Lavine and fast-forward thinking in rewarding the efforts and just good plain common sense of people who have come to realize tht the Grand Old Party isn't even the epitome of business anymore.

Thanks! We appreciate all the long hours and hard work you women will put in during the next election cycle. Your valiant efforts shall reap great rewards!

Now if the lone Republican woman would just put a little thought into this party affiliation thing...

More Trash at Middletown Council Meeting Mon. at 7

Trash, trash, lovely trash. Yes, it's on the agenda again. This time it takes the form of a resolution. But before that someone on the Council asked for a letter from Sal DeRuggiero to be placed on the docket (c'mon, guess who). Bottom line is that he wants to adopt Newport's trash pickup system & use a special "tax assessment" to pay for it.

The reason for doing so is that "[the Council's] decisions were based on arguable alternatives driven by the approaching expiration of the transfer station's lease." Yeah, that was the point of the "trash action." "...most of the decisions are not made in the economic, managerial, or environmental interests of the town..." "... Weekly curbside pickup was not adequately considered." Ooh, in other words he does not like the current plan big time!
Sal is not writing a personal letter, but rather as Chair of the Republican Town Committee. The Republicans also have two members (and one could theoretically argue even more) on the Council who have raised no objections to the current plan slated to being Nov. 1. I haven't seen where they've even put forth any original ideas, although this certainly was a campaign issue. But certainly a lot of time was spent discussing the departure of the former library director.

Only one Council member is on record as opposing the current plan -"Inspector" Sylvia. And he's a Democrat. To be sure, this is a better plan & always has been. Never heard much discussion of it, if any. That's just not the way the council chose to go under the current Prez. BTW, the Democratic Town Committe has endorsed the current plan.

It promises to be an interesting meeting, unless the Chair & others are able to quash discussion.
Other topics, too, but you can check the agenda yourself at: Link. It will be a long meeting. No, nothing on beach pollution.