Bush supporters and Obama supporters ...

... just two groups of peas in a pod.

... endorsing civil liberties abuses because one's own Party is in power virtually ensures that those abuses will become permanent, available to future leaders from the other Party as well. That was the argument which fell on deaf ears when made to cheering Bush supporters, and it's barely more effective now.

THIS is to be Obama's legacy? ...

From a most analytical being, Glenn Greenwald:

... this to what is taking place in the United States under Democratic Party rule. We get -- from the current Government -- presidential assassination programs, detention with no charges, senseless demands for further reductions of core rights when arrested, ongoing secret prisons filled with abuse, military commissions, warrantless surveillance of emails, and presidential secrecy claims to block courts from reviewing claims of government crimes. The Democratic-led Congress takes still new steps to block the closing of Guantanamo. Democratic leaders push for biometric, national ID cards. The most minimal surveillance safeguards are ignored. Even the miniscule limits on eavesdropping powers are transgressed. And from just this week: "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday" ...

Obama should look to who is supporting some of his proposals ...

.. and then reconsider what he is doing to the country as he treks down George W. Bush's 'US Security' path.

Some of the worst of the worst are supporting Obama's journey to absolute Presidential power and government secrecy while the more enlightened of his own party are starting to question his more authoritarian and decidedly undemocratic proposals.

Just as Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are Obama's staunchest supporters on his photo suppression policy (while progressive House Democrats oppose it), Sen. Feingold's hearing just began with a vigorous defense of Obama's preventive detention scheme from GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, which occurred right before human rights advocates and civil libertarian witnesses, and right after Feingold himself, explained their opposition. In addition to Coburn, two witnesses -- hard-core Bush follower David Rifkin and a former right-wing law clerk to Ken Starr -- heaped praise on Obama's preventive detention proposal.

My sentiments exactly ...

From John W. Dean:

Frankly, the fact that the pre-election polls are close - after eight years of authoritarian leadership from Bush and Cheney, and given its disastrous results - shows that many Americans either do not realize where a McCain/Palin presidency might take us, or they are happy to go there. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, for there is only one way to deal with these conservative zealots: Keep them out of power.

And the kicker:

If Obama is rejected on November 4th for another authoritarian conservative like McCain, I must ask if Americans are sufficiently intelligent to competently govern themselves. ...

Obama doesn't inspire me as he does so many others, but he's a rational human being where McCain is [from Dean's list]:

• dominating
• opposes equality
• desirous of personal power
• amoral
• intimidating and bullying
• vengeful
• pitiless
• exploitive
• manipulative
• dishonest
• cheats to win
• mean-spirited
• militant
• nationalistic
• tells others what they want to hear
• takes advantage of "suckers"
• specializes in creating false images to sell self

Two items that are not on the list that also apply to McCain is that he is often irrational and has shown himself to be neither intelligent nor informed. This may be what television has done to us. Turned us into a country that expects a Hollywood 'B' level performer for President. Plenty of action, lights and drama. But a complete disregard from media and citizen alike for substance, information and facts.

That there is even any question, given the facts available about these two individuals, which would be better as president boggles the mind. The closeness of the polls certainly makes one question the country's sanity and intelligence as a whole. But the entire Bush years have shown how little 'representative' government is left in this country.

GOP malfeasance ...

I had decided not to post anything about the standard sexism demonstrated by PZMyers at Pharyngula where he embodies in Palin all the stupidities of the GOP.

PZMyers writes:

This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.

Then Tristero at digby's put it into perspective: Republicans vs. Science

Sarah Palin isn't the issue here. Sure, I'll concede that this illustrates Palin's breathtaking ignorance AND her stupidity. After all, she agreed to repeat it. But what it really demonstrates is how unqualified the upper echelons of the Republican party are to run this country. She certainly didn't write this speech: John McCain's advisers did and approved every appalling word.

And that's the point. Sara Palin, ignorance and all, represents the Republican Party. And a significant portion of that party is very happy with her and her ignorance. George Bush, ignorance and all, represented the Republican Party. And a significant portion of this entire country fell right in line. Education, science, reason are not respected by a startling number of US Citizens. Neither are fairness, justice, equality under the law.

If the Republicans are not overwhelmingly defeated then I will believe the slide into authoritarianism will continue whether Obama is elected or not. And if Obama is elected I doubt that he will push back the continued creep of authoritarianism unless we, the people, insist that he do so.

Another perspective on the same subject: The Results Will Have to Come In

Rob Christensen, just another hack writer? ...

The completion of a three year pilot program set up by John Edwards is morphed by Rob Christensen into a case to attack Edwards' reputation. Christensen writes in the second paragraph:

Edwards' presidential hopes have evaporated. And he recently informed Greene County officials that he would end the pilot program at Greene Central High School.

Funny how those two sentences are tied together neither by facts nor logic. It's not until much later in the article that we learn that this program was established as a three year pilot program. The apparent success of the program seems unimportant to Christensen. After all, providing opportunities and encouraging the education of all America's young'uns is the last thing the GOP would look forward to.

Is Rob Christensen just another good little 'staff writter' doing his imperialist GOP duty by turning the completion of a successful pilot program into a cement block aimed at John Edwards?

So, if we can't even effect the outcome of FISA how can we do anything about a war with Iran ...

Prefatory Thoughts on the Enablers of Evil

War has always been and will always be the most crucial means by which repressive, tyrannical government cements its massive powers and acquires still new ones. The consequences of an attack on Iran will be huge and certainly irreversible, at least in our lifetimes, both at home and abroad. It's an interesting question: why all these fired-up activists will take on a battle such as the FISA one, while they are absolute in their refusal to try to stop the drive to war with Iran.

This Enablers of Evil post has interesting responses to digby's post Talk to the Hand. His knowledge of history adds an important perspective for those who are trying to figure out how best to address what's happening to our country. I've thought for sometime now that we've already lost though like with Obama and FISA I do keep hoping I'm wrong. It's very easy from hindsight to list the steps that led to catastrophe, but it not so easy to know which is the fatal step when you're on that downward staircase yourself. It's apparent to many that we've taken most of the step that lead to fascism (corporate/government authoritarianism, if you prefer). Can we step back? I don't know. The steps get easier and easier, specially with the 'Democratic' Congress and the 'Democratic nominee' cooperating so thoroughly.

Even though history shows us the pattern, outcomes do vary.

Notice this? ...

In Reuters little blurb about the FBI collecting a ton on biometric data on Americans (and others) is this paragraph:

At an employer's request, the FBI will also retain the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks, the paper said.

Your employer, or potential employer can tell the FBI to retain YOUR fingerprints just because they did a background check?

If the people don't fight this, between an increasingly authoritarian government (including Democrats) and the corporate lust for absolute power over employees, individual citizens of this country will have no rights at all.

Non-violent protesters are just soooo dangerous ...

... to any authoritarian non-democratic government.

TUCSON JUDGE DENIES BAIL; DECLARES TWO WHO PROTEST TORTURE "...A DANGER ...

Anyone really surprised? ...

And still our 'Democrats' in Congress do worse than nothing ...

... the Colombian families accuse Chiquita not just of paying "protection money" to terrorist organizations, but actually using the money, in essence, to have the terrorist organizations help Chiquita seize banana plantations from small growers.

Part of the Republican Bush/GOP mafia? Terrorize all you want. Otherwise beware as we are back to a world where the masses must keeps their eyes lowered and averted lest they be chosen to prove the mafia's power or just destroyed on a whim for fun and games.

Manson eyes ...

Images from a video at DailyKos:

DHinMI tells why what he calls Bush Authoritarianism is not fascism in Bush Authoritarianism: Blackwater+Amway=GOP, Pt. 2

But the main reason why it’s wrong to refer to Bush authoritarianism as fascist is, simply, that it’s not fascist. Fascism exalted the state as the most powerful force, more powerful than any other institutions, including business. It was to be the embodiment of the mobilized masses, and while big business was largely left alone, all other institutions and individuals were to subservient to the state. In contrast, Bush authoritarianism, and the broader movement of what Klein calls "disaster capitalism," doesn’t seek to build up the state or mobilize the masses in a nationalist cause. Instead, it seeks to destroy most aspects of the federal government, and turn over tax dollars to private enterprises sucking at the teat of the taxpayer under the guise of greater efficiencies. This is the antithesis of fascism.

I did think that the business interests in those Fascist countries of yore were more entwined with those governments than this paragraph seems to suggest. I also thought that the neo-Conservatives in this country were originally called neo-Fascists.