Sunday, October 31, 2010

St. Louis Activist Events for Nov. 1-7


(note: I strongly agree with all of the St. Louis American's endorsements in this election, except that I would also add the great Arthur Lieber, running against Todd Akin)

Election Week! Here's why you should vote and get involved. Here's how you can get involved.

This week's activist events:

Monday, November 1, the I Care Campaign, for everybody in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area (STL) who cares about gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex and ally issues, will be meeting from 6:30 to 8 PM at the Wine Press (4436 Olive).

Also Monday, there will be a couple trainings on the Say No to A effort. Contact jessica@mojwj.org or 314-644-0466 x13 for more info.

Also Monday, if you're interested in being a non-partisan poll-watcher on Tuesday, there's a crash course training & pre-election rally Monday night from 5:30 to 6:30 PM at the Central Reform Congregation (5020 Waterman). Listen to an interview with Denise Lieberman, leading the efforts in St. Louis, here.

Tuesday, November 2, is election day! Vote! Vote! Vote! You can find your polling station here (based on the current address you are registered to vote at). Make sure you know your rights as a voter.

Election Day Events:
  • Vote Yes On Prop B
  • St. Louis College Students Voting
  • Helping NARAL at the polls.
  • Working for Cherly Hibbeler
  • SLU Votes 2010
  • Yolanda Austin
  • Jim Baldwin


  • Election Night Parties:
  • St. Charles County Democratic Victory Party Potluck
  • Komo/Frame/Dulle/Tuggle/Viehland Election Watch Party
  • Tommy Sowers
  • Washington University
  • The Rent is Too Damn Pi
  • Colona and Montecillo


  • Wednesday, Nov. 2, PRIZM at UMSL is hosting a talk by Midwest Gender Queer Blogger/Activist Jac Stringer, 2 PM at the Pilot House (1st floor of MSC: 1 University Blvd).

    Also Wednesday, the SLU Roundtable is hosting a dicussion on Illegal Immigration from 7 to 8:30 PM at the Busch Student Center Ballroom room 171.

    Also Wednesday, there will be a discussion of oil spills from an ecological and social justice perspective at Legacy Books and Cafe (5429 Delmar) at 7 PM.

    Also Wednesday, there's a Community Science and Technology Night at the Lift for Life Academy (1731 Broadway) from 6 to 8 PM. hosted by fabulous St. Louis Science Blogger Daniel Lee.

    Also Wednesday, SUI Edwardsville Women's Studies is hosting Healing Journeys: Gender, Sexuality, and Forgiveness from 7 to 9 PM at the Center for Spirituality and Sustainability.

    Also Wednesday, an interesting experiment in art and involvement called _CommunityService_ will be at the Upstairs Lounge (3131 S. Grand) starting at 10 PM.

    Thursday, Nov. 4, a Happy Hour raising money for Angel's Arms will be at the Double D Lounge (1740 S. Brentwood) at 4:30.

    Also Thursday, there will be a discussion about the impact of coal at Ursa's Fireside at Wash U from 5:30 to 6:30 PM.

    Also Thursday, the Diversity Awareness Partnership is hosting their 3rd Annual Diversity Dinner at the St. Louis Science Center's James S. McDonnell Planetarium from 6 to 9 PM.

    Also Thursday, Metropolis St. Louis is hosting a Walk on South Hampton from 6 to 10:30 PM.

    Also Thursday, Amnesty International will be screening the movie Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed City, at the Chase Park Plaza Cinemas (212 N. Kingshighway) from 7 to 9 PM. November's City Affair will be a Happy Hour format leading up to a screening of the movie.

    Also Thursday, the RFT is holding their BeAst of St. Louis 2010 Party at the City Museum from 7 to 11 PM. I'm still waiting for my free pass.

    Friday, Nov. 5, the 1st Annual African American Literary Movement event will be at Forest Park College at noon.

    Also Friday, PRIZM at UMSL is having a Brown Bag Lunch w/ Safe Zones from noon to 1 PM at 303 Lucus Hall.

    Also Friday, the SLU OUTLaws and Rainbow Alliance are hosting Professor of business law at Lincoln University of Missouri Kylar Broadus at Morrissey Hall -the courtroom- from 4 to 6 PM.

    Also Friday, A Women's Place, one-act plays about women in extraordinary circumstances, kicks off at the West End Players (733 Union Avenue) at 8 PM.

    Saturday, Nov. 6, there will be a work day at the Rockhaven Ecozoic Center (7621 Rivermont Trail, House Springs, MO) from 11 AM to 5 PM.

    Also Saturday, Earth Dance farms is hosting a Pesto Festo at The Savoy (119 S. Florissant, Ferguson, MO) from 6:30 to 10 PM.

    Also Saturday, join Planned Parenthood for Choice Art 2010 at Concrete Ocean Contemporary Art Gallery (2257 S. Jefferson) from 7 to 11 PM.

    Sunday, Nov. 7, it's Cranksgiving 2010 at Schlafly Bottleworks (7260 Southwest Ave) from 10 AM to 2 PM, a bike event collecting food can donations for Food Outreach.

    Also Sunday, Borders in Brentwood Creve Couer are holding book fairs to benefit the Jewish Fund for Human Needs from 10 AM to 9 PM.

    Also Sunday, the Gateway Men's Chorus is having a CD Release Party for Love Changes Everything at the Cedars @ the JCA (13190 S. Outer 40 Road, Chesterfield, MO) from 2 to 4 PM.

    Also Sunday, WUSICE will be participating in a discussion From Copenhagen to Cancun: The Role of China and the U.S. about climate change, from 5 to 6:30 PM at the Danforth University Center Room 276.

    Also Sunday, the Center for Theology and Social Analysis (1077 S Newstead) will be hosting Lauren Giblin discussing her Summer in Nepal from 7 to 9 PM.

    Also Sunday, and every Sunday, there will be a vigil for peace at the corner of Grand and Lindell at 7 PM.

    Tea Party's Latest Employee: Birther, Law-Breaker, and Openly Wishing for Me to Choke to Death

    Meet Jen Ennenbach, the St. Louis tea party's new spokeswoman. She's a birther:


    She likes breaking the law:


    And, most interesting of all from my perspective, she thinks it would be really funny if I choked to death (BTW, I've never met or spoken to her in my life):


    She also thinks it would be great to kick Senate candidate Chris Coon in the Adam's apple (that is, assuming he's enough of a MAN to have one...High Five!):


    And who knows what's up with this tweet?


    Is she calling a black man racist just because he disagreed with her on policy? Whaaaa?

    Anyway, she should fit right in with the rest of the gang.

    Lesson: Always Lie and Smear the Media (if you're a tea partier)

    Dana Loesch lies and smears the Post-Dispatch, so Post-Dispatch Political Editor Christopher Ave invites her to a conference to coach journalists in how to cover the tea party.

    Andrew Breitbart, a professional media manipulator, lies and smears ABC news with quotes like this:
    Hacks ‘R’ Us: ABC ‘Newsman’ Stephanopoulos Shills for Obama"
    And:
    Fact that a partisan hack like Stephanopoulos is actually employed by ABC News is a disgrace in itself.
    So naturally, Breitbart is invited by ABC News to do election night coverage.

    Dana Loesch tells Anderson Cooper to "shut up" and says that he's "riding his Vanderbilt coattails," so of course she is now a regular guest on his show.

    It seems like the message from the media is pretty clear: if you want favorable coverage, always lie, whine and smear us as much as possible. Unfortunately, though, this tactic only works for the Right. Because as cowardly and sad as the mainstream media is, they do have their standards: they only allow themselves to be pushed around by genuine bullies. Lefties trying to pretend to be as big of jerks as the other side just won't cut it. Those darned nuanced criticisms and respect for humanity always give us away!

    Fox 2 Coverage of The St. Louis Rally To Restore Sanity And Or Fear

     

    Activist Hub Radio 10/31/10

    Hi all,

    This week Adam and I talked with two guests. First, Denise Lieberman, the Senior Attorney for the Advancement Project, about voter intimidation and protection, and what Missouri citizens need to know about their right to vote. And second, congressman Russ Carnahan, of Missouri's 3rd congressional district, about Tuesday's midterm election and his efforts on the economy, protecting the environment, and students loans.



    Links
  • Missouri Voter Bill of Right
  • For any information or problems with voting Call:1-866-687-8683 (1-866-Our-Vote)
  • Ed Martin's creation of voter suppression squad's with many references to ACORN
  • http://russcarnahan.com
  • Missouri Voters Bill of Rights

    Please share far and wide so that everyone knows their rights. It's possible that the other side will be sending "vote challangers" to try to intimidate people from legitimately voting: remember, they have no authority, the only people who have authority are the poll workers, and they should be trying to help you.


    You Have the Right to Vote!

    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683)

    MISSOURI VOTERS' BILL OF RIGHTS


    You have the right to vote - it's the law, and you have the proof in your hands! You can bring this bill of rights with you into the polls. If you have questions or difficulties voting, call toll free: 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683). This hotline is here to help all voters. It is non-partisan and does not support any candidate or issue.

    1. You have the right to vote if you are in line when the polls close at 7 p.m. §115.407.

    2. Photo ID is NOT Required. Voters must show identification to vote. §115.427.1. But it does not need to include your photo or your signature. You can present any one of the following:
  • ID issued by a federal, state or local government authority or agency;
  • ID from a college, university, vocational or technical school located in Missouri
  • current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that contains your name and current address;
  • driver’s license or state ID card from Missouri or another state; or
  • voter identification card sent to you by the election authority.
  • Voters without ID can vote a regular ballot if personally known by two election judges (one from each party).

    3. You have the right to cast a provisional ballot if your eligibility can’t be established. § 115.430.2. But a provisional ballot cast in the wrong polling place will not count. Make sure you are directed to vote at your correct polling place or at a central polling place, such as Election Board headquarters.

    4. You have the right to assistance to help you vote. §115.445.3. You can get help from an election official, or may bring any person of your choice (including a child, relative or friend) to help before, during or after voting if you need help reading or casting your ballot. The assistant does not have to be over 18 or a registered voter. You may bring children into the polling place and voting booth with you.

    5. Voters with disabilities have a right to accessible voting. If your polling place is not accessible, poll workers must come to your car and let you vote curbside outside your polling place upon request. You have a right to an accessible ballot (voting machines tilt, move up and down, and are equipped with accommodations for the visually impaired). You may move to the front if a disability prevents you from standing in line.

    6. If you have moved within the same county and have not been removed from the list of registered voters, you have the right to vote at a central polling place or at the polling place that serves your new address. §115.165.2

    7. If you make a mistake or "spoil" your ballot before you submit it, you can request a new one. § 115.439.4

    8. If you were convicted of a felony other than one related to voting, and have completed your sentence (including any probation or parole), you have the right to register to vote and vote. § 115.133.4.

    9. No one may influence your vote within 25 feet of the polling place. § 115.637(18). No one at a polling place may intimidate you, including police.

    10. You have a choice of voting systems. You can use a paper ballot or an electronic voting machine.

    Tea Partiers Don't Do Humor

    They say that conservatives don't do humor very well. I guess that goes double for the tea party.

    Exhibit A from Gateway Pundit:



    Maybe this explains why the tea party hates Stewart and Colbert so much. They just literally don't have the slightest comprehension of the kind of humor that most Americans enjoy. And not understanding makes them ANGRY!

    Nevertheless, if you're going to try to crash a Stewart/Colbert rally with an attempt at comedy, you need to bring your A-game. I don't think they've even invented a letter of the alphabet that can capture how far away they were from an A-game. Also worth noting, the waited until the rally was over and almost everyone had left before they showed up.

    Saturday, October 30, 2010

    How Sad Are They? Tea Party Leaders Lie About Restore Sanity Rally

    I'm not sure how empty your life would have to be to think this is a good idea.

    Leaders of the St. Louis Tea Party, including Bill Hennessy, Jim Hoft, Darin Morley, and Ben Evans, went to the arch grounds after the main Restore Sanity satellite rally was over to take pictures pretending that the crowd size was small. Here's a picture Hennessy took with the caption: "tens rally for democrats on steps of the arch:"



    The St. Louis tea party official Twitter account also posted this picture with the caption"Restoring Sanity 10 people at a time"



    Except that, unfortunately for the tea party, the Post-Dispatch was there during the actual rally, and they reported that 1,000 people were there:


    (image credit: Post-Dispatch. BTW, this crowd is roughly half of what the tea party had when they hosted a rally for the entire middle third of the country)

    For the life of me, I don't even understand why they would care about a comedy rally. Isn't it obvious that their best option would be to focus on Get Out the Vote efforts and simply ignore Stewart and Colbert? I think they look incredibly petty by getting so upset about a rally by a couple of Comedy Central comedians (however great those comedians are) asking for sanity in political discourse.

    More Evidence of Puppy Mill Cruelty

    The Columbia Tribune reports on more evidence of puppy mill cruelty in Missouri, focusing on a new report by the Human Society. Among other things, the report found:
  • 40 dogs allegedly found dumped in 2008 in an open site in the woods near Lebanon and suspected by Humane Society investigators to be connected to a local dog breeder with a history of poor practices.
  • Dead dogs strewn in piles of trash in 2009 during an inspection of the Doolittle Kennel near Rolla. Doolittle was unlicensed in September 2009 when state officials removed 100 sickly, malnourished dogs from the location.
  • As many as 10 dogs shot in the head by the boyfriend of a licensed breeder in 2008 in Mercer. The licensee had previously been cited by inspectors for dogs that died from extreme cold temperatures and dogs found severely emaciated. The breeder no longer is licensed by the state.

  • If you've got the stomach for it, read the whole story here.

    Remember, you can do something about this: Vote Yes on Prop B to help end puppy mill cruelty!

    Friday, October 29, 2010

    Activist Hub Radio 10/24/10

    Hi all,

    Last Sunday Laurie and I hosted Dail Chambers and Jackie Masei, both local artist, to talk about the Celebrating Indigenous Holidays event presented by Playback Workshop Theatre and GYa community art & fine craft center. The event is being held from November 5th to the 6th starting at 7:30pm. Proceeds from the event will go to support GYa. We also discussed GYa's history and its efforts towards community empowerment in St. Louis.





    Links
    Yeyoarts & GYa
    For information on Artist Against Prop A: contact Dail Chambers

    Dana Loesch Passes On Another Opportunity to Reveal Conflict of Interest

    During the Republican Primary for Missouri's Third Congressional District, a genuine conservative, John Wayne Tucker, was facing off against Republican insider and hater of government transparency and accountability Ed Martin. Dana Loesch blacklisted Ed Martin's conservative opponent, before finally publicly attacking him weeks before the primary. Ed Martin, by the way, only received 63% in the Republican primary, demonstrating that Tucker very likely would have won if he hadn't been actively blacklisted by a tea party group pandering to insider Ed Martin.

    Throughout this process, and while she repeatedly hosted Ed Martin on her radio show, Dana Loesch at no time disclosed that Martin had been giving campaign money to her husband Chris Loesch's business Shock City Studios. Martin gave Loesch's business $2,500 on not one but two different occasions for a campaign commercial. As someone who (however laughably) calls herself a journalist, Dana Loesch should have disclosed this obvious conflict of interest while she was busy promoting Ed Martin and disparaging his primary opponent.

    Now it turns out that Ed Martin is still paying Shock City Studios. In Ed Martin's latest quarterly, it lists an $800 payment to Chris Loesch's business:

    Yet, despite the fact that Ed Martin is still paying her husband's business, Loesch again failed to mention this conflict of interest when she had Martin on her show on Wednesday. Yet she's the editor of Big Journalism where she repeatedly attempts to lecture the media on what right wing conspiracies they should be covering. Hilarious.

    Tea Party Talking Point Fail

    The St. Louis tea party is amazingly still railing on the automobile industry bailout that prevented the collapse of the U.S. automobile industry. In fact, they and their de facto leader Ed Martin keep absurdly blaming Congressman Carnahan for the fact that the Fenton Chrysler plant closed even after the bailout money was provided. Not only is it ridiculous to believe that Carnahan had the power to prevent that from happening, but it is especially ironic that the tea party thinks that one particular Congressman should be dictating to a company exactly how its funds will be used when they spend the rest of their time saying that the government should get out of the way of businesses. Here's what tea partier Darin Morley said on Gateway Pundit's blog yesterday:
    In 2008 many American financial institutions were insolvent. Russ Carnahan voted to bailout these banks even though they were no longer economically viable. GM and Chrysler were on the verge on bankruptcy. Russ Carnahan voted to bail them out, too, even though they were no longer economically viable.
    In what can only be described as crushingly disappointing to Morley, Martin, and the rest of the tea party, the auto bailout actually has been effective at saving American jobs and spurring investment. GM has repaid $8.1 billion in government loans with interest ahead of schedule and is investing $257 million dollars in two plants, one of which is in Kansas City, Kansas. Chrysler is investing $600 million in a plant in Illinois. These investments, of course, bring new, good jobs to Americans and will help keep us competitive.

    So sorry to disappoint Ed Martin and the tea party, but it looks like the auto bailouts are helping to improve the economy.

    Thursday, October 28, 2010

    Illinois Congressman Phil Hare Being Attacked By Secretive Group

    A secretive 501c(4) organization is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defeat Illinois Democratic Congressman Phil Hare (who was the subject of a dishonest smear campaign from Adam Sharp). Bill Lambrecht of the Post-Dispatch reports:
    Schilling, 46, the father of ten, is getting a boost from the American Future Fund, which announced this month that it would spend $500,000 to defeat Hare. The Des Moines-based group is running an ad recalling the vote in Congress on the new health insurance laws.

    The American Future Fund was founded by a GOP operative and funded partly by a big player in ethanol. Not much more is known because it is among the groups invoking a 501(c)4 tax status to shield contributors.

    (The fund's backing is a bit of a paradox given that Hare is a big ethanol supporter and was endorsed yesterday by the Illinois Corn Growers Association and received $2,000 from the St. Louis-based National Corn Growers Association.)

    The Des Moines Register reported Sunday that the fund's address was a mailbox in a shipping store.

    Nonetheless, with at least $7 million in spending, the American Future Fund has become a force nationally, ranking behind only Karl Rove's two Crossroads groups in giving by the new conservative advocacy groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
    Once again secretive, elite operatives are trying to subvert democracy by spending boatloads of cash anonymously. You can help fight this by donating to Phil Hare's campaign or signing up to help out. If we don't fight, the Adam Sharps and anonymous billionaires will win.

    Update: Sounds like the Hare campaign was not endorsed by the ICGA, which as a matter of policy does not endorse candidates.

    Whoops! Kinder Walked Right Into That One!

    Michael Kelley provides the set up:


    Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder takes the bait:


    And Kelley delivers the punchline:


    Yup, that was Ed Martin's evasive response when he was asked whether he knew anything about pedophile priests while he was a member of the Curia for the St. Louis Archdiocese. The website The Real Ed Martin asked whether Martin knew about the abusive priests and, if so, why he didn't report to the authorities, but Martin's response didn't answer those questions. Instead, he said:
    I had zero involvement or authority on the adjudication or disposition of those accused of crimes or wrongdoing.
    This does not answer the questions, and it's strange as well as a bit sad that many reporters seem to act like it does. Charlie Brennan knew that it didn't answer the questions, which is why for the first time ever, Ed Martin refused an invitation to come on his show.

    Why can't Ed Martin simply say that he didn't know anything about the abusive priests?

    Volunteers Needed On Election Day for Non-Partisan Election Protection Efforts

    Seeking poll monitors, lawyers, students, and others interested in helping protect the right to vote. Our goal - every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot.

    * Distribute voter rights information at polls
    * Monitor polling place activities and document problems, or concerns
    * Help troubleshoot voter problems or answer questions
    * Assess voter complaints, field legal calls, conduct research on applicable law & assist with voter advocacy at Legal Command Center
    * Get dispatched to needed polling sites
    * Observe the operation of elections first-hand!

    Flexible morning or afternoon shifts available

    UPCOMING TRAININGS (CLE credit available for attorneys)

    *Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010
    11:50a.m.-12:50 p.m.
    St. Louis University School of Law
    3700 Lindell, St. Louis, MO 63108
    Moot Courtroom

    *Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010
    (Attorney Training)
    5:30-7:30 p.m.
    Thompson Coburn, LLC
    1 US Bank Plaza, Coburn Room 35th Fl
    St Louis, MO 63101

    *Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
    12-1p.m.
    Washington University School of Law
    Anheuser-Busch Hall, One Brookings Drive
    St. Louis, MO 63130
    Room 401

    *Mon. Nov. 1, 2010
    Crash Course & Pre-Election Rally
    5:30-6:30 p.m.
    Legal Command Center
    Central Reform Congregation
    5020 Waterman, St. Louis, MO 63112
    multi-purpose room

    ** FOR MORE INFO OR TO RSVP: contact Denise Lieberman, denise@deniselieberman.com or Mavis Thompson, mavisthompson@sbcglobal.net or sign up online:http://www.866ourvote.org/

    Roy Blunt Generating Headlines By Running Away

    Roy Blunt's intense fear of anyone who might ask him a question is now generating local and national headlines. NBCActionNews in Kansas City had a headline "Roy Blunt Refuses to talk about a campaign controversy" and wrote the following:
    Blunt greeted supporters with smiles.

    But when reporters wanted to talk, Blunt was on the defensive, saying he would take only one question.

    So it was about the controversy over letters he wrote to try to help an immigrant woman 20 years ago.
    When asked about his previous false statements, here's what happened:
    Blunt would not say whether he knew the woman.

    When he's asked again, Blunt returns and forcefully repeats what he said before:

    "We put a statement out on that at the time. And it's exactly accurate. You read it , you know what it says."

    Blunt then walked away for good, storming out of the event without taking any other questions.
    KMBC's Michael Mahoney also wrote about the incident in a post titled, "Blunt Gets Testy With Reporter Over Immigration Charge."

    Blunt was also featured in a Huffington Post article titled Roy Blunt Flees Questions About Alleged Employment Of Illegal Immigrant.

    Maybe Blunt should spend the rest of his time before the election hanging out with the St. Louis tea party. That way, he can completely avoid getting any tough questions from reporters.

    Sheryl Crow to Perform At Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear

    According to a National Park Service document, Missouri-born singer Sheryl Crow will be performing at the Jon Stewart/Stephan Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington D.C. this weekend. Other performers include the Roots as well as Jeff Tweedy and Mavis Staple.

    Crow also recorded an automated phone call for Democratic candidate Tommy Sowers last week.

    Is The St. Louis Tea Party Breaking Election Law?

    Jake Wagman wrote a story last week saying the St. Louis tea party was "straddling the line" in regards to election law with a recent billboard they paid for in Arnold asking "Who deserves to serve?" Here's what Wagman had to say:
    The group is a 501c(4) non-profit organization, which means it has to be careful about political activity. So-called "social welfare" organizations can engage in political activity, so long as it is not their primary purpose.

    They can also endorse federal candidates, so long as they communicate that endorsement only to their members and to the press.

    They can't, however, communicate endorsements to the public at large -- which is why their billboard is so deliberately crafted.
    He continues:
    If the Tea Party billboard said simply, "Vote for Martin," or, "Don't Vote for Carnahan," they would risk losing their tax exempt status -- a status that subjects them to far less disclosure requirements than a traditional political action committee.

    With a careful juxtaposition of photos, the Tea Party can effectively deliver its message, while at the same time claim compliance with IRS laws governing political activity.

    But unless Carnahan supporters really do have their head down, it won't be hard to see through the intent of the billboard, which, if it sparks a legal challenge, could spell trouble for the Tea Party.
    If that billboard is straddling the line, than other actions by the tea party appear to be quite plainly crossing it.

    501c(4)s are not supposed to communicate their endorsements to the public at large. However, the tea party has an advertisement featuring the same image, seen here on the Reboot Congress website:

    The advertisement very clearly states, "Paid for by the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition" at the bottom of the image:


    If you click on the advertisement, you are redirected to this page, which states at the top, "Ed Martin Deserves to Serve Instead of Russ Carnahan," and goes on to say that they believe that Ed Martin "deserves your vote." In other words, the tea party has 501c(4) paid advertising that sends people directly to a page that endorses Ed Martin. If that's not communicating their endorsement to the public at large, then I don't know what is!

    St. Louis Rally to Restore Sanity at 1000+ RSVPs: Tea Party Express Draws About 100


    The St. Louis "Gateway to Sanity" even in conjunction with John Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity has now drawn over 1,000 RSVPs. This is in addition to hundreds of people from St. Louis going to Washington D.C. for the weekend to attend the actual rally.

    Meanwhile, the Tea Party Express was in town and could only attract about 100 people:
    Local Tea Party members are blaming “location confusion” for the relatively low turnout at Wednesday’s rally in downtown St. Louis.

    It was slated to be held in St. Charles, but was switched to Kiener Plaza at the last minute.

    About 100 ralliers did show up, and they remain optimistic about next week’s election.
    In fairness, there was also another event last night with such luminaries (or should I say obscureraries?) as Dick Morris, Dana Loesch, and #pdk in attendence. That event had about 100 RSVPs according to facebook.

    Now I predict that the tea party and lazy media will reference the 9/12 Tea Party event in St. Louis which drew a couple thousand people as evidence of the local strength of the tea party. However, that event was one of three national tea party events across the country organized by national groups like the Tea Party Patriots (the other two were in Sacremento and D.C.). It was representative of the tea party membership across the Midwest, and not the St. Louis area. Yesterday's events, however, were representative of the local tea party. Nevertheless, you just know the local media will continue to use that 9/12 number to pretend that the St. Louis tea party is more influential locally than they actually are.

    h/t RFT.

    Fact Checking The Tea Party's Real Ed Martin Website Conspiracy Theory

    I shared my thoughts earlier on the Real Ed Martin website that raised questions about what Ed Martin knew about sexual abuse allegations while he was serving as a member of the Curia for the Archdiocese. I also pointed out that the Post-Dispatch is failing to ask basic questions about the issue. But there were still a couple outstanding issues in the tea party's ramblings on the subject that needed to be addressed.

    First off is the question of the timing of the payments. The Carnahan campaign has consistently maintained that they had nothing to do with the attack website and that the researcher Michael Corwin broke ties with them after they said they did not want to use this story because they felt it might offend Catholics. However, as noted by Jake Wagman, the group Veritas Research, which includes Corwin's partner in the project Jeannine Dillon, was paid $2,000 by the Carnahan campaign on Sept. 27. This led the tea party to accuse the Carnahan campaign of paying for the creation of the website.

    However, Jo Mannies latest story for the Beacon provides an explanation for this fact. Mannies, unlike Wagman, spoke with Corwin about the timing. Here's what she found out:
    Records show the duo purchased the domain name on Sept. 29 from GoDaddy for $12.17, including tax. That was two days after the Carnahan campaign paid just under $2,000 to Dillon's company, Veritas Research, according to the campaign's revised financial report filed earlier this week with the Federal Election Commission.

    The money, said Corwin, had been owed to Dillon for months for expenses related to earlier research she had done for the Carnahan campaign. (Corwin earlier said the duo parted ways with the campaign in May or June over a dispute involving what to do with the information the researchers had collected about Martin's time with the Archdiocese. The Carnahan campaign didn't want to do anything because the congressman did not want to offend the district's Catholics, Corwin and the campaign have said.)

    Corwin said that he and Dillon delayed purchasing the website name until she got paid, because they knew the Carnahan campaign would be upset if it learned about the site before it went online. Dillon feared she might then lose the money she was owed, he said.
    That's strange, but still plausible. In fact, it's far more plausible than thinking that the Carnahan campaign paid a research firm $2,000 to create a website thinking that their public records would not be scrutinized.

    The second part of the tea party conspiracy theory points out that Carnahan volunteer Teri Powers made the following comments on Facebook on Oct. 18, the day before the Real Ed Martin youtube video was created:
    And how exactly did you, Chubby Checker, aid victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by priests when you worked for the Archdiocese? (note that the Activist Hub blog does not endorse the use of the term "Chubby Checker" to refer to Ed Martin)
    The implication is that the Carnahan campaign knew that the video was about to come out, and was "telegraphing" its release.

    However, after doing some facebook research of my own, I found out that Teri Powers had been referencing Martin's time at the Archdiocese well before Oct. 18 (the day before the video was uploaded). In fact, she was commenting about his time there before the website was even a twinkle in Corwin and Dillon's eyes.

    Here's Teri's comments from October 12:

    And from October 1st, two days before Corwin and Dillon had signed a web-hosting contract:

    And from September 3, 26 days before Corwin and Dillon had even purchased the domain name.


    In other words, Teri Powers had been commenting about the Archdiocese repeatedly over the past year, and these comments had nothing to do with the launch of the website. The conspiracy theory that the Carnahan campaign had tipped off Teri who in turn just couldn't help but spill her secret information has no evidence to support it, and I'm pretty confident from speaking with Teri that it's false.

    So, while I'm very happy that the tea party was able to feel real joy for a brief period of time, it looks like the fun is over and it's time for them to move on to their next conspiracy theory. Maybe there are some LinkedIn profiles that still need examining?

    P.S. Thanks to Brian Matthews and Teri Powers for a helpful discussion about this. And major hat tip to Jo Mannies for her extensive reporting on the subject.

    Olbermann's Special Comment

    If the Tea Party Wins, America Loses:

    Wednesday, October 27, 2010

    More Evidence that the Tea Party is Coaching the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

    I wrote a while ago about how St. Louis Post-Dispatch Political Editor Christopher Ave invited Dana Loesch to coach journalists in how they should cover the tea party. This strategy appears to be paying off quite well for the tea party, as they've gotten the Post-Dispatch to edit embarrassing tweets from Lt. Peter Kinder out of their stories. But even more importantly, the Post-Dispatch is flatly refusing to cover stories that seem to me to be obviously relevant political material. Here's a small sample of some of the questions reporter Jake Wagman refuses to ask about the tea party and the Right:

  • Wagman won't ask what tea party and American Majority employee John Burns' role was in James O'Keefe's plan to sexually humiliate a CNN reporter, despite the fact that Burns was among a small group of people included in the planning emails, as reported by CNN.
  • Wagman won't ask who is funding the tea party's office, billboards, and Get Out the Vote operation, even though the tea party could only raise $1,000 from local membership in previous campaigns.
  • And now Wagman, while writing an 800-word press release for the Ed Martin/Tea Party campaign, won't ask Ed Martin the simple question, "what did you know about allegations of sexual abuse in the church?"

  • The Post-Dispatch is going out of its way to pander to the tea party. But they are doing so at the expense of alienating liberal and moderates. You know, the people who actual read newspapers.

    Ed Martin and Pedophile Priests (VIDEO and AUDIO)

    One major story I did not have a chance to discuss was the emergence of The Real Ed Martin website last week that put together a detailed piece claiming that Ed Martin did not take action to stop sexual abuse while he was working in a high profile position for the Catholic Church in St. Louis. For an overview of the basic story, check out this report by Jaco for Fox 2 News:

     

    I actually had written something about this last week, but wasn't comfortable enough with the story to post it. However, since Ed Martin and the tea party have been lying about this, and since the Post-Dispatch is being actively coached by the tea party in how to cover right-wing politics, I feel like I need to weigh in on the issue.

    First of all, Ed Martin and the tea party's claim that the Carnahan campaign is involved is false. They did not want to publicize the story since they were worried that it would offend Catholics, and that led to the investigator, Michael Corwin, to terminate his relationship with the campaign several months ago. All of the conspiracy theorizing by the same people who claimed that the local dog catchers were involved in a massive government conspiracy against them is hardly surprising.

    Second, Ed Martin and the tea party's claims that the web site's argument "basically says," that Ed Martin is involved "because he worked for the church," is also false. The website actually extensively details that Ed Martin was a member of a group called the Curia, which was tasked with, among other things, providing ethical guidance for the Archdiocese. It further documents that the St. Louis Curia was actively talking about the sex abuse cases. So the claim that this is a smear against all Catholics or anyone who worked for the church is simply false. The website was quite clear that it was addressing Martin's documented role as a member of the Curia.

    That being said, I should note that this is why I was uncomfortable blogging about this story when I first saw the site. It looks like there are over 40 members of the St. Louis Curia. Are all of them partially responsible for the church's coverup of sex abuse cases and decisions to move priests around rather than dealing with the issues? I simply don't know enough about how the church operates to feel confident in answering that question. It seems like it depends quite a bit on the details of what they discussed in meetings and what they knew about the actual cases. Because this is such a heavy issue, it seemed a bit unfair to me to single out Martin. However, it certainly seems fair to me that the investigators were asking for Martin to answer some questions.

    And this is where it gets interesting. Because in all of Martin's responses, press conferences, tweets, etc. on the subject, he hasn't really addressed the core issue brought up by the site: the claim that Martin knew about the abuse allegations and failed to act. Here's how the Real Ed Martin website describes their core claims:
    Ed Martin knew pedophilia was an issue at the Archdiocese; he knew pedophile priests were moved around and had continued access to children; he knew the laws of the State of Missouri; and worst of all, he chose to remain silent.
    Martin's responses have systematically avoided mentioning whether or not he was aware of the abuse allegations. In fact, even when he claims to be addressing the issue, he only says that he didn't have authority to do anything:
    To speak directly to the implied accusation: I worked for the Catholic Church doing education and advocacy about charity and service to our community. I had zero involvement or authority on the adjudication or disposition of those accused of crimes or wrongdoing. The only scandal I was responding to was that the Human Rights Office was supporting goals and making contributions to organizations that reflected poorly on the Church and her mission.
    But no one said he was "involved" or had "authority." The site claimed that he knew about the abuse, yet said nothing while the priests were shuffled around to new places.

    Not only is Ed Martin not answering the question, but he appears to be desperately avoiding situations where he might have to answer the question. In fact, Charlie Brennan, said that for the first time since he's known Martin, Martin refused to appear on his radio show to respond to the allegations. You can listen to Brennan's interview with David Clohessy, National Network of the Survivor's Network of Those Abused by Priests here:


    I didn't originally think that the website showed that Ed Martin did anything wrong. However, it did ask some legitimate quetions, and it's striking that Ed Martin is refusing to simply say that he didn't have any knowledge of what happened.

    Ed Martin's History of Smearing

    I was out of town and without an internet connection for the past week, so I missed a lot of fireworks in the Congressional race between Ed Martin and Russ Carnahan. One really interesting story, which unfortunately was buried by other news, was that a former employee of the St. Louis board of elections, Jeannie Bergfeld, is filing suit against Ed Martin for Martin's alleged violation of an agreement made in a previous suit. Bergfeld was fired by Martin when she worked for the the board, and she filed a complaint at the time saying she was fired by him for not being "Republican enough." Martin and Bergfeld reached an agreement in a 2006 settlement that they would not publicly disparage each other but, being a fundamentally dishonest person, Martin violated the agreement last week by saying the following:
    Martin denies [the accusation Bergfeld was fired for not being Republican enough]. "She said she was a Republican; nobody ever questioned that," he tells RFT, adding that Bergfeld was a patronage employee who had enjoyed "twelve years of not having to do anything" and who "wasn't interested in changing."

    Martin concludes: "We did everything we could, appropriately, to have her do her job, but it wasn't in the cards."
    This story is fascinating because it reveals a pattern for Martin: engaging in the most shameless partisan hackery, settling out of court, and then continuing to smear people and lie after the settlement. It's exactly what he did in the case of Scott Eckersley: after Martin fired Eckersley for asking the Blunt administration to follow the law, Martin continues to slander him in the media.

    Martin and those who carry his water deserve to be laughed out of Missouri politics. You can help make that happen by helping Congressman Carnahan's campaign.

    Reminder: Dana Loesch Told Anderson Cooper to "Shut Up" And Said He Was "Riding the Vanderbilt Coattails"

    CNN's Anderson Cooper has frequently invited Dana Loesch on to his show to spread her hateful rhetoric. By giving her a national platform, Cooper allows Loesch to reach a bigger audience with her non-stop hate mongering, such as yesterday's claim that a moveon activist should apologize for having her head stomped on by Rand Paul supporters. Of course Loesch now kisses Cooper's butt as she does with anyone who can advance her career, saying that he's a "gracious host," but what did she think about him before he invited her on as a guest?

    A post on her blog answers that question. Loesch wrote a blog post titled "Shut Up, Cooper," in which she suggested that the only reason Cooper had his job is because of Vanderbilt connections:
    Sorry, we all don’t get to the high positions by riding the Vanderbilt coattails.
    So remind me again why Cooper and CNN continually provides her with a platform to spread lies and hate?

    Roy Blunt is STILL Running Away From Reporters

    What I wrote a week ago:
    First Roy Blunt ran away from a citizen asking him what he thought about the Chamber of Commerce potentially using foreign money to attack Robin Carnahan.

    Then Roy Blunt ran away from reporters outside the 2nd debate he lost against Carnahan.

    And now Blunt ran away from a meeting with the Post-Dispatch editorial board because there was going to be a very scary six whole protesters outside:
    Blunt spoke to the editorial board by phone. He was scheduled to appear in person, but changed plans after a small group of protesters -- maybe half a dozen -- gathered outside the Post-Dispatch building downtown, holding signs accusing Blunt of hypocrisy on immigration.
    What is with this guy? What's he so afraid of?
    And now:



    The reason Blunt doesn't want to answer is because his previous statement was dishonest.

    Blunt is projecting exactly the type of Senator he would be: completely, and I mean completely unresponsive to the will of the people and the most basic requests for information.

    h/t FiredUp Missouri

    Breitbart's Response to St. Louisan: Your Name Sounds Like Someone I'd Like To Attack

    Andrew Breitbart, apparently realizing that his own name has been hopelessly tarnished by a litany of scandals, seems to have put all of his hopes into Dana Loesch serving as the official spokesperson of the Big Government sites, even to the point of roaming around Twitter arguing with Loesch critics just like her #1 fanboy Jimi971. And Breitbart's response to one critic was a truly amazing new low, even for him:


    So Breitbart's response was to say that his name was the same as some other guy who Breitbart wants to attack? Is he losing it or what? For what it's worth, mkimberlin had a pretty clever response:

    The Gladney Police Report

    Dana Loesch, who really does not actually know very much about the Kenneth Gladney case (as evidenced by her embarrassing attacks on a local county counselor), has recently been spreading more verifiable misinformation about the altercation. Pointing out some of these falsehoods will serve as a nice reminder of some of the main flaws in treating the police report on the incident as gospel. In fact, the police report contains several falsehoods and is based entirely on the testimony of biased tea party activists. As stated by someone arguing with Loesch on Twitter:

    That, as we will see, is particularly salient in this case, but first I'll focus on some of Loesch's specific falsehoods. For starters, Loesch repeatedly claimed that Kelly Owens was "beaten" and "punched in the face." And, in fact, the police report also states that Owens was hit in the face. However, in an extended video from the night that includes Owens being interviewed by the police, Owens specifically responds, when asked by the police where she was hit, that her camera was hit which in turn hit her face. So she was not "punched in the face," and she certainly was not "beaten." Now, I'm certainly not saying that Cheryl Joiner's act of hitting Owens' camera was OK. Joiner was wrong to do that and I'm glad that charges were filed. However, to claim that a simple act of slapping a camera is the same thing as beating someone or punching them in the face, and specifically as being in the same category as stomping on a woman's neck, is just plain wrong.

    Second, Loesh claimed the following later on Twitter:
    Considering that at 8/09 townhall one of the guys fell to the ground and screamed "police brutality!" when ZERO cops were near him ...and when he refused to move so police could do their job he refused and was subsequently arrested? Forgive if at times I'm suspicious.
    This claim, also, was in the police report. And again, available video shows that the police report is false. I previously documented the problems with the police report on Matthews:
    There are several problems with the case against Matthews that can be observed by comparing the police report to the video of the arrest.

    First, Matthews is charged with "interfering with the duties of a police officer" (p. 11). However, in the video, it's clear that Matthews (dark blue shirt and long ponytail) is actually trying to lead Javonne away from the scene.

    Second, the police report (p. 11) claims that "As Captain Monteleone was assisting us with crowd control a subject, later identified as Brian Matthews, walked up to him and purposely fell onto the sidewalk in front of him." But you can see from the video (1:42) that Matthews was walking in front of the officer away from the scene when he fell.

    Finally, the report claims that Matthews was "on the ground yelling that he was being beaten by the police, trying to draw attention to himself." However, in the video you can very clearly hear Javonne speaking as she is arrested. Matthews is right next to her. If he was "yelling" it would have been picked up on the video.
    Matthews presented a similar case to the prosecutor, who decided to drop the charges. I'm pretty confident that if Matthews had actually been screaming about "police brutality," law enforcement would not decide to be merciful with him. So far, two major strikes against the police report.

    Strike three and the out for the police report comes from an interview of Harris Himes conducted by Jim Gateway Pundit Hoft. Himes and his wife were two of the three witnesses cited in the original police report. In his interview with Hoft, Himes managed to contradict both his own and his wife's statements from the police report:
    So, the police report describes Himes testimony as follows:
    Witness H. Himes stated that as he was leaving the school gymnasium, he saw Suspect McCowan talking to Victim Gladney. He stated he saw Suspect McCowan reach over the table and punch Victim Gladney in the face. This assault knocked the victim off balance. Suspect Molens then went around the table and pulled Victim Gladney over the table backwards by the back of his shirt collar. He began to punch and kick Victim Gladney. Witness H. Himes added that while Suspect Molens was kicking and punching Victim Gladney, Suspect McCowan then joined in on the assault.
    However, in the new video Himes said (0:29):
    And so I looked back because I heard a noise behind. And, it was my wife however, who could corroborate the fact that it was really a hate crime because she heard the black man who claims he's a minister also said "what's a ..... doing here" ... that was essentially what she heard. And I looked back and then I saw this guy slap Gladney...slap his hand away and start striking him but the other big white guy grabbed him and threw him down to the ground. So I came back, and I was trying to get them off Gladney, and my wife was circling to keep any of the others from jumping me. And so then we got them off and broke it up once and then they attacked him again. "

    This is radically different than the initial story. First of all, Himes admits that he did not see how the fight started, even though the original police report suggests that he did. Second, he now claims that he first saw McCowan "slap Gladney's hand." In the original police report, he claimed that McCowan had reached "over the table" and punched Gladney. The fact that he said he saw him slapping Gladney's hand is especially significant since one of the original questions I raised was why Gladney says, at 0:43 of the original video of the altercation, "why'd you hit my hands?" If Gladney had just been beaten up, why would he ask about his hands? Likewise, if Himes had witnessed Gladney being severely beaten, why would he talk about his hands getting slapped? This of course dovetails with the with strangeness of the fact that Gladney was clearly walking around and looked uninjured in the original video, but then showed up in a wheelchair purportedly unable to walk or talk a few days later.

    Furthermore, Himes then says that he he saw Molens come over and throw Gladney, "to the ground." But of course, this is the part we already saw in the video (when Molens is pulling Gladney, who looks like he's about to throw a punch, away from McCowan who's laying on the ground) , while the official right-wing story is that the alleged assault happened before the video. In other words, from what I can tell, basically all Himes witnessed other than a "hand slap" is the same thing that we saw on the video!

    And what about his wife? In the police report, it says:
    Witness #2, Sandra Himes', statement of the incident concurred with Harris' account of the incident. She did add that Victim Gladney did nothing to provoke this assualt.
    But in the interview with Gateway Pundit, Harris has this to say (0:22):
    Well, actually my wife had stopped to look at the buttons and the flags he was handing out, and just as she turned away, that's when he was attacked by the two SEIU guys..."
    In other words, she did not see how the fight started either, because she had "just" turned away! But, again, this is in direct contradiction to the police report, which implied that she was a witness to the actual events. Furthermore, his story doesn't say anything about the two other people who Gladney and David Brown claimed also attacked Gladney.

    In other words, Harris Himes has just told a story that contradicts the testimony of two of the three witnesses who claimed that Gladney was brutally beaten.
    Returning to the above point that a police report is only as good as the witnesses it includes, we now have evidence that two of the witnesses' testimony was contradicted by Himes. Harris Himes is also a well-known right-wing activist in Montana who leaked his story to Big Government, so he clearly has a political agenda. And the only other witness in the police report is also a tea partier who can be seen on video earlier in the day being held back from attacking an SEIU member.

    So, just to review:
  • We have at least three central claims in the police report being directly contradicted by video evidence from the scene or later interviews with the same witnesses.
  • We also have only three "witnesses" who didn't actually witness the fight starting and who all happen to be tea partiers with clear ideological agendas.
  • And finally we have a ridiculous arrest of Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman by the same police during the same events.

  • The combined force of all of these flaws in the police report strongly suggests that it would be a huge mistake to take the police report from that night as the gospel truth.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010

    More From Loesch: If MoveOn.org Was "Chivalrous," They Wouldn't Let Women Attend Political Events

    I wrote earlier about how horrible human being Dana Loesch demanded that a MoveOn activist apologize for having her head stomped on by an angry Rand Paul supporter while being held on the ground by other Paulites.

    Now Loesch is doubling down, claiming that MoveOn wasn't "chivalrous" because they didn't prevent a woman from attending a political debate:


    The buried assumption in Loesch's argument is that it takes "balls" to attend a political debate because if one does so, he/she should expect to be beaten by violent right-wingers. In fact, Loesch practically says as much in her post on the subject:
    If she didn’t want to be restrained she shouldn’t have gone with the intent to start trouble, but congressional members also need to provide their own security.
    So what's with these crazy liberals who think that we live in a time where men and women should be free to attend political debates and, yes, sometimes even pull "stunts," (you know, like writing "free abortions" on signs, or dressing up in SEIU shirts ) without getting physically attacked to the point of concussions and sprains? I guess they just don't understand the valiant notion of chivalry that characterizes guys like Tim Profitt.

    Related Content:
    Show Me Progress: Expecting To Hear Crickets
    FiredUp Missouri: Dana Loesch Wants MoveOn.org To Apologize For Letting Staffer Place Her Head Under Angry Man's Foot
    Media Matters: Limbaugh, Loesch join chorus blaming MoveOn for activist beating
    And the great Digby: Asking For It

    Loesch: Woman Should Apologize For Having Her Neck Stomped On By Rand Paul Supporter

    Dana Loesch is joining Gateway Pundit in condoning violence against a liberal woman who had the audacity of being present at a Rand Paul event. Loesch said that the woman was asking for it and the poor angry mob of conservative men just had no choice but to "restrain" her by stomping on her neck, giving her a concussion:

    Here's the video again for anyone who wants to understand Loesch defending the undefendable :


    Remember, Loesch calls herself a "conservative feminist." Call me an optimist, but I actually believe that there are conservative feminists, and that they would want nothing to do with a horrible human being like Loesch.

    Karl Rove's Sleazy Crossroads GPS Group to Run Attack Ads for Ed Martin

    Karl Rove's sleazy, anti-Democratic group Crossroads GPS, which has spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2010 elections without having to disclose its donors, is scheduled to start running attack ads against Congressman Russ Carnahan on Wednesday according to the Washington Post. This group represents the exact opposite of the Democratic process, where anonymous billionaires can spend unlimited amounts of money trying to push their agenda without anyone even knowing what they're doing. So its not surprising at all that they would support another arch enemy of transparency, Ed Martin, who as chief of staff attempted to violate Missouri state sunshine laws, lied about it, and then fired and smeared a person who tried to get him to follow the law.

    Update: FiredUp Missouri helpfully points out FactCheck.org's documentation of Crossroad's history of "false and misleading" advertisements.

    Gateway Pundit Approves of Political Violence Against Democrats

    Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft, who has for the last year been trying to drum up allegations of "violent leftists" even while he led protests where tea partiers burned a photo of Russ Carnahan while chanting "Death to the Dictator," approves of stomping on political opponents necks as long as those opponents are liberals. Hoft posted a video of a Rand Paul supporter violently stepping on a MoveOn activists neck at a Rand Paul event:


    Here's what Hoft had to say about it:
    Look for the state-run media to make her into some kind of saint by the end of the day.
    And:
    Let’s hope Code Pink was watching.
    Of course, we can expect our local "media" to continue to refer to Hoft as a credible source of information. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if KMOV or Mark Reardon invited him to speak as an esteemed expert on political violence.

    h/t Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America.

    Thursday, October 21, 2010

    Political Endorsements and the St. Louis Tea Party: Besties.

    The St. Louis Tea Party, as Adam has mentioned, is endorsing Ed Martin in his campaign for Missouri's 3rd District Congressional Seat.

    The RFT's feature article this week confirms that straight from Eddie's mouth.

    Okay, whatever, right? But wait...what's that?

    Dana Loesch herself, Queen Bee of the St. Louis Tea Party (though Gina Loudon would challenge me to a wrasslin' match for writing that) and self-described co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party said:

    "The St. Louis Tea Party doesn’t endorse candidates. We don’t even allow politicians/candidates to speak. Period. We’ve told Sarah Steeleman [sic], Todd Akin, Roy Blunt and many others “no.”

    Huh. Well, that's interesting. Maybe it was just a one-time slip of the tongue.

    Oh, oops, guess not.

    Now, you'll notice from Adam's post that the St. Louis Tea Party announced its endorsement of Ed Martin on September 25, nearly a month ago. But have we heard from our media darling Loesch? Has she displayed any outrage over this endorsement, considering her adamant opposition to candidate endorsements?

    I certainly haven't. I would expect the co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party to take great umbrage at a decision which so radically flies in the face of her insistence to the contrary.

    Perhaps her silence owes a little something to this.

    Or maybe she's just so busy using the name of the St. Louis Tea Party to catapult her to fame that she doesn't really care what they're doing so long as she continues to garner TV appearances.

    Tra-la-la.

    You decide.

    Not So Brave New World

    Let’s begin with the good news.
    In thirty years The West Bank will be firmly established as an independent nation. Israel and Hamas will be involved in meaningful negotiations regarding Gazan independence. U.S. per capita consumption of meat and energy will have fallen precipitously. Urban sprawl in the U.S. will be greatly decreased. There will be a marked increase in support for third parties including both Green and Socialist. American military spending will have decreased in real terms. American military bases will have decreased by at least fifty percent. The relative position of American freedom ratings will remain largely unchanged. China through adoption of coal gasification and green energy will have greatly improved it’s air quality.
    Now the bad news:
    All of the above will have occurred due to the decline of the United States. Wages will have continued their decline. The American Middle Class will have become a small portion of the population. Infrastructure outside the cities will generally decline although roads to agra farms will remain in good condition. South to South trade will dominate. The dominant navy in the world will be the People’s Republic of China. Coal burning fuel plants in the growing economies of the Southern Hemisphere will have increased overall carbon production and global warming will have accelerated.
    This has been my vision of the future of the United States for at least a year. Indeed I have been considering this article for months but I have been waiting. I was waiting for Robert Reich’s new book. Well, Aftershock has come out and as expected it is brilliant. Robert Reich has identified the mechanism that is destroying the United States and it is income inequality. Honestly I had not realized how incredibly important an issue that is.
    Around page twenty one of Mr. Reich’s book is a graph. It shows income inequality which reached a height in 1928 and again in 2007 (the last available year for such figures) In searching for a word to my reaction to that graph I can only say I was nonplussed. I had to look it up to make sure I got that right. To cause to be at a loss as to what to say, think, or do.
    Robert Reich the eternal American Optimist has a vision and a solution. He warns the upper classes that they are not well served by this new order. The lack of income distribution means that the middle and lower classes will cease to be significant consumers and that thus the American economy cannot recover. He warns of political instability. He warns of an end to democracy.
    What Mr. Reich believes is that the upper classes will see be concerned about their own interest and will embrace a new politics. They will demand courageous leadership. They will embrace a new tax structure and we will once again invest in the United States to restore our middle class and our stable democracy.
    When I was in college I wrote a paper concerning the writings of Robert Heilbronner and Paul Ralph Ehrlich. They warned of energy shortages, food shortages, depleted oceans, global warming and nuclear proliferation and a young radicalized third world. They were opposed by Pollyannaish conservatives who had written everything’s gonna be all right. I could easily see the fallacy of the right but my young mind was unwilling to accept the dark future predicted by the good doctors. I wrote that the fact that we had been warned was in fact that which should give us hope. Surely people would not allow these things to happen. My apologies to the good doctors because there has been no change of course and though delayed,much of what they predicted has come to pass.
    I have participated in discussions of the decline of the U.S. on Linkedin and from what I can tell the business class is unconcerned. Several have stated correctly that in a Free Market World Economy smart business people can thrive regardless of where economic activity occurs. Some have expressed concern that South to South trade is unlikely to rise to the level of economic activity previously provided by American consumerism. Generally though the feeling is even if the ship goes down there will be an ample supply of luxury life boats for those who can afford them.

    Those of you who are reading this and reject my pessimism I thank you. Go read Mr. Reich’s book and armed with his knowledge and arguments change the world. We need you. I am just a little tired.

    Dana Loesch Wants to Defund NPR

    I just thought all the moderates and sane conservatives would want to know that.

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010

    Roy Blunt Runs Away...Again

    First Roy Blunt ran away from a citizen asking him what he thought about the Chamber of Commerce potentially using foreign money to attack Robin Carnahan.

    Then Roy Blunt ran away from reporters outside the 2nd debate he lost against Carnahan.

    And now Blunt ran away from a meeting with the Post-Dispatch editorial board because there was going to be a very scary six whole protesters outside:
    Blunt spoke to the editorial board by phone. He was scheduled to appear in person, but changed plans after a small group of protesters -- maybe half a dozen -- gathered outside the Post-Dispatch building downtown, holding signs accusing Blunt of hypocrisy on immigration.
    What is with this guy? What's he so afraid of?