Kicking Rich Freeloaders Off Agricultural Welfare

Stephen Lee Fincher (R-TN), one of the most dishonest crooks in Congress

Thursday, Dick Durbin's amendment to the Farm Bill passed, rather miraculously, 59-33. The amendment is meant "to limit the amount of premium subsidy provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation on behalf of any person or legal entity with an average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, with a delayed application of the limitation until completion of a study on the effects of the limitation." I was kind of hoping he would have named it the Congressman Stephen Lee Fincher Amendment. More about why, below. First, a list of senators who voted against these giveaways to wealthy farmers, wealthy fake-farmers and big Agribusiness corners. Most of the names on this list are all men and women, many of whom are pushing the catastrophic European Austerity agenda sponsored by Paul Ryan, who want to protect government subsidies for the rich:

• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Max Baucus (D-MT)
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• Mo Cowan (D-MA)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Mike Enzi (R-WY)
• Nan Fischer (R-NE)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Tim Harkin (D-IA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Mike Johanns (R-NE)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Pat Leahy (D-VT)
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Dick Shelby (R-AL)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

So what does all this have to do with an obscure Tennessee backbencher in the House? Stephen Lee Fincher, one of the most sanctimonious right-wing Republican hypocrites in Congress, lives in Frog Jump. Although he likes telling people he's a gospel singer, Fincher is the managing partner in Fincher Farms, a large Agri-business concern that grows cotton, corn, soybeans, and wheat on over 2,500 acres in western Tennessee. The company has received $8.9 million in farm subsidies over the past decade, mostly from the cotton program, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Fincher received a $13,650 grant to help buy grain hauling and storage equipment from the state Department of Agriculture in 2009 as part of the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program. Yes, teabagger Stephen Fincher is a welfare queen.

And it gets worse, according to Forbes magazine. Remember when we were talking about how so many wealthy congressmembers on the House Agriculture Committee were all gung-ho to shave billions of dollars off the food stamps program? That's Fincher's committee. (No conflict of interest there, right?)

Armed with an array of proverbs and quotes from the Holy Bible, Congressman Fincher is pressing his fight to dramatically curtail the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-- better known to most Americans as food stamps-- relied upon by 47 million Americans for some or all of their daily sustenance.

Why?

Because the Bible tells him so.

Appearing this past weekend at a gathering at a Memphis Holiday Inn, Fincher explained his position on food stamps by stating, “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

The Congressman’s remarks come on the heels of his taking the biblical route when responding to Representative Juan Vargas’ (D-Calif.) somewhat different take on the teachings of Jesus. During a recent House Agriculture Committee debate over the Farm Bill (which contains the food stamp budget), Vargas, citing the Book of Matthew, noted, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.”

Vargas also noted that  Jesus directly mentions the importance of feeding the hungry.

Not to be outdone by a Godless Democrat, Congressman Fincher responded with his own Bible quote taken from the Book of Thessalonians-- “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Nicely played, Congressman.

While the biblical back-and-forth is interesting, I wonder if Congressman Fincher would be good enough to refer me to the part of the Bible revealing to us how providing adequate food stamp assistance to those in need violates the teachings of Christianity but venerates accepting government hand-outs in the guise of farm subsidies?

Maybe the Congressman can instruct heathens such as I on how pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money in the guise of farm subsidies is a righteous act, while accepting government subsidies to feed one’s family is an act of-- to use Fincher’s own words-- stealing from those in the country to give to others in the country?

I don’t ask these questions of Congressman Fincher indiscriminately. I ask them because of Fincher’s unique qualification to provide us with the appropriate proverb intended to instruct.

You see, Representative Fincher happens to be the second largest recipient of farm subsidies in the United States Congress-- which might explain why Mr. Fincher would like to decimate the food stamp budget in order to do the Lord’s work when “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years.”

How much money are the taxpayers forking over to Congressman Fincher via farm subsidies?

While Fincher may only come in second amongst his congressional peers when it comes to pocketing huge sums of taxpayer money, he has the distinction of being one of the largest recipients of subsidies in the history of the great State of Tennessee.

I think we can count on farmer Fincher to lead the charge against Durbin's amendment when it floats over to the House.

Sunday Classics preview: Memorable Mozart from the no-nonsense younger Colin Davis

The Seraphim LP issue of the c1961 Colin Davis disc of Mozart overtures I keep going on about, as in this July 2012 preview

by Ken

I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to find a path into Mozart's two mature efforts to resurrect the opera seria, Ideomeneo and La Clemenza di Tito. Though the operas themselves remain for me massive expenditures of genius effort which came to not a whole lot, I love both overtures with an abiding passion. What's more, in the case of the Clemenza Overture in particular, when I finally saw the opera in the flesh for the first time, I was surprised by how effective a theatrical overture it was. If only what followed had lived up to that promise.

MOZART: Idomeneo, K. 366: Overture

MOZART: La Clemenza di Tito, K. 621: Overture

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Colin Davis, cond. EMI, recorded c1961

My abiding affection for these ovrtures must relate to the first performances of them I got to know well -- the ones we just heard, which I hope you'll agree are especially robust and attention-grabbing. They are, of course, from the Colin Davis LP of nine Mozart overtures, long available here as a budget-price Seraphim LP, which I keep going on about, including last week's Colin Davis and Magic Flute "double" preview. (I was pleased to see our friend Philip Munger note in his comment on that post that he wore out his copy of that LP.)

Read more »

Re. the Boy Scouts' "compromise": Compromise with crackpots isn't compromise, it's capitulation

Lord Baden-Powell, inventor of the Boy Scouts: Would you entrust your burgeoning lad to this man? Would you want your burgeoning lad anywhere near this man?

"President Obama praised the Boy Scouts of America's decision to lift its ban on openly gay youth, but added he hopes the organization will take further action to allow openly gay Scout leaders, according to the White House."

-- the lead of Chris Johnson's Washington Blade report

"Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders . . . was a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists."

-- Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen

by Ken

The president's take on yesterday's vote by the Boy Scouts of America overturning the ban on membership by openly gay boys but maintaining the ban on openly gay Scout leaders, is the moderate middle-of-the-road position enunciated by many in the LGBT community and our sympathizers. It is the traditionally honored incrementalist response.

It's not my reaction, though. I find myself generally more comfortable with the statement issued by Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen:

Today's Boy Scout's decision was insulting and pandered to ignorance and bigotry at the expense of  gay people and their families. Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders was a compromise -- only in the sense that BSA compromised its integrity and decency. Let's be clear — this was not a step forward, but a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists.

Today's decision was degrading, dehumanizing, and disgraceful. It stigmatized LGBT people and their families and sends the dangerous message that they are inferior and a threat to society.

The new policy continues to tarnish the organization's image and TWO urges increased pressure on the BSA.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue, but a natural expression of who some people are. However, bigotry is a moral issue -- one which places the BSA on the wrong side of history.

TWO does applaud those who fought and victoriously ended the cruel ban on gay scouts. Now is the time to begin the next phase of this fight and bring down the final wall of BSA discrimination.

Of course way over on the other side of the issue, worshippers of the depravevd and bigoted status quo are having conniptions, announcing the end of civilization. Still, I'm with Wayne B -- "compromise" with degenerate fiends isn't really "compromise," it's capitulation.

I should add that I'm out of my comfort zone when it comes to the Boy Scouts, which were never part of my reality. My parents never explained it as such, but when I noticed other kids in school turning up in blue Cub Scout uniforms, it was communicated to me in some vague terms that no, we didn't do that. The "we," I came to understand, was Jewish folks.

I'm not saying there are no Jewish scouts, but I'm going to guess that the numbers aren't large. And anytime I read anything about arch-scout Robert Baden-Powell and what he thought he was up to with the youth of the British Empire, the freakier it all seems to me. Man, that was one weird dude. It's hard to imagine anyone less suitable for deciding what constitutes healthy physical and mental development for burgeoning lads.

My first thought is that the tradition-bound folks who think they're fighting for Baden-Powell's vision don't know much about that vision. My second thought is that quite possibly they are. Basically, the way i read yesterday's "split decision," it says:

Fagotry is of course a filthy preversion, but given the mounting pressures of political correctness, we can't afford to dump all the burden on the budding preverts but instead have to welcome them in the hope that it's just a phase and we can help them come out the right side of it so that just possibly they don't grow into the preverts we so rightly revile.

#

Tesla-- I wonder What Libertarians Think Of The Authoritarians Who Run The North Carolina GOP

I'm in the middle of buying a Tesla. My neighbor swears by his and, to me, it seems like the car least likely to pollute the planet. I have solar energy in my house so it won't even cost me anything to charge up the battery a few times a week. But, I couldn't just walk into a dealership and buy one. I had to do the whole process online. Works for me... but I don't live in North Carolina. I'll come back to that in a second.

The big news about Tesla this week was two-fold; first, many auto magazines are calling it the best care ever.

The new all-electric Tesla S sedan is not just the favorite of car magazines, now Consumer Reports calls it the best car they’ve ever driven, scoring 99 points of 100 and beating out the Lexus LS460 that held the previous record back in 2007. What does this massive battery-powered EV have that no others do?

“It handles like a sports car, it rides like a luxury car, it has the energy efficiency that is twice as good as the best hybrids and is the quietest car we’ve ever tested,” said CR tester Gabe Shenhar. “It does so many things so right on so many levels that to us it wasn’t a surprise.”

Perhaps that’s why Tesla Motors has sold more cars during the first quarter of 2013 than luxury German automakers, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi, prompting the Palo Alto-based firm to declare its first-ever profit and raise expected sales for 2013 from 20,000 to 21,000.

And, second, there was the thing about paying the government back all the money... 9 years early. Wednesday Tesla wired in a $451.8 million payment and, coupled with two earlier payments, paid off a $465 million loan they got from the Department of Energy loan in 2010 to foster development of advanced-technology vehicles. As Steve Benen reminds us, Romney and Ryan attacked Obama consistently for loaning Tesla the money. As usual, they were wrong and trying to politicize sound economic policy for narrow partisan gain. Aside from helping build an all-Americaan car company specializing in a clean-energy approach, the loan netted something like $12,000,000 is profit for the American people.

And that brings us back to North Carolina and the ham-fisted corruption that defines the backward, Republican-controlled legislature there. Car dealerships spend millions on legalistic bribes in local races. And they don't want the competition from Tesla. So where better to turn than the crackpots who run the North Carolina legislature?

A legislative proposal, backed by the N.C. Automobile Dealers Association, would make it illegal for Tesla, or any other car maker, to bypass dealerships and sell directly in the state. The proposal cuts at the heart of Tesla’s business model.

...[T]he proposal was unanimously approved by the state Senate’s Commerce Committee on Thursday, despite concerns about the state dictating who should be allowed to sell an automobile. North Carolina is the latest forum for the clash as auto dealers around the country have mobilized, mostly without success, in legislatures and in the courts to block Tesla’s direct car sales.

“They’re trying to insulate the dealer franchise model from any competition,” said Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s vice president for corporate and business development, who traveled to Raleigh to make a presentation to the committee. “It’s a protectionist move to lock down the market so we have to go through the middleman-- the dealer-- to sell our cars.”

The 10-year-old California company is seeking to upend stodgy electric car design by creating the antithesis of the practical plug-in and an alternative to the complex hybrid. Tesla’s 416-horsepower Model S can cruise 265 miles on a single charge. Just this week Consumer Reports awarded the car a near-perfect score of 99 out of a possible 100 points, gushing about the S’s “world-class performance.” The cars start around $69,900.

...“We care about the franchise system,” said Robert Glaser, president of the N.C. Automobile Dealers Association. “The whole point of the retail system is to protect the consumer.”

Is that the funniest thing you ever heard?

As Will Oremus of Slate put it this week, the bill to ban Tesla from North Carolina "is being pushed by the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group representing the state’s franchised dealerships. Its sponsor is state Sen. Tom Apodaca, a Republican from Henderson, who has said the goal is to prevent unfair competition between manufacturers and dealers. What makes it "unfair competition” as opposed to plain-old “competition"-- something Republicans are typically inclined to favor-- is not entirely clear. After all, North Carolina doesn’t seem to have a problem with Apple selling its computers online or via its own Apple Stores.

Still, it’s easy to understand why some car dealers might feel a little threatened: Tesla’s Model S outsold the Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8 last quarter without any help from them. If its business model were to catch on, consumers might find that they don’t need the middle-men as much as they thought.

Incidentally-- not that he would be in any way swayed by this-- I couldn’t help but notice that Apodaca received $8,000 in campaign contributions from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association last year, the maximum amount allowed by state law. I’ve reached out to the senator for further comment and will update this post if he replies.

There's definitely a dangerous authoritarian streak in North Carolina Republicans and they have been coming up with one crackpot reactionary idea after another-- to restrict voting rights, to target college students, to set up a state religion. They demanded the ocean stop rising and now they're demanding cars not be sold online. North Carolina fancies itself the most progressive state in the Old South. They need to get themselves a new legislature; STAT.

Republicans In Congress Hike The Cost Of Education For Poorest Students

Boehner puppet, John Kline (R-MN)

Last week, we warned that John Kline's House Education and Workforce Committee was dead set on raising the cost of college education. When Elizabeth Warren's amendment to lower the cost of student loans to 0.75%, just like the banksters get, it was voted down, every Republican plus Colorado New Dem Jared Polis voting against it in committee. Yesterday, the full House voted on Kline's awful bill, which Democrats are calling the Make College Less Affordable Act, and it passed 221-198 all but 8 Republicans-- most of whom, like GOP crackpots Louie Gohmert (TX), Vern Buchanan (FL) and Tom Cotton (AR) just oppose public education as a matter of their extremist ideology-- voting for it, along with 4 Democrats:

• Jared Polis (New Dem-CO)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)

Immediately after the vote Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) asked the question, Why are Republicans trying to make it more costly to attend college?

Students who work hard to get a college education should not be saddled with a lifetime of crushing debt. The latest Republican proposal would make getting a college education more expensive. College education is already too expensive. Why are Republicans trying to make it more costly to attend college?

In June, the student loan interest rate will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. Under the Republican ‘fix,’ when next year’s college freshmen start repaying their loans after they graduate, the interest rate on their college loan is projected to be 7.4%. Meanwhile, the world’s biggest banks borrow money from the government at an interest rate of 1% or lower.

                                                                                                     We should be helping students go to college. We shouldn’t charge students more to borrow for college than we charge banks. We support Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) and Rep. John Tierney’s (D-MA) bill to tie the student loan interest rate to the current Federal Reserve lending rate.

Education continues to be the gateway to the American Dream. At a time when more and more of our nation’s wealth goes to corporate profits instead of middle class wages, the Republican scheme continues handouts to Wall Street at millions of students’ expense.”

No one wants to talk about it, but Republicans would like to drive the children of working class households-- particularly children of color from working class households-- off the college path and into menial labor and trades. It's the Republican Party policy everyone knows about but no one mentions out loud. They're even willing to sacrifice the future of lower middle class white kids to accomplish their goal. Donna Edwards (D-MD) skirted the ugly truth yesterday after the vote, pointing out that "the Republican Majority introduced legislation which, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, would in fact make college more expensive for students and parents than if Congress did nothing. The bill would set variable interest rates for student loans tied to 10-year Treasury notes +2.5 percent for Stafford and +4.5 percent for PLUS loans. Under the Republican bill, students who borrow the maximum amount of subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans over five years would pay nearly $2,000 more in interest costs than if interest rates doubled. The bill passed the House by a vote of 221-198."

“America’s families simply cannot afford the Republican solution to student loan rates. That is why I proposed two amendments to reduce the cap for Stafford and PLUS loans, and further reduce the cap for Stafford loans for students pursuing the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Our economy requires that we curtail unaffordable student loan debt while incentivizing students to join a workforce that will ensure the United States’ competitiveness in the 21st century. Republicans rejected both these ideas, but I urge them to reconsider as Congress works towards a long-term higher education bill.

“My decision to attend Wake Forest University then law school came at a cost of $100,000, a quarter of that was a result of interest and service fees. I understand personally that we need a short and long-term solution to college affordability, but it is irresponsible to, at a time when a college education is more important and expensive than ever, to place more of a burden on our students and parents.”

But that's the point. Republicans don't want more Donna Edwardses rising up and championing the interests of working families. Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz: "The life chances of a young American are more dependent on the income and education of their parents than in other industrial countries... Students are being squeezed. Incomes are down, and tuition is going up. They don't qualify for Pell Grants, and their parents really have no way to pay tuition at most schools." He backs Warren's bill to lower the cost of student borrowing.

The White House released a statement just before the vote suggesting President Obama would veto the bill if it ever makes it to his desk. "Under the President's proposal, the rate on new Federal student loans would be set each year based on the Treasury's actual cost of borrowing, and would remain fixed for the life of the loan so that borrowers would have certainty about the rates they would pay. The President's proposal also would expand the 'Pay As You Earn' repayment option to ensure that no student borrower is required to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loans. "While the Administration welcomes action by the House on this issue, H.R. 1911 is the wrong approach. First, the bill would not guarantee low rates for today's students. A rate that continues to vary after the loan has already been taken out would create uncertainty and lessen transparency for students and their families who are making decisions about borrowing for college. Second, the bill's changes would impose the largest interest rate increases on low‑ and middle‑income students and families who struggle most to afford a college education. Third, the bill does not include the President's proposal to extend repayment options to borrowers who have already left school and often face the same debt burdens as current and future students. Finally, the Administration believes that student loan interest rates should not be raised to reduce the deficit. If the President were presented with this legislation in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

GMO: No One Is Perfect-- Not Even Elizabeth Warren

What about the corporate AgriBusiness predators?

America is embarrassingly overdue to have a woman president. Golda Meir, Indira Gandi and Margaret Thatcher headed their countries' governments in very dicey times. And aside from them, women have been heads of government in Germany, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Argentina, Portugal, Bolivia, Norway, Iceland, the Philippines, France, Chile, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, Canada, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and over a dozen other countries... including both Burundi and Rwanda. But electing a woman just because she's a woman is not what I have in mind. Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, for example, are women.

Unless you're new to this blog, you're probably aware of our immense esteem for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. She's certainly my idea of what a great first woman president would be. I'm sure Hillary Clinton will be a better choice than whatever stinking pile of garbage the Republicans puke up in 2016, but-- as happy I will be that we finally have a woman president-- Hillary isn't high on my list of great leaders. At best... she's ok sometimes. Of course, not even Elizabeth Warren is perfect, but, for one reason or another, she's a far better leader than Clinton and a far more dedicated progressive. That said, Friday Senator Warren made a bad mistake. She joined 27 Democrats from across the political spectrum-- from good ones like Tammy Baldwin, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown to the careful careerists like Kirsten Gillibrand, Bob Casey, Debbie Stabenow, and Jeanne Shaheen all the way to the worst worthless trash in the Democratic caucus like Joe Donnelly, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus-- to vote down an amendment by Bernie Sanders to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." Yep, only 26 Democrats plus Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski supported a bill to deal with GMO foods.

I wish Warren voted the right way. Do I still want her to be president? Absolutely. Everyone's entitled to a mistake. These are the Democrats who voted for Sanders' amendment, which was defeated 27-71:

• Mark Begich (D-AK)
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Pat Leahy (D-VT)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Harry Reid (D-NV)
• Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Brian Schatz (D-HI)
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• John Tester (D-MT)
• Tom Udall (D-NM)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

What a weird day when Joe Manchin votes the progressive position and Elizabeth Warren votes with the Republicans! By the way, Connecticut's Senate just passed a GMO-labeling bill 35-1. 64 other countries have GMO-labeling laws and some countries ban GMO products sold as food completely. "The concept we're talking about today is a fairly commonsense and non-radical idea," said Sanders just before the vote. "All over the world, in the European Union, in many other countries around the world, dozens and dozens of countries, people are able to look at the food that they are buying and determine through labeling whether or not that product contains genetically modified organisms."

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren Supports GMO-Labeling

Her Press Secretary, Lacey Rose gave me this statement after the vote yesterday: "The Senator supports labeling and supports the rights of states to set labeling standards based on health and safety. She supports the purpose of the Sanders amendment but voted no because the proposal would have eliminated the ability of the FDA to force states to comply with a more pro-consumer standard in the future."

OK; there you go.

Remember When Rahm Emanuel Was The Worst Thing About DC? Well, Of Course, Now He's The Worst Thing About Chicago

If you're interested in the space where education policy, politics and humor come together, you should be checking out EduShyster.com frequently. The site is premised on that fact that "behind every faddish, jargon-filled plan is a dirty little scheme that ends up making somebody a lot of money. The scary thing is that these fools are winning, and the only way to fight back is to expose the edushysters for the hypocritical charlatans that they are." This week they have a depraved Rahm Emanuel in their sites.

The final “vote” on which Chicago Public Schools to shutter may be a done deal, but the implications of the largest single school closure in US history will be felt well beyond the Windy City. Mayor Emanuel, who has long tethered his political fortunes to hedge-funded education reform, now has poll numbers hovering near the bottom of Lake Michigan. Meanwhile, the Chicago media has suddenly awakened and is practicing, once again, the long-lost art of journalism. And Chicago charter school fever is beginning to look an awful lot like old-fashioned Illinois-style “pay to play” corruption. In other words, on this bad news bears day, my outlook is decidedly wine-box-half-full…

The white course

Let’s start with Mayor Emanuel’s poll numbers. Did I say they were in Lake Michigan? I meant living on Lake Shore drive in a million dollar plus unit with great lake views. A recent poll found that the only voters left who unabashedly approve of the mayor’s education reform agenda are wealthy whites who live in the city’s lakefront wards. Six in ten Chicagoans oppose Rahm’s school closure plan, while a full 75% say they don’t like his vision for education in the city. Of voters with children who attend the Chicago Public Schools, just 9% said they side with the mayor in the debate over how to improve the schools. Fifty-four percent said they now side with the Chicago Teachers Union.

Welcome back, journalists. We’ve missed you!

The past few weeks have seen the kind of reporting that’s all too rare in today’s Walton-funded era of achievement gaptivism. Check out, for example, this “fact check” prepared by a local public radio station in which reporters examine the justifications being given for the mass school closings-- and debunk virtually all of them. Even the Chicago Tribune, which just weeks ago ran an editorial trumpeting the results of a pro-charter push poll, got in on the action. The Trib dug deep into official documents to dispute many of the claims being made by Mayor Emanuel et al and revealed once again just how dependent hedge-funded “reform” is on a lax and fawning press.

Pay for play

Meanwhile reporters at the Chicago Sun Times have been busy digging up the dirt on the state’s largest charter school operator: UNO Charter Schools. It turns out that Illinois’ new favorite past-time, *crushing* the achievement gap by constructing shiny academies of excellence and innovation, looks an awful lot like the state’s old favorite past-time: cash-fueled corruption.

Race to the top

The disproportionate impact of school closings on minority students has already resulted in multiple law suits. But could it finally prompt a conversation on the great white elephant in the room: the overwhelming whiteousness of the education reform movement vs: the communities that reformers are intent on improving? Based on this intriguing tweet from Teach for America CEO Matt Kramer, I’d say the chances are good.

We are so over

In case you missed it, opposition to the school closings in Chicago even precipitated an education reform break up. I’m talking, of course, about the recent decision by the University of Chicago chapter of Students for Education Reform to divorce their national organization. In this Dear John letter, the Chicago students hint at their discomfort with being the fresh Chicago faces of SFER’s national agenda. As for what that agenda is, I will say only that SFER is likely the only grassroots student group in the country to be funded by the Walton Foundation.

Even Republicans are pissed

And now a gratuitous shout out to my favorite Windy City blog: Chicago Public Fools.This Chicago Public Schools mom is representative of the astonishing diversity of voices that are now questioning the city’s education reform mantra. In this post, Red in a Blue City, she fillets would-be school privatizers like lake trout.

If this is all just over your head, just think of it like this-- Rahm and his Wall Street buddies are steering America towards Greece... without the warm Mediterranean breezes and the delicious fresh food. The prospects for children of working class kids is-- horrifying. "With Greece suffering the biggest economic depression in decades," writes ZeroHedge, "all so a few rich men can preserve their wealth and not have their EUR-denominated savings wiped out (even if the alternative means finally being able to rebalance externally using the Drachma instead of forcing internal rebalancing via unemployment and plunging wages), it was only a matter of time before we found out just how humiliating the conversion of the entire economy to a "gray," non-tax paying one would be for the citizens of Greece."

As the NYT reports, in just the past two years, the numbers of Greeks engaging in prostitution as a last course source of income has more than doubled: according to the National Center for Social Research, the number of people selling sex has surged 150 percent in the last two years.

Furthermore, with every business in which there is exploding "competition" and rich client scarcity, it is not just any prostitution, but very deflationary prostitution:

“Five euros only, just 5 euros,” whispered Maria, a young prostitute with sunken cheeks and bedraggled hair, as she pitched herself forward from the shadows of a graffiti-riddled alley in central Athens on a recent weeknight.

Many prostitutes have been selling their services for as little as 10 to 15 euros, a price that has shrunk along with the income of clients afflicted by the crisis. Many more prostitutes are taking greater health risks by having unprotected sex, which sells for a premium. Still more are subject to violence and rape.

Now a new menace has arisen: a type of crystal methamphetamine called shisha, after the Turkish water pipe, but otherwise known as poor man’s cocaine, brewed from barbiturates and other ingredients including alcohol, chlorine and even battery acid.

And with a surge in prostitution come the drugs, and the danger of an epidemic of blood-transmitted diseases, like HIV.
...Unfortunately for the country which is terrified to just say no to Europe due to the indoctrinated dread of what would happen if it left the Eurozone, this is only the beginning as the problem is far deeper, and it goes to the root of everything: an entire generation going to waste.

But while the Greek still soaring unemployment rate is no surprise to anyone, it is the youth unemployment that is the problem. And as the Telegraph reports, in some areas of Greece, youth unemployment has now hit an inconceivable 75%.

And all this Austerity, whether in Greece or Chicago, "just so the 0.001% uberwealthy can continue to get richer and richer courtesy of a year after year of flawed monetary and fiscal policy, even as the real world around them burns." What we need are more Penny Pritzkers in Obama's cabinet.

Who wouldn't pony up $12 for a beer imported all the way from Chicago?

The "imported" beer on the left, Goose Island, may be a splendid brew, but imported it's not, unless you count its Chicago provenance as such.

by Ken

At my very first job, more than a few summers ago, I was stationed primarily in the company's order-processing and accounts-receivable department, one feature of which was an entire long wall lined with file cabinets that contained the order account records. Yes, this will give you an idea just how many summers ago it was; at the time, it would never have occurred to anyone to do any of the order processing, or store any of the account records, on computers. Oh, the company did maintain certain records on computers, but they weren't computers of its own. One of my jobs, in fact, was to carry the new information to be input to the data-processing company.

(It so happened that only a door or two away from the building that housed that company, there was a deli whose sandwich offerings included a shrimp parmigiana hero that was stuffed with about four-inches'-thick worth of fried shrimp for some insanely plebeian price. I frequently arranged my schedule to stop for lunch after making my data delivery. Of course it was no hardship to be forced to "eat in the neighborhood." On the other side of Fifth Avenue from our office on East 46th Street there was a deli whose sandwich offerings included a comparably overstuffed and punily priced steak-and-onions hero. Do I need to add that both of those shops are long gone?)

Getting back to those file cabinets, all of the company's accounts were filed geographically -- first by state, then by city. At the end of this massive bank of file cabinets was a file drawer labeled "Foreign," with accounts filed by country. One day one of the clerks who worked on those accounts issued a plea for help. She was utterly unable to find the file she was looking for, in Indiana -- even though she had, she assured everyone, searched through the entire "Foreign" drawer.

It would be too much to presume that all these years later that young lady has worked her way up to a position of authority in the concession operation at the new Yankee Stadium. It may just be the work of someone with a comparable background in geography.

It's not that the domestic suds is such a bargain at Yankee Stadium, but for customers willing to pay the stiffer tab, the imported options included Goose Island, which as far as anyone knows comes to us straight from Chicago.
Patrick Wall reports for DNAinfo New York (lotsa links onsite):

Yankee Stadium Calls Chicago Brew 'Import" In Latest Beer Flub

CONCOURSE -- Yankee Stadium has hit another foul at the concession stands, charging thirsty ball fans $12 for an "import" beer that actually comes from Chicago.

It's the second time in two months the Bombers have made a suds snafu.

Last month, the stadium had to rename its "Craft Beer Destination" specialty alcohol booth when a fan pointed out that several drinks sold there did not meet the definitions either of craft or of beer.

Now, the Yankees are hastily altering cart signs that hawk $12 "Large Import Beer" after DNAinfo New York pointed out that the menu included Goose Island -- a domestic brew from the Windy City.

Legends Hospitality, the company that operates the stadium’s concessions, said Wednesday that the company is in the process of switching out signs at its four "import" beer carts to more accurately reflect its offerings.

Legends Hospitality spokesman Eric Gelfand said the new signs will read "Premium Beer" instead of "Import Beer," since the carts sell Goose Island's India Pale Ale, a Chicago-based Anheuser-Busch brew that has never been brewed overseas.

The carts also serve Beck’s, a brew originally made in Germany, which was recently bought by Anheuser-Busch and is now manufactured in the U.S. Their other Anheuser-Busch offerings, Stella Artois and Hoegaarden, are both imported from Belgium.

Gelfand said the carts were intended to sell only imports, but that Goose Island IPA was a last-minute replacement for another Anheuser-Busch import that fell through. He said patrons were clamoring for a good IPA.

"It’s a situation where, quite literally, the cart came before the horse," Gelfand said.

The flub wasn't lost on some of The Bronx's beer aficionados.

"Goose Island: It’s good beer -- but it’s not an import," said Bronx Beer Hall co-founder Anthony Ramirez. "Serious beer drinkers are serious about where their beer comes from and how it’s made."

Yankee Stadium was also caught red-faced during its home opener on April 1, when writer Amanda Rykoff noted that all the marked-up beverages sold at an artisanal-looking stand labeled "Craft Beer Destination" were actually MillerCoors products.

The drinks -- Blue Moon, Leinenkugel's Summer Shandy, Batch 19 and Crispin -- are all mass-produced, so they don’t fit the official Brewers’ Association definition of "craft," a chorus of online critics charged.

In addition, Crispin, a cider, doesn't count as "beer," they added.

"Once again, the Yankees have figured out yet another way to charge a superior price for an inferior product," Rykoff wrote on Tumblr.

After Deadspin and other media outlets picked up on the snafu, the stadium replaced the sign in a matter of days. Now it reads, "Beer Mixology Destination."

It occurs to me that Jerry Seinfeld's pal George Costanza, in addition to working for a time for the Yankees, occasional dabbled in the world of import-export, though it was generally an imaginary world. You don't suppose George could have something to do with the snafu, do you?

#

Self-Loathing Closet Case Lindsey Graham Shafts The LGBT Community

When California's most rabidly homophobic state Senator, Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) was arrested for drunken driving and discovered with a young male prostitute in his car, I was impressed with how quickly he came to terms with how disastrous his life in the closet had been.

Something happened that I guess caused me to realize that. When I was in sixth grade, the police had a raid in the sand dunes [near San Luis Obispo] and a bunch of gay men were arrested, probably charged with indecent activity. That sticks in my mind — the publicity and the shame around it. One of my teachers was one of the people. The talk among the kids, the talk among the adults, the talk in the community, the press — at that time the choice was pretty clear: If you were gay and open, it was a life of shame, ridicule, innuendo about molesting and perversion. It was a dark life. Given that choice of whether you come out or whether you're in secret, I mean, there really wasn't a choice.

...The best I can do is to say that I was hiding. I was so in terror I could not allow any attention to come my way. So any measure that had to do with the subject of sexual orientation was an automatic "no" vote. I was paralyzed by this fear, and so I voted without even looking at the content. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of people under the law, regardless of our skin color, national origin, our height, our weight, our sexual orientation. This is a nation predicated on the belief that there is no discrimination on those characteristics, and so my vote denied people equal treatment, and I'm truly sorry for that.

Not every Republican who forced the Senate to strip LGBT couple out of the comprehensive immigration bill this week is a closet case. But self-loather Lindsey Graham is. "Everyone" in Washington knows he is but he's allowed to get away with threatening to scuttle the whole bill if it includes gays like himself. Last week former GOP congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) married his boyfriend. Because of DOMA-- which he voted for while still closeted-- he won't be able to sponsor his new Panamanian husband's residence permit in the U.S. Lindsey Graham will have his painful day of reckoning as well.

Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who first introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, in the year 2000 and has re-introduced a version of LGBT immigration equality legislation in each subsequent Congress, was dismayed that the Senate scuttled his legislation.

As the House sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), I am extremely disappointed that an amendment to ensure equal treatment for same-sex, bi-national couples was withheld, without a vote, during the Senate Judiciary Committee consideration of the immigration reform legislation. I applaud the leadership of Chairman Leahy, who was determined to–and did–offer an amendment that would allow LGBT families to stay together. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans made clear that they are unwilling to even consider ending the harsh discrimination that LGBT families face in our immigration process, and the disturbing decision to give in to their threats and fear-mongering has again let prejudice rule the day. Excluding LGBT couples cannot be reconciled with so-called “comprehensive” immigration reform. Committed LGBT couples deserve better than the wanton cruelty that current law exacts, and the failure to even hold a vote both condemns thousands of loving families to more needless suffering and gives unfair cover to those unwilling to stand up for justice.

  Despite this setback, I will continue to press forward in our fight to get relief for these families. And I remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will do what’s right in the Windsor case, by overturning DOMA, and ending discrimination under federal immigration and other laws against legally married same-sex couples.

Leahy is expected to reintroduce the LGBT amendment again while the immigration bill is on the Senate floor, so that Lindsey Graham hysteria won't scuttle it. If Miss McConnell, another deranged closet case, decides to lead a filibuster-- which is likely-- it won't get a vote. But in a straight up or down vote, it would easily win, with several Republicans crossing the aisle. Many non-Southern Republicans would prefer not to be forced into voting on the issue. A large and growing majority of non-Southerners backs equality for the LGBT community. If the Republicans use the immigration bill as a hostage against gays, the Republicans who are the most likely to suffer next year are not rotten closet cases Graham and McConnell-- who represent anti-equality states-- but... no one. It's not likely that a single GOP senator will lose in 2014 because of homophobia (unless Graham and McConnell get into some kind of Larry Craig- or Mark Foley-like scandal) but it further damages the Republican brand and could help persuade independent and moderate voters in close House elections to give up on their GOP incumbents, particularly these 15 seats in areas where people are not interested in legislating bigotry:

• Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)
• Buck McKeon (R-CA)
• Tom Reed (R-NY)
• Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm (R-NY)
• Joe Heck (R-NV)
• Jon Runyan (R-NJ)
• John Kline (R-MN)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)
• Jeff Denham (R-CA)
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
• Jim Gerlach (R-PA)
• Tom Latham (R-IA)
• Mike Coffman (R-CO)
• Chris Gibson (R-NY)

Ironically, in Gibson's case, the opponent likely to beat him next year is Sean Eldridge, a wealthy venture capitalist married to Facebook founder Chris Hughes. Money won't be an issue.

Too Big To Fail Again

Just 12 banks control almost 70% of total bank assets. This week at a Banking Committee hearing, Elizabeth Warren grilled Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about capping the size of the Too Big To Fail banks. He danced around her questions and sounds as full of crap as any GOP bank shill who's looking forward to his future on Wall Street. Notice in Lew's weasely, misleading answers he says "we" shouldn't do anything because we're in the middle of implementing Dodd-Frank. But mostly what they're doing with Dodd Frank is figuring out how to water it down, eviscerate it and make it more amenable to the Wall Street predators. Matt Taibbi, who says it's as regular as the seasons, that Wall Street executives and lobbyists seek to gut any safeguards to their greed and recklessness, is on the case:

In the last two weeks, we've seen two major developments here. There was a wave of deregulatory bills that snuck through the House with surprisingly bipartisan support, and a series of regulatory decisions by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that will seriously weaken the already-weak Dodd-Frank reform legislation, particularly with regard to derivatives trades.

If a story about a wave of bills designed to prevent the meager derivatives reforms passed in Dodd-Frank from being enacted sounds familiar, that's because it is. I wrote almost exactly the same story a year ago, in the middle of May, 2012, when a herd of Wall Street-friendly congresshumans teamed up in the House Financial Services Committee to push through a wave of nine ambitious bills targeting derivatives reform. This is from last spring:

The nine bills being contemplated by Congress take a variety of approaches to gutting Dodd-Frank. Two bills, H.R. 1840 and H.R. 2308, are essentially stalling tactics, requiring regulators to undertake more of those sweeping cost-benefit analyses that result in lengthy delays. Another bill, H.R. 3283, is more substantive: Sponsored by Connecticut Democrat and hedge-fund industry BFF Jim Himes, it exempts foreign affiliates of U.S. swaps dealers from all Dodd-Frank oversight.

The rule, if implemented, would make the next AIG possible, given that AIG was undone by half a trillion dollars in derivative bets produced by such a foreign affiliate – its London-based financial products outfit, AIGFP. If passed, says Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina, H.R. 3283 would leave a "massive, gaping hole" in Dodd-Frank. "It would be very easy to move those trades to whatever the most indulgent country would be," Miller explains.

After those bills escaped the House, most of them stalled on the way to the Senate, where of course the Democrats still hold a majority and are reluctant to openly scrap Dodd-Frank just yet.

But this is the key to understanding how financial lobbyists succeed in getting what it wants on the regulatory front: They never stop. It's not a war of ideas, it's a war of resources. You march up the Hill with some crazy idea about overturning a bill prohibiting bailouts of companies that engage in risky derivative trades, you get knocked down, and you march up again, then you march up again, and again...

With each successive attempt, you peel off a few more Committee members in the House, slowly but surely weakening resolve. And while you're attacking on the legislative front, you also file a series of lawsuits that tie up the process by targeting reforms in court, and then you also send armies of lobbyists to sit in the laps of regulators during the rule-making process, so that key new laws (like the Volcker rule, designed to separate risky trading from federally-insured depository banking) are either written in reams of industry-friendly language, or delayed altogether.

No matter how bad your ideas are, and how unpopular they are (or, rather, would be, if anyone in the general public understood them and/or cared enough about them to complain to their congressional reps), you can still score huge wins just by continually attacking and chipping away.

Which brings us to this month: A little while back, I got a call from someone in the House. "You wouldn't believe the shit they just pushed through the Financial Services Committee,” he groaned. This person read off a list of bills, suggested I look them up, then specifically told me to look at how many Democrats voted "yea" on them.

"A lot of bad D votes on this one," was the editorial comment here.

Almost all of these bills turned out to be aimed directly at Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, i.e. the derivatives portion.

...[T]he Democrats have become the victims of their own pusillanimity on these issues. The main Wall Street argument against these new rules is that they're excessive and onerously complicated. But they're only complicated because the Democrats didn't have the stones in the original Dodd-Frank debate to insist on simple concepts like putting all trades on open exchanges.

Instead, they built a system based upon a series of fiendishly complicated compromises. They keep adding more and more fine print to the infrastructural rules for things like Swap Execution Facilities and deriviatives clearing, and the more fine print there is, the more cracks and crevices Wall Street's lawyers can find to slither through.

Anyway, this is just a reminder that when it comes to getting transparency in the financial markets, this is what it takes. You have to fight the same fight over and over and over again. And again...

Conservative and/or corrupt House Democrats on the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee are voting with Republicans to gut Dodd-Frank. In March, writing about what a corporate shill Ann Kuster had twisted herself into, I mentioned that the derivatives vote she backed "is an especially bad idea-- one that crosses a bright red line. Former Goldman Sachs banker Jim Himes (R-CT) is working with Republicans to pass it and Kuster was one of the Democrats who went along. She's touting her connivance with Murphy on a phony-baloney bipartisan caucus (which includes mostly extreme right-wing Republican sociopaths like domestic terrorist Steve Stockman) and she told a New Hampshire audience recently that 'On social issues, I am what they call progressive. But on the rest of the issues, I’m business-oriented.' So a Republican on economic justice?"

And doing the same thing on House Financial Services is another phony "liberal," careerist Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ).

Tuesday at a House Financial Services Committee meeting, Arizona freshman Kyrsten Sinema, who's racked up one of the most reactionary voting records of any Democrat in Congress, might have thought no one was looking when she sold out her own constituents in favor of Wall Street banksters. She backed all the GOP's deregulation proposals and then touted it in the Democratic caucus. She wasn't who I was talking about here... but she certainly could have been.

...Don't expect heroism from the Kyrsten Sinemas of the word. Careerism... sure, but not heroism or anything remotely resembling courageousness. Steve Israel dictates her votes; he told the "Frontline Democrats" how to vote and there are only 7 of them who have followed his orders "100% of the time," to quote one of them feeble enough to send me a note about it defending a crap record. These are the 7 freshmen with 40% ProgressivePunch scores (same as right-wing sociopath Paul Broun (R-Pit of Hell)-- who have voted as a block 60% of the time against progressive positions on crucial roll calls:

• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Bill Foster (New Dem- IL)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Ann Kuster (NH)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)

None of these congressmembers is too big to fail. If you support any of them-- as the better of two evils-- you're perpetrating the cruel game fake Democrats play on America's working families. After Lew was finished in the Senate, he ambled over to the House Financial Services Committee, where Ranking Member Maxine Waters had suggested that the big Wall Street banks be indicted for laundering drug money for organized crime. She greeted Lew by voicing her concerned "that our financial system remains at risk from delays in implementation of Dodd-Frank and continued industry challenges, both here in Congress and in the courts, to weaken the rules before they’ve even been implemented. While Title VII of Dodd-Frank was designed to increase the transparency of the over-the-counter derivatives market, many of the most critical components remain stalled in rulemakings, challenged in the courts, or obstructed in the Congress.

This slow pace of Title VII rulemakings, combined with delays in implementation of the Volcker Rule, finalization of the living wills and the designation of systemically important financial institutions, are made only more troubling when considered in the context of the myriad financial scandals-- from the LIBOR and money laundering cases to illegal foreclosures-- that have occurred since the passage of the Wall Street Reform Act. For these reasons, I am concerned that our financial system remains fragile, despite substantial improvements since 2008.

Does Your Congressman Want To Embroil The U.S. In A War in Syria? Most Do-- Both Parties

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) wants to drag the U.S. into another Middle East War

There are a lot of victims and a lot of "bad guys" in the Syrian civil war. But, from a U.S. perspective, there are no good guys. Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Bob Menendez (D-NJ) voted 15-3 to arm the rebels. The three dissenting votes were from Mark Udall (D-CO), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Chris Murphy (D-CT). Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) warned of the dangers of arming rebel forces whose intentions are unknown. "I think we have to ask the question, 'Who are we arming?'" Sen. Udall asked fellow senators. "To tell you the truth, I don't think we know.…It changes every day."

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said lawmakers who supported the legislation were in effect supporting the provision of arms to rebel groups that are "the allies of al Qaeda," referring to the Islamist al-Nusra Front, a powerful force in the insurgency against Mr. Assad. "It's an irony you cannot overcome."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) countered Mr. Paul's argument, saying arms now were flowing to Nusra and to the Assad regime, marginalizing more moderate elements in the resistance. To address concerns that U.S. antiaircraft weapons could fall into the hands of extremists, the legislation would require the president to certify that such arms, if he decides to provide them, have been equipped with tracking, disabling or anti-tamper devices.

Tuesday's exchange in the Golan Heights marked the first time the Syrian army has acknowledged firing intentionally at Israeli troops since the civil war began. In a statement, Syria's army said it had destroyed an Israeli jeep that crossed over its border. Israel's army chief, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, denied that allegation-- instead accusing the Syrian leader of fomenting instability, in a sharp departure from previous Israeli characterizations of cross-border fire as errant spillover from Syria's war.

"We will not allow the Golan Heights to become comfort zone for Assad's reprisals," Lt. Gen. Gantz said. "If he destabilizes the Golan Heights, he will bear the consequences." Tensions between the sides have risen in recent weeks after Israeli airstrikes near Damascus targeted what Western intelligence officials say were missiles en route to Hezbollah.

The legislation was authored by Menendez who made a bunch of spurious claims that "Vital national interests are at stake and we cannot watch from the sidelines." There is a similar piece of legislation working its way through the House, cosponsored by AIPAC/Israeli agent Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY) who is salivating at the thought of killing Syrians and Iranians and sounds more like John McCain and Lindsey Graham when it comes to war than what people think a Democratic is supposed to sound like. He was elected by his Democratic colleagues as the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He's one of the worst and most repulsive warmongers on teh Democratic side of the aisle, with very dubious loyalty to the U.S. when it comes to matters that even remotely concern Israel. And, there is no light between reactionary GOP warmonger Ed Royce (R-CA), the chairman of the committee, and Engel. Tuesday he said arming the rebels "would put our Syria policy on the best possible course... "Syria presents us with a series of difficult policy choices, but the most sensible of the alternatives is to support the moderate opposition. Otherwise, we leave the field to pro-Iran and pro-al-Qaeda forces to determine Syria's fate, and Syria will remain a humanitarian and strategic disaster."

President Barack Obama rebuffed a proposal last year to arm moderate rebel groups despite support for the move by top cabinet members, including the then-Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In recent weeks, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have begun looking anew at the option of providing arms to moderate rebels groups, possibly in concert with Britain and France, according to senior administration officials.

The Senate bill authorizes the U.S. to provide small arms and training to units of the Free Syrian Army and other groups opposed to the Assad regime "that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States." The bill says antiaircraft systems can't be transferred.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama's response to the Syria crisis, said the legislation "sends a signal to the administration" that it needs to get more involved in helping end the crisis in Syria.

But Mr. McCain said more action will be needed beyond providing small arms "if we are going to reverse the tide that's now taking place in favor of Bashar Assad." Sen. McCain said the rebels need heavier weapons that those authorized under the current Senate bill.

Marco Rubio knows less than the average college junior about foreign policy. When he read his talking points, he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. I got the idea Rand Paul wanted to punch him in the mouth and send him home crying. “The U.S. cannot solve every conflict on the planet. But I believe it’s in the national interest of the United States to ensure that the strongest, best-organized, and best-funded elements in a post-Assad Syria and even before his fall are interests that are aligned with us and are friendlier to us than the alternative.”

These are the senators who blundered into dragging the U.S. into another war in the Middle East:

• Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
• Bob Corker (R-TN)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Bob Casey (D-PA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Tim Kane (D-VA)

Lindsey Graham, one of the Senate's most vocal advocates of war-- anywhere, any time-- isn't on the Foreign Relations Committee. But he's been braying up a storm about sending U.S. forces into Syria. The Democrat running against him in Jay Stamper, who sounds more like Rand Paul when it comes to waging the kinds of aggressive wars Graham can't get enough of. A few weeks ago he told us that "the main reason we should all care about retiring Lindsey Graham is the carelessness with which he advocates the use of American military force abroad. There is something disturbing about someone who has never seen combat being so consistently eager to deploy other people’s sons and daughters overseas. Maybe that’s why he has falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a Gulf War veteran." He continued:

I believe that Graham may be one of those people who appreciates our military's capabilities and are frustrated when they aren’t being employed. It’s like having a brand new sports car in your garage all gassed up, the keys in the ignition, but not being able to take it for a spin.

Having voted to authorize the use of force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was Graham not chastened when these two wars left over 100,000 civilians and U.S. soldiers dead or wounded and our economy on life support. Did he consider resigning, maybe to write a memoir in the hope that we could at least learn from his mistakes. At the very least, did he shy away from any future discussion of foreign policy. No-- not Lindsey. Instead, he’s weighing in on Syria. After reviewing all the facts, he’s come to a conclusion that we need boots on the ground and we need to bomb the country with cruise missiles.

There are so many ways this can backfire. Cornering Assad with U.S. force would make it more likely-- not less-– that he would resort to using chemical weapons out of desperation. The Arab proverb is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” and intervening would make us friends with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaida. We could end up spending money and American lives replacing a brutal dictatorship with a radical theocracy. Lindsey actually wants us to arm fractured rebel groups, many of whom have already committed war crimes. Their empowerment would risk the disintegration of any central government and could turn Syria into a sort of lawless failed state like Somalia, even more of a refuge for terrorists than it is currently. Not to know how wrongheaded it is to intervene is to ignore the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and also to ignore the complexity of the Syrian situation, which virtually guarantees undesired and unintended consequences.

Lindsey, can you look into the eyes of these troops, or their parents, and honestly tell them that deploying on a mission to Syria has a high probability of making Americans safer, advancing the interests of the United States or contributing to regional stability in the Middle East? In fact, intervening in the crisis will not do any of these things.

Can you look into the eyes of the veterans of past wars who are disabled and homeless and tell them they just need to wait longer to get the help they need because we need those billions of dollars to fight yet another war? And how can we claim to support the troops when we send them to war and forget when they get home, voting to cut benefits for people who risked everything to serve our country?

Has Lindsey Graham thought about how $1.4 trillion in war spending could have been used to improve people’s lives? We could have increased funding for the National Institutes of Health by 600% every year for the last 10 years, speeding the development of treatments and cures for cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, MS, and countless other diseases that destroy more lives every year than any Islamic terrorist could dream of. We could have provided low-income healthcare to 70 million people for 10 years, or hired an additional 2 million public elementary school teachers for 10 years. We could have provided 17 million military veterans VA medical care for 10 years, or provided 4-year university scholarships to 40 million students.

Don’t let Lindsey Graham (or anyone else) question your patriotism because you disagree with his foreign policy views. This is a senator who single-handedly blocked President Obama’s popular choice for Defense Secretary-- not out of principled opposition-- but to gain leverage over the President on a completely unrelated issue. As a result, the United States was without a Secretary of Defense at a time of escalating tensions overseas.

Want to help an advocate for peace replace a warmonger always trying to prove how macho he is by sending troops to war? You can support Jay Stamper's campaign here.