Well, the Right Wing Corporatists have, once again, trotted out the old American Exceptionalism argument. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, has a couple of articles that try to make the case that the United States is exceptional and, by association, should be able to do just what it damned well pleases.

The Exceptionalism Backlash article is a very short piece that doesn't seem to hold together all that well. The second article, which appears to be almost a manifesto, is titled, "An Exceptional Debate: The Obama Administration's Assault on American Identity."

Today's Supreme Court decision allowing basically unlimited corporate (and union) contributions to political activity may not be the dire situation that it seems to be on its face.

When you look at the immediate impact then, yes, it's huge. Wealthy corporations, the very ones who are opposed to energy/health/environmental/social/political reforms, can sponsor political advertisements that don't directly support a candidate. While that's more than a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the essential fallacy of the distinction, it does nonetheless give corporations huge war chests with which to, well, wage war against those of us who dare to oppose their corporatist agendas.

On the other hand...

We all work hard, and we're serious about the things we write about. But now and again...

Okay. It's time for a little belly laughter. Pure, unadulterated laughter. And laughing just because. Just because laughter is truly wonderful.

Let those endorphins flow.

In a Newsweek Article entitled, "Requiem for the Right," Sam Tenenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, offers a rather scathing indictment of the political right. Tenenhaus is working on a biography of William F. Buckley and offers this interesting bit of information:

Ronald Reagan liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding "the politics of stability," Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of "civil society" (in Burke's term) above those of his own movement or the GOP.

Listen to a commentary from a conservative Republican, Rod Dreher, who takes Sarah Palin to task for just not being up to the challenge.

Poor Sarah.

Read Rod Dreher's blog and an excerpt from it in the comment below.

There's a fabulous book by Daniel Yergin entitled, The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy. A multi-part PBS Frontline documentary was created from the book as well. If you want to get a thoroughly engaging history lesson in 19th, 20th, and even 21st century Capitalism, Communism, Keynesian economics vs Chicago School economics, third-world economics and politics, and the conflicts among the superpowers for political and economic supremacy in the 21st century, then the DVD of the Frontline series will be a real learning experience. It's available for sale at Amazon, or as a rental via places like NetFlix.

The Commanding Heights was a phrased used by Lenin as a reference to controlling the means of production--agriculture, utility power, transportation and transportation fuels, mining, heavy industry, banking, etc. If you'd like a well-written synopsis of the book and DVD, check out the Wikipedia article here.

On a recent edition of Bill Moyers' Journal, he aired about 20 minutes of a recent film based on Maggie Mahar's book, "Money-Driven Medicine." The trailer is below the fold.

If you can find the film (Amazon shows it's been discontinued by the distributor), it's full of accurate information about the real American medical system. Unfortunately, the trailer doesn't do justice to the sobering facts presented, primarily from doctors and other health care providers themselves. The movie presents an amazing diagram of the labs and testing company spinoffs, wholly-owned nested corporations, and the resulting blatant conflicts of interests in our system of medicine. Absolutely stunning--and anger provoking.

Ask different questions.

If you get an opportunity, go to National Public Radio and listen to the Fresh Air segment that Terry Gross did yesterday with David Weigel of the Washington Independent blog.

Interesting information, and another tool for those of us keeping an eye on the right, and especially fringe elements. When Terry asked Weigel if he was concerned about giving too much press coverage to fringe crazies, Weigel said that the importance of his work was tracking which of the crazies' ideas escaped and made it into the mainstream dialog of the right. That's where the real dangers are. That's how the Birther stuff got started and how it morphed into something more than a rant by a handful of nutballs. But Weigel insists that if people listening to these weird arguments get an idea of how the ideas were generated in the first place--and who ginned them up--then maybe they'd start asking tough questions.

Ask different questions.

Excellent short video with Howard Dean on MSNBC's "Countdown."

Philip Longman explains why GOP scare tactics on the healthcare debate are invalid because the system has proven to be effective already--for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, for example.

Watch the video here.

First off, welcome to Nan Aron as an author. It's great to have Alliance for Justice represented here.

The right loves to talk about not wanting judges to "legislate from the bench." They want "strict constructionists" (whatever that means), who will rule according to a strict reading of the Constitution. A strict reading of the Constitution is in the eye of the beholder, however, in the same way that different people interpret the Bible in different ways for their own purposes. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides for the common defense and the general welfare (and all in the same sentence, no less). But the corporate right only wants the common defense part; they don't like the general welfare wording and what it means for their economic interests, so they ignore it as if it isn't there.

Every time there's a ruling in one of the 12 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, it creates a precedent that has the effect of law in federal lawsuits. It's called case law, and it's been around since the founding of our republic.