Buy Amoxicillin No Prescription - Online DrugStore

I find that seeing the words “Obama,” “dismisses,” “Bush” and “appointees” in the same sentence of a news report gives me a profound sense of relief. Am I a bad person?

It turns out that political obstructionism is addictive -- as addictive, it seems, as cigarettes, heroin and making fun of Rush Limbaugh. Who knew? And who, for that matter, would have guessed that a major political party would become so enamored with the sheer joy of the act of obstruction that it would happily bet its very existence as a viable political player for the next 30-years on it. Amazingly, though, the GOP appears ready to do just that. The history of this addiction isn’t hard to trace: early glimmers appeared during Bill Clinton’s presidency, those heady days when presidential lies involved blowjobs instead of war, torture and the shredding of the constitution. Back then, GOP senators systematically stalled Clinton’s judicial nominations. It got so bad, in fact, that even ultraconservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist complained about the resulting high vacancy rate in the federal courts. But Senate Republicans didn’t reach their full potential as obstructionists until after the 2006 congressional elections, when the Democrats took control of the Senate. Disinclined to give even a smidgen of weight to the clear desires of the voters, who had, after all, just handed them a staggering rebuke, Republicans fell head over heels in love with the filibuster (yeah, the very same filibuster they’d decried as the root of all evil back when they were in the majority). Over the next two years, GOP led filibusters became standard operating procedure in the Senate, as common as Republican sex scandals. It worked like this: the Democratic House would pass a bill with relative ease, often with bipartisan support. When it went to the Senate, however, the Republicans would filibuster -- again and again. And since the Democrats were in the majority by a mere whisker, with a 51-to-49 split (including the two independents caucusing with the Democrats), they had little luck in coming up with the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Even bills enjoying considerable bipartisan support in the Senate were filibustered to death. At times, it seemed the Republicans were filibustering for the pure joy of it. And then the voters spoke -- again. And once again, their message was anything but garbled. In a wholesale repudiation of just about everything Republican, they not only elected Barack Obama president, but swept Democrats into substantially increased majorities in both houses of Congress. In the Senate, assuming Al Frankin hangs on and you count Joe Lieberman, the Democrats now hold 59 seats, one short of a filibuster-proof majority. So, surely, after two such massive drubbings, the remaining Senate Republicans must finally have learned their lesson, right? But no -- seemingly as obstructionist as ever, they now appear dead set on trying to scuttle Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. They deny it, of course -- claiming they’re not trying to kill the bill, just to slow it down a little to make certain there’s enough oversight against wasteful government spending (where were they during the early days of the Iraq war?). But their ultimate goal is clear: to begin building public opposition to the bill, by pointing to examples of alleged “pork” spending. And the major media, predictably pro-Republican on economic issues, appears to be playing along. Would they actually filibuster? One wouldn’t think so, given the politics of the situation and the fact the Democrats would need to attract only one or two Republican votes, but recent history suggests something else. It was, after all, only a few weeks ago that the Republicans used the filibuster to kill a proposed auto bailout bill. (They wanted a more union busting approach taken, which, they were no doubt pleased to see, materialized in the eventual Bush Administration bailout). So it is just possible that the GOP actually will decide, as insane as it would be, to drive both itself and the country off the cliff in the mist of the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. Maybe they really are that dumb. Economists, liberals and conservatives alike, agree that we’re in for a long and painful recession -- and that’s the optimistic view: the pessimists see us sliding into a full-fledged depression (something the optimists don’t rule out). People are already hurting badly in this country and no one -- not a single expert I’m aware of -- thinks we’ve come anywhere close to hitting bottom. So, if given all this, the GOP thinks obstructing a popular new president’s recovery plan is good politics, well, good luck with that. Republicans take comfort in poll results they believe show the public is skeptical of the wisdom of a huge federal package (although the polls show strong public support for Obama’s plan). They also take solace in the fact many Americans were skeptical of the wisdom of bailing out Detroit. They think this gives them an opening. Sorry, guys, but it doesn’t matter. When the economic shit hits the fan, fairly or not, voters tend to look to blame someone. And you can take it to the bank they aren’t going to blame themselves. If the Republicans are seen as playing politics in obstructing Obama’s efforts at economic recovery in the face of the current crisis, the party will be toast for a generation (if it isn’t already). And on one’s going to remember, or frankly give a damn, what the public opinion polls showed at the time they were doing the obstructing. The GOP is dancing with disaster here. They just may end up married to it.

Guess what I just got from the Obama folks: MY TICKET TO THE INAUGERATION -- well, sort of. Under the heading “YOUR TICKET TO HISTORY, with a cute little picture of a ticket, arrived the following message in my email account:

Steven -- Barack Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States of America on January 20th, 2009. It will be an unprecedented event in the history of our country, and hundreds of thousands of people will come together in Washington, D.C. to share the moment. Supporters like you made this happen. You know that real change comes from the bottom up, not from the top down, and Barack and Joe want you to join them on this historic day. They want to start off this administration with the people who worked so hard and will continue to fight for change with them. Between now and January 8th, 10 supporters and their guests will be selected to join the Inaugural activities. If you make a donation -- in any amount -- to make the Inauguration a success, you and a guest could be flown to Washington, D.C., put up in a hotel, and be there as Barack is sworn in as the 44th President.

They’re holding a freakin’ fund raising raffle for tickets to the inauguration -- a freakin’ raffle! I respect the fact they’re trying to fund the big party through private donations rather than corporate gifts -- that’s a good thing. But a freakin’ raffle? What’s next? Presidential signing pens sold on eBay?

To once again quote that great American, Gomer Pyle -- Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! It turns out that having kids sign virginity pledges is completely ineffective. Yet another study proves that those taking the pledges are every bit as likely to nibble on (or swallow whole) the forbidden fruit as those who haven’t. The only difference being that the pledge takers are less likely to take precautions against pregnancy -- and ain’t that grand! I could, of course, use this opportunity to once again rail against the stupidity of the whole concept of abstinence only sex education, but this time I’ll pass. Instead, I’ll simply note that the poor souls who actually believed virginity pledges would work must never have had a weight problem. I can’t count the number of times I’ve made a solemn pledge that “this time I’ll stick to that diet,” only to attack the candy stash later that very same day. When you get right down to it, the dignity of a sacred pledge to diet generally doesn’t hold up very well for most of us middle-aged tubby types when faced with the sinister temptation of a Snickers Bar. And people expect a similar pledge to beat out teenage hormones? Jeepers.

If you’re wondering why I didn’t blog much over the Holidays, there’s a simple explanation: I went to Canada to avoid being drafted in the War on Christmas. I had no choice but to run, my lottery number was six!

So, according to Gabriela Shalev, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Israel’s goal in the current hostilities in the Gaza Strip is to destroy Hamas. Let’s assume they can pull it off: what exactly do they expect will replace it? Social Democrats in the European tradition, perhaps? The recurring inability of people to see that bad is often replaced by worse is nothing short of astonishing.

Barack Obama, as surely you know by now, isn’t a liberal or a conservative: he’s a pragmatist. We know this because that’s what everyone is saying and surely everyone wouldn’t lie. So just exactly what is this mighty pragmatism of which we speak? According to Mr. Webster (or is it Mr. Merriam, I always get those two confused) it means this: "Pragmatism: a practical approach to problems and affairs." A bit more specificity might have been nice, but I suppose this gives us the general idea: pragmatism means doing what works as opposed to getting too wrapped up in things like ideology and principle. And if that’s so, it would seem that pragmatism is what pragmatism does. Which means to me, if pragmatism represents building a functioning system for universal health insurance, I’m all for it. On the other hand, if it means inviting an infamous homophobe to give the benediction at the presidential inauguration, then I’m not so hot on it. Yet, on the whole, if Obama being a pragmatist means he will work to actually get something done to address America’s problems, count me as an enthusiastic supporter. Addressing our problems (as opposed to gratuitously creating new ones as in Iraq) is certainly something that’s been conspicuously absent -- and much missed -- over the past eight years. The thing is, I hope Obama understands that real pragmatism (as opposed to its use as an excuse for politically expedient sellouts) can be hard and thankless work -- much harder than being an ideologue. We’ve had a unique opportunity to watch ideologues in action over the last eight years, of course -- and it strikes as a fairly easy way of life. Just do what your ideology tells you to do whether it works or not (which in the case of Bush, Cheney and the Republicans has been pretty much never). As to Obama, to begin with the good news: I have no doubt at all that he is up to doing the hard work required for true pragmatism. During his two plus years of backbreaking campaigning he was anything but a slacker (the current dictionary definition for the term political slacker, by the way, includes a photograph of Fred Thompson). No, an aversion to hard work isn’t the part of being a true pragmatist I worry about in the case of Obama -- it’s the thankless part: because being a truly pragmatic president will require royally pissing off some very powerful people. Is Obama really prepared to do this? I’m honestly unsure, but I think I know what the ultimate test will be -- Israel. Viewed by any rational standard, America’s policy towards Israel represents the ultimate in counter-pragmatism. In fact, it’s down right masochistic. Every year, the United States shovels billions upon billions of dollars in military assistance into this one tiny Middle Eastern nation. Indeed, one study suggests that the total cost to the United States for its support of Israel had reached $3 trillion in 2002 (you could almost buy a bailout for that kind of money). At the same time, the United States, in contrast to the rest of the world, continues to offer unqualified support for whatever actions Israel takes in its conflict with the Palestinians, no matter how ham-fisted or unnecessarily brutal they may be. We can see this phenomenon in operation right now, as both the Bush Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress veritably bubble with enthusiasm in offering their endorsements of the current Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip. Absent from these statements, of course, is even the slightest sense of perspective -- or any willingness to acknowledge the suffering that has been caused by Israel’s clearly illegal policies of group punishment against the Palestinian people. The damage caused to America’s standing in the world by this slavishly "pro-Israeli" attitude can hardly be debated. It pollutes everything else we try to accomplish in the Middle East and the greater Islamic world. It destroys our ability to be act as an “honest broker” in Middle Eastern peace talks. It makes us look like hypocrites when we deplore the lawlessness of other Middle Eastern nations, while ignoring Israel’s forty year defiance of UN resolutions. But the saddest thing of all about America’s bankrupt approach to the Middle East is that it damages Israel. As many within the Jewish State themselves are coming to see, Israel badly needs a little “tough love” from the United States -- a strong push to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a comprehensive settlement. The long term threat to Israel, after all, doesn’t come from the possibility of a conventional military attack. The little nosebleed it got in Lebanon notwithstanding, Israel could easily defend itself against a combined attack by every nation in the Arab world with one arm tied behind its back. That’s what it means to be a regional superpower. The danger to Israel comes, instead, from more insidious sources, including the ever present possibility of nonconventional terrorist attacks -- perhaps eventually nuclear -- and the damage wrought to the structure of its society by years as an occupying force. Israel will never be secure until there is peace. And it is increasingly apparent that peace will never come until the world, under US leadership, forces it upon the region.  But that is something we won’t do. We’ve never even tried. And there’s a good reason for this -- because to try to do force Israel’s hand -- even just a little -- would set loose a political firestorm of biblical proportions in this nation. So, is Barack Obama enough of a pragmatist to finally do something to address this insanity? Sadly, even speaking as an Obama enthusiast, I have considerable doubt. Certainly, the early signs aren’t encouraging. And we won’t know for certain until long after he takes office But in the meanwhile, I have a warning to offer him. While taking on the Israeli lobby, even to a small degree, may appear too politically risky, the price of inaction will be profound. Obama has a unique opportunity to do something very few presidents have done -- to achieve greatness. History has given him that chance, but only he can grab hold of it and make it real. And here’s the bottom line: Barack Obama will not be a great president unless he fundamentally changes America’s policy in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t just one of many foreign policy problems: in many ways, it represents the whole ballgame. Virtually every other international challenge the United States faces, from terrorism to the price of oil, is tied in a very consequential way to this conflict. Sure, Obama can probably get away with letting the issue slide by with a half-assed retreading of old policy initiatives -- hold a few more summits here, engage in a little shuttle diplomacy there: a lot of talk but little progress. And if he does, he may still have a reasonably successful presidency in many ways. But, just like all of his recent predecessors, he’ll be leaving behind a time bomb waiting to explode (again and again) in both America and Israel’s face. And one other thing -- he’ll have pissed away his chance for greatness.

So the deadly dance of the dunces once again glides across the grand ballroom of the Middle East. Hamas gratuitously hurls missiles into Israel, weapons lacking the sophistication to hit even the biggest target except by pure chance: lethal hellos sent flying arbitrarily into the sky, as likely to hit a child playing in a field as an Israeli soldier or settler: attacks certain to accomplish one and only one thing -- a disproportionate Israeli response. But then, I suppose that’s the idea. Israel, for its part, has now launched the first of what we’re told will be a series of brutal attacks in the Gaza Strip. It will do no good, of course. Such attacks never do. The people ordering the attacks, who are actually a very bright collection of dunces, know this. But in an act of political cowardice that surely comes perilously close to constituting treason, they attack anyway, because to do anything else would be politically unwise. This then leads to an Israeli policy towards the Palestinians that’s roughly equivalent to that of a man who cuts off his own arm in an attempt to cure a nasty case of the flu: he knows doing so will do him no good, and will actually harm him, but he nevertheless shouts, “God damn it, I have to do something!” Time isn’t on Israel’s side. A population explosion among Palestinians threatens to make the Jewish population a minority in “greater Israel.” This will leave Israel with the unpalatable choice between either surrendering its Jewish identity or openly embracing apartheid, making it an international pariah.     What’s so sad about all this, of course, is that the actual solution to the Middle Eastern morass is painfully obvious. It was obvious back in the late 70s, when, as a teenager, I first began to realize that the subject of Israel was a bit more complicated than the heroic underdog surrounded by vicious enemies depicted in the movie Exodus. It’s even more obvious today at age 53, as my frustration with all sides of this intractable mess grows by the day. No doubt, it will still be obvious 30 years from now, when (God willing) I will be annoying the staff of the retirement home with my never ending ranting about the situation in front of the communal television set (I expect to be a “problem” resident). What needs to happen, of course, is for Israel to withdraw completely from the occupied territories. The West Bank settlements, illegal from the start, will have to be abandoned -- all of them. The settlers, many of whom seem increasingly indistinguishable from common thugs, garner little sympathy even within Israel these days. Jerusalem, the ultimate sticking point, needs to be fully available to both sides, perhaps as an “international city.” In return, the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist without reservation, renounce violence and give up all claim of a right to return to the lands of pre-1967 Israel, receiving monetary compensation in exchange for the latter.  And just about everyone whose judgment isn’t clouded by raw hatred (a category which excludes all of the direct participants and most of their strongest American supporters) knows this. Yet, somehow it never happens. Instead, year after dreary year, Israel and the Palestinians trade blows. Israel, as a regional superpower, almost always manages to extract the most blood. But in the end every ounce damages it a hundred times more than Hamas, which inevitably draws support from the resulting Palestinian rage.  Meanwhile, the Palestinian people suffer under the incompetence of their own leadership. Leaders who insist on pursuing violent strategies despite the obvious fact they will never -- not in the time of 10,000 millenniums -- have the power required to resolve the conflict in their favor through military force.  So here stand the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership -- surely worthy recipients of the titles of dumb and dumber (listed in no particular order). But that still leaves the grand prize to be awarded -- the coveted title of the dumbest of them all. Drum roll please. And the winner is . . . you guessed it -- us. Year after year, the United States dumps billions of dollars in military aid into Israel, money that allows it, contrary to its own long-term interests, to continue taking an unsustainable hard line. Meanwhile, everything else our nation tries to do in the region is undermined by Islamic rage over the Palestinian issue. Of all the nations in the world, only the United States has the leverage necessary to force a settlement. But we don’t do it, mostly because of shamefully trivial considerations of domestic politics. Meanwhile, Israel appears to be gearing up for another huge leap to the right, probably returning ultra-hawk, Benjamin Netanyahu, to office as Prime Minister. Of course, even Netanyahu couldn’t survive long politically in Israel in the face of a serious threat of an aid cutoff by the US. But no such threat will ever be made, our own national interests be damned. Yeah -- dumbest of them all, that’s us.

That’s quite a goodbye kiss George W. Bush just blew America (not to mention a big wet one to the Religious Right). This from the Washington Post::

The Bush administration yesterday granted sweeping new protections to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs, setting off an intense battle over opponents' plans to try to repeal the measure. Critics began consulting with the incoming Obama administration on strategies to reverse the regulation as quickly as possible while supporters started mobilizing to fight such efforts. The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable. It was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

It would be hard to overstate the damage this absurd regulation could cause. Let’s say, for example, you want to fill a prescription for birth control pills? Maybe you even view this as your right, given Griswold v. Connecticut and all that. Silly girl. It isn’t up to you (or your doctor) at all: it’s entirely up to the personal beliefs of the pharmacist on duty. If he (or she) disapproves of contraception in general, or simply disapproves of you getting contraception -- because, say, you’re unmarried (you hussy) -- he has an absolute right to refuse to fill the prescription. And you’ll be left with no recourse, except perhaps to fume, unless you’re prepared to drive from pharmacy to pharmacy (assuming you have that option) until you find a less “morally committed” pharmacist. It’s a question of priorities, I suppose. According to Bush and his new regulation, the pharmacist’s ethical objection to, well, you know, doing his job is more important than your constitutional right to privacy, not to mention your dignity as a person. Even more troubling, of course, is the impact this rule could have on the rights of rape victims, some of whom will inevitably face interference in efforts to obtain emergency contraception. Given the time-sensitive nature of such treatment, an arbitrary “act of conscience” by a key hospital employee could doom the victim to an unwanted pregnancy by her rapist. But then that’s the idea, isn’t it? And we haven’t even touched on the most absurd aspect of this particular act of Bush & Co. stupidity. Under the literal language of the regulation, birth control clinics would be prohibited (at the risk of losing federal funding) from “discriminating” against job seekers who have moral objections to birth control. In other words, clinics could be forced to hire and retain employees who refuse, for alleged ethical reasons, to carry out the basic functions of their jobs. It isn’t hard to see where this is going. If the regulation stands, antiabortion groups will soon begin sending “undercover” job seekers to abortion clinics associated with health care providers that receive federal funds, with the specific intention of sabotaging the clinics’ operations. "It is going to cause chaos among providers across the country,” predicted Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, quoted in the Post article. But then that’s the idea, isn’t it? Hopefully, Congress and/or the Obama Administration will find a way to quickly repeal this monstrosity. In the meanwhile, join me in praying for the rapid and safe arrival of the 20th of January

Is it just me, or is the current feeding frenzy over The Center for American Progress mildly disassociating itself from one of Matt Yglesias’s posts on their site a sign of some serious inbreeding within the Liberal Blog World?