Oh, it is ON now.

He opposes prosecutions for torture, and has gone out of his way to make sure those who committed, ordered, or enabled torture never face justice.

He opposes restrictions on executive power, defending warrantless wiretaps and other searches and maintaining the imprisonment of accused terrorists without legal recourse. Apparently forever.

He opposes equal rights for gays and lesbians. I mean, really, REALLY opposes equal rights.

He killed the public option and instituted the same individual mandate he promised during the campaign would never be a part of his health care reform.

He opposes immigration reform.

He punishes people who tried to stop the federal government from breaking the law.

He opposes separation of church and state.

He supports the continuation of the failed and counterproductive war on drugs.

In addition to all that, he effectively killed American manned spaceflight for the foreseeable future once the Shuttle shuts down; he pulled the plug on hydrogen energy research in favor of more ethanol, nuclear, and above all offshore oil drilling; and, as a matter of routine, he surrenders to Republicans on drafting legislation, on nominations to office, and on procedure.

And now the man Obama picked to run the FCC is going to cave in on net neutrality- basically allowing the big telecoms, the same ones Obama let off the hook for helping Bush break the law and spy on you and me, to control what you see on the Internet.

The author of the above article has even more to say elsewhere, according to ZDNet:

We simply cannot believe that Julius Genachowski would consider going down this path. Failing to reclassify broadband means the FCC is abandoning the signature communications and technology issues of the Obama administration. Such a decision would destroy Net Neutrality. It would deeply undermine the FCC’s ability to ensure universal Internet access for rural, low-income and disabled Americans. It will undermine the FCC’s ability to protect consumers from price-gouging and invasions of privacy.

If Chairman Genachowski fails to re-establish the FCC authority to protect Internet users, he will be allowing companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to slow down, block or censor content at will. They can block any website, any blog post, any tweet, any outreach by a political campaign — and the FCC would be powerless to stop them. Without reclassification, nearly every broadband-related decision the agency makes from here forward will be aggressively challenged in court, and the FCC will likely lose. The phone and cable companies know this, which is why they’re going all out to keep the FCC from doing so.

Genachowski should not buckle to phone and cable industry pressure, but it will take courage to stand up to one of the biggest lobbying juggernauts in Washington. It’s not too late — and the public is watching. This decision facing the FCC chairman is about more than one single issue, or even a broken promise to the American people. If the FCC fails to stand with the public, it will be the end of the Internet as we know it.

But he will cave- under, no doubt, direct orders from his boss.

If I had wanted Republican policies, I would have voted for John McCain.

But no- I voted for Barack Obama...

... a mistake I will never, ever make again.

Three more links to make you think...

First: Republicans lie shamelessly and get away with it by portraying all dissenting voices as "socialist liberals".

Just watch. Virtually every TV report on the financial-regulation bill you see will feature a sound bite from McConnell, who'll continue to shill for Citibank and Goldman Sachs while pretending to defend the little guy. Bailout, bailout, bailout. The fact that he's engaging in pure doublespeak is highly unlikely to be mentioned. Instead, you'll likely see a snippet from a Democrat making the opposite claim. For an awful lot of viewers, that's like flipping a coin.

For Fox News viewers and Limbaugh listeners, it's actually easier than that. Conditioned by decades of propaganda about liberal media bias, many react with overt hostility to any and all information from other sources. I must get 50 angry e-mails a week calling me a liar for citing some easily verifiable fact at odds with right-wing doctrine.

Second: a Miami Herald columnist explains that illegal aliens are here illegally because it's literally impossible for them to come legally:

Legal immigration quotas were set more than 20 years ago, when the U.S. demand for unskilled and highly skilled workers was much smaller than today's.

The U.S. labor market demands up to 500,000 low-skilled workers a year, while the current U.S. immigration system allows for only 5,000 permanent visas for that category, according to the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration reform advocacy group.

``There is no real line for unskilled workers,'' says Maurice Belanger, the Forum's public information director. ``If you are a Mexican wanting to get a legal visa to work as a waiter in the United States, you would be dead before you get your visa.''

And finally: a Daily KOS writer explains that the "libertarian" 1800s were no golden age, as Libertarians would have you believe, but for most a hellish time when life was nasty, brutish, and short.

No quote from that one: you really need to read the whole thing. I mean it. It sums up most, if not everything, that I had misgivings about when I was part of the Libertarian movement. And his summation- that conservatives currently calling themselves "libertarians" like, for example, Glenn Beck, are nothing but rich people who don't want to pay taxes... that's right on target.

Go, read, and think.

Meanwhile, the Imperial Presidency rolls on....

So, where are President Obama's priorities, now that health care is behind him and financial reform is apparently rolling along?

Immigration reform? Apparently not if he can help it.

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No, not so much.

Nominating judges who will push hard against pro-corporate conservative justices on the Supreme Court and roll back unconstitutional government powers? Doesn't look that way.

Attacking and prosecuting Bush-era whistleblowers to ensure that the American people will never know the next time a President breaks the law?

Oh, yeah. He's all over THAT action.

The evidence of Republican evil accumulates...

If you doubted Republicans were racists, note Arizona voting to ban classes teaching about non-white ethnic histories and to fire teachers who speak with a non-Anglo accent, and a Texas GOP US Rep comparing illegal aliens to grasshoppers- locusts, that is- instead of human beings.

If you doubted Republicans cared more about ideology than people, note a new Oklahoma law, passed over the governor's veto, requiring women who seek an abortion to get a vaginal probe ultrasound scan- including those who have just been raped.

If you doubted Republicans are more interested in partisan rule and total control of government than actually making government work well, read Ezra Klein's uncommonly observant article about how one of Utah's Senators is being run out of office for daring to negotiate with a Democrat on an alternative health care proposal.

The Republicans: the Party of Evil. Never believe otherwise.

In a Just World, Crist Should Now Be the Frontrunner...

The most evil man in America endorses Marco Rubio for the GOP nomination for US Senate.

And Rubio hasn't rejected it.

What more needs to be said?

What I Want to Know Is, What's the Chicken-Squirrel Exchange Rate?

So, the person who will almost certainly defeat Harry Reid and represent Nevada in the US Senate said this:

"Let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. I'm telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say I'll paint your house."

... yes, because Wellpoint will be more than happy to negotiate payment-in-kind for your insurance. Pharmaceutical companies are just eager and willing to give people their medicines and let them "work off" what they owe. And hospitals, now for the most part run by for-profit corporations, are ready and willing to take payment for your stay and surgery in livestock.

And then the Nevada Republican Party DEFENDS this woman:

Although the party is officially neutral in the primary between Lowden, former UNLV basketball player Danny Tarkanian and former state Rep. Sharron Angle, Nevada GOP communications director Ciara Turns nevertheless offered a vigorous defense of Lowden's statements, and condemned the Democrats for the way that Lowden is being attacked.

"Well it's pretty clear that they're attacking the way she conveyed her message because they can't attack her message," said Turns. "Her message is pretty clear. She was clearly trying to make the point that if we moved away from an insurance-based system and more people started paying cash for their health care, then prices would come down. But they don't want to address that. The left doesn't, Harry Reid's campaign doesn't want to address that, because it's a legitimate point that they can't argue. And so they've decided to go after the way she delivered her message instead of the substance of it."

Um, NO. The whole point of bringing in barter is, health care has become too expensive for the average person to pay cash. It's also become much too complicated and networked for any patient to negotiate fees and payment with all the many people- primary care doctor, specialist, lab technicians, pharmaceuticals, hospital corporations, clerical workers- that might be involved in their treatment.

But this is just one wingnut, right? Right?

WRONG.

Bell's made his comments last week, during discussion of a proposed state law that would attempt to nullify the federal health care insurance mandate in the state of Tennessee. Here is a transcript of a dialogue in committee between Bell and Democratic state Rep. Joe Towns, courtesy of the Nashville Scene, as Bell explained that many people get along without insurance:

Bell: They're some of the healthiest people you have ever seen. They pay cash when they go to the doctor. They work out arrangements with the hospitals if their children have to be hospitalized. This is an individual choice that we're talking about.

Towns: You're saying they pay cash? For organ transplants and cancer and heart cases, they pay cash?

Bell: I said they pay cash or work out other arrangements. I know for a fact. I know someone in the medical field who has been paid with vegetables from the Mennonite community.

Towns: That's an anomaly. That's not how the system works. I can't take a sack of vegetables down to the utility company and pay my utility bill on my house. Nobody's going to take vegetables for payment. We can't run the country on vegetables and horse trading.

The core of the Republican position is this: if you're too poor to pay cash for your health, you should only get whatever health care you can pay for in barter.

Now, I for one would be quite happy to see for-profit insurance corporations outlawed. I believe insurance is a confidence scheme made legal- you pay for a policy, and then the person who sold you the policy seeks any excuse imaginable not to pay you if you try to collect on it.

But the end of insurance has to be replaced with some workable system- otherwise everything goes crash. Doctors go bankrupt. Hospitals close. Health care at all levels suddenly becomes much more scarce- and thus much more expensive, as demand spikes above supply.

But Republicans, being rich enough to pay cash for their health care, don't care. After all, if you're too poor to pay a doctor it must be your own fault, riiiiiight?

Religious Wars in the US...

On the one side, we have people trying to institute a Christian Taliban in the United States, starting with Amarillo, Texas:

Perhaps the most insidious tactic Repent uses is trying to destroy the reputation of the swingers. In Amarillo, people can be ostracized over a whiff of impropriety. On one tape, Grisham directs followers to get the license-plate numbers in the Route 66 parking lot. “A new couple can be here three or four hours,” says Mac. “Whenever they leave, the Repent Amarillo group will call them by first and last name, know where they live, know where they work, just within a very few hours.”

. . .

They're also going after churches they believe to be insufficiently Christian (Episcopalians, Christian Scientists, Unitarians), palm readers, people who practice witchcraft, and anything and everything that might create a "demonic stronghold" in Amarillo. And they're not just threatening to pray for people: Repent Amarillo's "actions" include prayer, according to Repent Amarillo's website, "but [also] may involve more aggressive use of soldiers and prayer warriors." Check out the group's locked-and-loaded website.

Of course, these tactics would not work if not for the vast majority of citizens of Amarillo enabling these people. Tolerance is entirely lost on one whole side of the political spectrum...

... and don't look for help from the other side of the aisle.

The Department of Justice filed a notice with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that it intends to appeal a federal court decision that found the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled last week that the National Day of Prayer, instituted by Congress in 1952, violates the separation of church and state.

. . .

“The Justice Department today made the right decision to defend the constitutional right of Congress to establish a National Day of Prayer,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said. “Setting aside a day to honor a religious practice of many Americans throughout history is in no way unconstitutional. Every American is free to either enjoy it or ignore it.”

Note: applying regulations to interstate insurance companies or international financial institutions is unconstitutional (despite Congress power to regulate both interstate and international commerce), but setting aside a day for all Americans to pray is NOT (despite the First Amendment and the total lack of any enumerated Congressional power to advocate or promote religion).

And by his actions, Obama apparently demonstrates his belief that government should promote religion.

So, one side wants government to promote religion; the other side wants government to ENFORCE religion. Neither side is willing to leave matters of personal conscience to the individual.

Whichever side wins, we all lose.