Chalmers Johnson on American Empiricism

I just bought the first two books of Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy. The third book was sold out. I first came upon Mr. Johnson on the "Speaking Freely" series. I've been wanting to read these books for about six months now.

For those unaware of Mr. Johnson's trilogy, the titles are, "Blowback - the Costs and Consequences of American Empire," "The Sorrows of Empire - Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic," and "Nemesis - The Last Days of the American Republic."

What finally tipped it for me to read these books was Bill Moyers' recommendation on his December 18, 2009 PBS program,

Every year at this time we begin to see lists of "the best of." Best television shows of the year. Best movies. Best books. I pay attention, to these lists and see what I've missed and to test my sensibilities against others. You can find my own list of "Best Books of 2009" on our website at pbs.org. A word of caution: they're "best" by a very subjective standard, my own. Each held me from the first to the last page, and I learned something from all of them.

There's one book in particular I would put in everybody's stocking if I could. It's not new - it was actually published three years ago. But I read it again this month, and found its message more relevant than ever. This is it: NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, by Chalmers Johnson.

A long-time authority on Asia, a prodigious researcher, Johnson has produced a trilogy on America's role in the world and the consequences for us at home. His first bestseller, BLOWBACK, revealed how the CIA's clandestine efforts abroad came back to explode in our face. "The Sorrows of Empire" analyzed how our determination to police the world compromises our own safety. NEMESIS picks up on the subject of empire and how it poisons our politics and economy.

Now, I know many people bridle at the word "Empire" -- "America's a Republic, not an Empire," they say. I once used the word in a speech and afterward a man came up to me and said in a very nice way, "Friend, there's only one American empire-and if you haven't tasted it, you've missed out on the best apple in the world." I didn't get his name and address, or else I would send him a copy of NEMESIS.

Read it for yourself and see why. I won't give away the ending - the story's not really over - but I will tease you with the frontispiece, where Chalmers Johnson explains the namesake of the title. "In Greek mythology," Nemesis was "the goddess of retribution, who punishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it." The Greeks, you see, were big on divine, or cosmic justice - nature's way of declaring, "this far and no further." Just a myth? Maybe, maybe not. Check out Chalmers Johnson.

I immediately bought the books as a gift to my cousin for Christmas and today I got my copies. I highly recommend these books, and I'll be commenting on them in the coming days or weeks.

I am so looking forward to reading these. In addition, I hope to inspire the reader of this post into sampling these books.

Happy New Year to one and all!

Renewed Energy

Well, the new year is drawing to a close, and I have a couple of New Year's resolutions. One pertains to this blog. I resolve to write at least one post per week. We'll have to see how that flies.

When I first started this blog, my intent was to be one more voice decrying the path our country has taken in the last few decades. My main regret is that it wasn't until about two years ago that I really got into what this country is all about...and what it should be.

A friend turned me on to Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now." I immediately gave up on relying on mainstream media as a decent news source. From there, I discovered Noam Chomsky. Free Speech TV ran his biography, Noam Chomsky, Rebel Without a Pause. One of the greatest minds in any generation, known worldwide, and, yet, hardly known here in the United States.

I've discovered some great people who understand the inner meaning of how this country is being run. One of my goals this year is to write about those who, I believe, are giants in trying to right our ship of state. They are greater minds than I, but I want to write about them. I want to get to know them so well that I can rattle off their talking points and concepts without hesitation. I need to thoroughly understand what exactly is being done to us.

Currently, I'm posting twice a week (on Saturdays) to the "Bill of Rights Defense Committee" web site. I enjoy this responsibility. The commitment forces me to research the independent media, which, in turn, increases my knowledge. The editors of the blog tend to want a more objective type of writing, and (if you have read some of my posts here) I tend towards being a bit snarky. I'll complement those posts with amplification here.

So I wish everyone a very Happy and Prosperous New Year. Maybe I'll be the only one reading this, but that's OK. I'll be part of the "hits" on Google, adding a tick to those who see our country slowly drifting away from its citizens and catering only to those who have money and power.

We need to get back to having this country helping our citizens, not the elite.

Howard Kurtz Should Have Been More Thorough

Howard Kurtz, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” had Ken Auletta as one of his guests this morning. He is the author of "Googled: The End of the World as We Know It," a story of the search engine “Google” and its creators.

I don’t have the transcript available, but I’ll try to explain as best as possible what I found interesting. They both were lamenting the fact that the Print Media was declining because of the onset of the Internet and the lack of foresight that Print Media had in utilizing the web. This, according to them, is the reason for newspapers and magazines folding at a very fast rate.

What both Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Auletta failed to take into account is a perspective that Michael Moore pontificated at an interview last September. He first brings up the fact that European newspapers aren’t going under (though they are having a tough time due to the worldwide economic crisis), and they have the Internet. Neither Mr. Kurtz nor Mr. Auletta brought that up. This is an excellent example of American egocentrism within the mainstream media.

Mr. Moore has two points he discusses. First, during the nineties, the corporate owners of the newspapers downsized to increase profits. This resulted in the elimination of various “beats” of the local reporting world (crime, labor, etc.). Of course, this will not induce their local readers into buying the paper, since there is nothing really concerning them in the publication.

The second point he mentions is:

We live in a nation of 40 million functional illiterates: that's 40 million adults who cannot read and write above a fourth grade or fifth grade level. We have another probably 40 million adults who can read and write above a fourth grade level but don't have the comprehension beyond that very much. So if you have literally that many tens of millions of adults who either can't read and write above a fourth and fifth grade level or can't comprehend what they do read, you've created a nation of people who are not going to be reading the newspapers.

And how did we get that way?

In the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004, the majority of American newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for President 14 of the 17 elections. 14 of the 17 elections the majority of American papers endorsed the party that was going to cut back on the very thing that their readers needed in order to read the newspaper, which was literacy and education. These newspapers slit their own throats by siding with the group of politicians - I mean, it would be like General Motors funding candidates who promised to get rid of Driver Education.

In his summation, Mr. Moore had this to say about American newspapers:

America's newspapers in 14 of the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004 supported the candidate that would guarantee their ruination. Good riddance.

Both Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Auletta did not even address these possible causes. I’m not saying that these are the specific reasons for the failure American newspapers; however, I do believe that they should be addressed and discussed at length...that is, if you’re going to do a thorough analysis of the failing American Print Media. I do have to admit, though, that "thorough" is not really a word in the dictionary of the Mainstream Media's seven minute sound bite world.

The Reprehensible Thirty

Well, it’s just over two months before the end of the year, but I’m sure the most egregious act by our representatives has already occurred. I will be astounded if anything in the next two months can top one of the most outrageous lines of thinking imaginable.

Of course, I’m talking about the thirty Republican Senators who voted against Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Immunity Legislation Bill. I truly find this unbelievable. This bill will allow our government to withhold defense contracts for companies “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court,” according to the originator of the bill, Al Franken (D-MN).

In addition, Franken (speaking from the Senate floor) said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law. …And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. …The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court. Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

Jamie Leigh Jones worked for Halliburton/KBR and was gang raped by her fellow employees while she was working for the corporation in Iraq. She was not allowed to bring charges in court against the corporation because of her employment contract. It stated that private arbitration was her only means of redress.

This is such a no-brainer. How on Earth can ANYONE not allow persons full redress for criminal atrocities committed against them? This is one of the most horrible crimes that can be committed against anyone. It is against the state and federal law. Corporate contracts should have nothing to do with it. I would love to get inside the mind of those who came up with the original thought that criminal behavior can be decided by the corporate hierarchy. Pretty sick.

Yet, here we are, thirty of our “august” Senators believing (at least according to their votes) that a rape victim can’t have a day in court, that she/he must rely on the corporate powers-that-be to “arbitrate” the “dispute.” Amazing.

Rape is a criminal act. It must be addressed in a criminal court, and if found guilty the perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law. A person’s life is forever changed after a sexual assault. We should not allow the victims to be victimized a second time by a good-old-boys system of justice.

Personally, I think that these 30 are so bought by the multinational corporations that they must vote for the Corporate Entity regardless of the harm the corporate structure will commit against another human being. That is so tragic, and an excellent example of just what’s wrong with our country and our representatives.

It appears to me that the “Captains of Industry” would love to wrest judicial control away from our government and perform their own Roy Bean “justice,” somewhat similar to the military courts martial. A sort of, “We know how to discipline our employees, not the government” mentality. “Our ‘laws’ are separate and apart from your ‘laws.’”

These thirty senators need to be ousted at the next available opportunity. I really hope that their opponents in their next elections will hammer this particular issue to the electorate to such an extent that these despicable creatures never be allowed to decide the fate of another human being.

One Senator I would like to point out in particular. Senator John McCain of Arizona. He ran for President of the United States! Here is a man who ran for the most powerful position in the world, a position that is the representative of ALL the people of the United States, and he has the audacity to advocate the marginalization of rape victims to the mercy of corporate arbitration? Wow!

I am including his and the other Senators’ names in this post. I want the names to be burned into the hearts and minds of every decent human being in order that they can be vilified wherever they go. If they are willing to put money in their pockets before common decency, they do not deserve to be holding any office whatsoever. Personally, I think they should be sentenced to a lifetime of working in a rape crisis center and see just what a tragedy rape is to a human being. Fie on them all!

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Obama School Address Issues? Get Over It!

This brouhaha about the President speaking to classrooms across the country tomorrow would be absurd if there weren't such scary undertones. I mean, really...what harm can the President do with a short speech to the children of our country?

Think about it. All he's going to do is to tell the students to work hard, stay in school and strive to be a success in life. What's more telling is the fact that he is black. He is an inspiration to minorities everywhere in this country. After Obama's election, I heard a black commentator emotionally express the fact that now that a black man has become President, he can truly say to his children that one can achieve anything in this country if one perseveres.

What do these parents/citizens think will happen to the children after a five to ten minute speech by the President of the United States? Are they somehow going to be irrevocably “tainted” by his message? They will instantly become dreaded “liburals” upon the completion of the speech? Good grief...they might even become “pod people” (“You're next!”)? This is not the equivalent of a re-education camp brainwashing.

Does anyone really think that after a five to ten minute speech, a child's current mindset on life is irrevocably changed from the input they've been receiving from family and friends through their entire lives? President Obama's short message will not “curve your spine...or keep the country from winning the war“(apologies to George Carlin).

Presidents in the past have spoken to the children of our nation (Reagan, Bush I to start) and not a squawk was heard. This is the ugly undercurrent. Is it that the President is black that foments the outrage making this particular presentation different from past presidential school speeches? Is it that he's a democrat? Is it the desire by the (maybe not so) extreme right to foil the President on every single gesture he makes no matter how benign?

Are we really at that point in time that we will not work together to make this a better country and only our self-interests must be addressed? A “We need to utterly destroy those who do not agree with us at every turn” mentality?

I remember as a young student that any break in the normal school routine was welcome relief. Having the President break up the routine and let the children be aware that they can realize great accomplishments through perseverance is nothing but a positive gain for the children.

It astounds me that this subject matter even needs to be addressed. It's a five to ten minute, inspirational speech, people. Get over it!

Private Health Insurance Has GOT to Go!

I have been in favor of single payer health care for decades. It appalls me that this great country of ours is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some kind of single payer avenue for “we, the people.”

The latest polls show that the majority of Americans want some kind of single payer system. Yet, here we are at the threshold of health care “reform,” and the greatly watered-down version of single payer, the “public option,” is in danger of being flung off the table! Our government representatives are NOT speaking for the people. They’re speaking for the moneyed interests who are massively profiting from those who are sick and dying and diverting those profits into the pockets of our representatives.

I am so sick of hearing about “death panels” (whoever first coined that phrase should be hung by the yardarm), or worse yet, the absolutely stupid question of us wanting some “government bureaucrat” deciding on our health. Hello? Who is now currently deciding on our health care? Some “insurance bureaucrat” whose sole interest is generating profits for the insurance conglomerates, which leads him or her to deny benefits for the flimsiest of reasons.

The horror stories of citizens who for years dutifully paid their “premiums” suddenly needing health care are denied for “pre-existing conditions” or “incorrect filling out of the health form,” thus invalidating the claim are rampant in this country. This is ridiculous!

The best idea I’ve heard came first came from Dr. Marcia Angell, currently a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She was on “Bill Moyers Journal” July 24, 2009 (The emphasis is mine):

“I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.”

Love it! I’ve heard the idea of gradually lowering the age for Medicare a few times since then, but Dr. Angell is right on with this comment. Let’s incrementally lower Medicare until all are covered, and let the private insurance companies go play with “hurricanes, earthquakes or something.”

Better yet, have them go away and come up with something better. If they crassly deny those needing health care, letting them die or remain infirm, all in the name of the almighty dollar, they most likely will do a variation of the theme with disaster victims…and who needs that?

Doing the Right Thing

On July 23rd, Amy Goodman had anti-corporate pranksters “The Yes Men” on her show, “Democracy, Now!”. They have a new film called “The Yes Men Fix the World.” It’s a very interesting interview if you’re of a mind, but I want to point out something during the interview that profoundly struck me.

One of the hoaxes they pulled was “Yes Man” Andy Bichlbaum posing as Dow Chemical spokesperson "Jude Finnesterra" for an international BBC interview back in 2004. Under that guise, he proceeded to “do the right thing” and have Dow admit that Union Carbide was responsible for the infamous 1984 Bhopal industrial accident. Here is some of what he said:

Today is a great day for all of us at Dow and, I think, for millions of people around the world, as well. It's twenty years since the disaster. And today I’m very, very happy to announce that for the first time Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe.

We have a $12 billion plan to finally, at long last, fully compensate the victims, including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives, and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site.

Keep in mind that this was a total fabrication. Here is the part that really, really gets me. After word got out that Dow was “accepting full responsibility,” according to Juan Gonzalez, co-host of “Democracy Now!,” it cost Dow Chemical over $2 billion in market value within a half-hour.

Think about it. The World was under the impression that a giant, multi-national corporation was going to do the right thing and help those that Union Carbide caused great suffering, and the value of the corporation goes down by $2 billion! How pathetic is that?

I know it’s very naïve of me, but I would hope that a giant corporation who causes grief among the world’s population would reap benefits from its generosity in admitting and rectifying the disaster that it caused. The fact that Dow dropped $2 billion just reinforces other multinational corporations to deny, deny and deny again any responsibility for disasters they cause.

The ultimate questions are: What does it say to us as a world community that corporations suffer if they do the right thing? Is the world really a two-tiered system in which the moneyed power players don’t want the multinationals to “do the right thing” under threat of major devaluation and the rest of us folk have no say or influence in the matter? Really sad.

"Waste" Used in the Wrong Context

I was just over at ThinkProgress, and I ran across this quote from the “Dick” himself (Cheney) regarding the deadline approaching for us to remove troops from Iraq:

“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“

Sorry, but the “waste” of 4,316 American lives (as of this writing) prior to this moment rests fully on him and Bush. They wanted to get us into a war and, by God, by hook or crook, they did it. Never mind the lives permanently lost because of their desire to overthrow Hussein. These chicken hawks should be held accountable for every one of those lives.

I’ve written about this a couple of times in the past. We need to get out and stay out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period.

How dare Cheney use this excuse for staying put? We’ve acted like bullying conquerors, invading a nation with no good reason. I repeat…no GOOD reason. This pre-emptive bulls**t doctrine that Bush fomented years ago is totally outrageous on its face. I realize this has been gone over and over, again and again, but what right do we have to decide some country will attack us in the future; therefore, we must attack them first? To play the tape to its conclusion, that means we can attack ANY country, because, who knows, fifty or a hundred years from now it could be our enemy. Might as well attack them now, just to be safe!

We are now a permanent war state, ladies and gentlemen. Obama has picked up the ball and is running with it in Afghanistan. And if you think that we will be completely out of Iraq any time within the next century, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Florida.

“Tremendous sacrifice,” my ass. Better to cut our losses (and not "waste" any more lives) and become the country we should be. One that leads the world in freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, we have to clean our house big time before we can get to that level of respect from the rest of the world. And we should start by punishing those responsible for murdering over 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Bush and Cheney shall be first.

I want us working on our own problems (and we have many, to be sure), and when another nation asks us for help, we will lend an altruistic hand in friendship. Every country has the right to its own sovereignty. We should NOT impose our will nor force ourselves upon it. Hegemony should not be our mantra.

Celebrity Ratings Bonanzas

I just knew this was coming:

From Howard Kurtz, Media Correspondent (CNN & Washington Post) -

"Michael Jackson TV ratings in U.S.: ...Cable ratings thru the roof. CNN up 973% at one point, MSNBC 330%, Fox 243%"

We are definitely a celebrity driven society. Of course, the government loves this...they can now do unnoticed major profitable business with the multinational corporations (conglomerates) at the expense of the common person. They’ve been able to do this for decades (think O.J. Simpson in the 90’s), and look where it’s gotten us.

The masses stay focused on this "tragedy" and other perpetual celebrity "major events," ad nauseum. Ergo, this leads to their not paying attention to what's really going on that's affecting their lives. It gives "The Powers That Be" opportunities to create policy and pass laws that will slip past a deliberately uninformed public.

The ratings bonanza further feeds the Main Stream Media sharks to keep paying close attention to celebrities, waiting for the next ratings boom (read: profits) and continually keeps the focus away from the really important issues in our lives.

Another method of making us look the other way is to make celebrities out of missing women. Of course, the women must be white, middle class and very attractive (usually blond). A child will also do. Once one turns up missing we then get weeks and weeks of hammering all the same “what if” or “who could have” scenarios as the hunt goes on. And the ratings escalate with the drama.

One last point: The Main Stream Media outlets are completely owned by the multinationals. As an example, GE (major war equipment supplier) owns NBC and MSNBC. They (GE, et. al.) are extremely interested in sleight-of-hand manipulation in order to garner more profits.

During the hysterical drumbeat to war with Iran, Phil Donahue, an anti-war activist, had a show on MSNBC that was one of the highest rated shows on that network. MSNBC (remember, owned by war-profiteering GE) demanded he match his anti-war guests with pro-war advocates. By the way, the pro-war were to be two to one (they felt Phil counted as an anti-war advocate). MSNBC canceled his show just before we attacked that sovereign nation because they were afraid to look like the anti-war network. At least, that was the spin.

I do recommend a documentary entitled: “War Made Easy: How the Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” The film talks about how we, the people, are manipulated into a war fever. Great film.

If you're old enough, remember the days when network news (Huntley/Brinkley, Cronkite) delivered news, nothing but the news and there was no concern whether there were profits to be made in the network news business? I did hear on a show that the death of Elvis was the second lead story of a major news network (I forget which one) after an actual "news" event. My...how things have changed.

Now? The "news" is basically "infotainment." 'Tis a pity...

The Single-Payer "Non-Issue"

Last Tuesday (05/04/09) in addition to what I wrote about yesterday, Amy Goodman also interviewed Sen. Russ Feingold at last week’s gathering for the 100th anniversary of the magazine called “The Progressive.” I’ve never really read it; however, what with all the hoopla about it, and the positive feedback I’ve witnessed over the Internet, I’m going to give it a look.

Anyway, at the conclusion of the interview, Amy brought up the subject of “single-payer healthcare” (emphasis mine):

AMY GOODMAN: I know that you have to go give the speech. One last question around the issue of healthcare. Do you support single-payer healthcare?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I do. I always have. I don’t think there’s any possibility that that will come out of this Congress. And so, for people to simply say, “That’s—it’s this way or nothing,” are looking at something that can’t happen now. But I would love to see it. And I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system.
AMY GOODMAN: Why can’t it happen, since polls show most people are for it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I guarantee you. I know the members of Congress, and it’s not going to pass in this Congress. So, there are certain things that can’t happen right away, and this is one of them. But I do support a single-payer idea.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do they resist it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I think they’re afraid of the criticisms that it’s a big government bureaucracy program. You know, Paul Wellstone, before he died, started talking about having a guaranteed healthcare for all Americans, but having—giving the states flexibility to do it their own way. That’s not a single-payer system, but it achieves many of its same goals. I think that’s another way to get at this, and Paul Wellstone was even talking about it.

Loosely described, the single-payer health issue means public funding for private treatment.

Think about it. Most people are for this, yet Sen. Feingold says it “can’t happen now.” And why? He knows “the members of Congress…” and they resist because it won’t pass. His reason is absolutely bogus however. Look at his nebulous response to Amy’s question about the resistance. Concern of “criticisms that it’s a great bureaucracy program.” Wrong! That’s the spin. However, I did notice a very sly grin from the Senator. I’m really tired of the wink, wink, nod, nod excuses.

The real reason, in my opinion, is the Health Insurance Corporations (read HMO’s) would lose the massive profits they are raking in with the current system. This, in turn, allows the seriously ill to prematurely or even needlessly die because these HMO’s reject treatment in order to maintain their profit margins. And the congressional “resistance” is due to the fact the lobbyists for the Insurance Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Congresspersons and the elected officials of the Executive Branch. I’m disappointed that Sen. Feingold didn’t have the courage to say that.

The good news is that there are those out there who continue to hammer our Congress about the single-payer issues. From today’s Democracy Now! headline news:

On Capitol Hill, a group of doctors and activists directly challenged Democratic senators Tuesday for their refusal to discuss single-payer healthcare. The action came at a Senate Finance Committee meeting on healthcare reform. None of the fifteen witnesses called to testify support single payer, and the committee’s chair, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, has dismissed single payer as “off the table.” One by one, eight single-payer advocates stood up to challenge Baucus and call for single payer.

Mark Dudzic: “Unions that have endorsed single payer, why are their voices not being heard? Every healthcare lobbyist in America is at the table. When are the American people going to be heard? We need healthcare now! Put single payer on the table now!”

Adam Schneider: “We need to have to have single payer at the table. I have friends who have died, who don’t have healthcare, whose healthcare did not withstand their personal health emergencies. It’s only when the people that are living in the park and the people that are living on Park Avenue have the same healthcare that everybody will have high-quality healthcare. Single payer now!”

All eight single-payer advocates were arrested. The action was organized by the groups Single Payer Action and Healthcare-NOW!

Can you believe that the majority of Americans want single-payer health care and yet the “august” Senator Baucus from Montana has the brass to publicly say that it is ”off-the-table.” Not even to be discussed! That is truly pathetic.

Here is another sad example of the majority of the population thinking one way, the moneyed fat cats with vested interests (the bottom line) thinking the opposite, and the fat cats getting their way. I really wonder when will this country “get it” and throw those currently in power out and elect those that work FOR the people not AGAINST them. I say start with Senator Baucus, then Senator Sessions (see yesterday’s post).

An Enemy of Civil Rights

There were a couple of items on the “Democracy Now!” telecast today that really piqued my interest. I’ll write about one today and the other tomorrow.

During Amy Goodman’s headline news at the top of the show she talked about Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) becoming the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What really got me was her reporting that Senator Sessions once “described the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as Un-American and Communist-inspired because…” (now here’s the amazing part) “…they forced civil rights down the throats of people.” WTF???? I hadn’t heard that one before. Whoa!

I looked this up on Wikipedia (I know this can be an iffy endeavor re finding the truth), and not only were those two organizations besmirched but he included the NAACP as “Un-American” and “Communist-inspired” as well. According to the “Wik” (footnoted) he claims that it was in jest, but as far as I’m concerned that was his way of maintaining damage control.

I am astounded that Alabamans keep somebody like this in office. How on earth can someone with that take on our country possibly be elected? Are there really enough citizens of the United States out there that would allow a person with such a horrible outlook on those fine organizations, let alone his despicably callous attitude to our basic rights, be their representative?

Yet this guy has won three elections! I just don’t get it. Here is a man who believes “forcing civil rights down the throats of people” (I just HAD to rewrite that - it’s so off the chart) helping make decisions that will affect all of our rights in the future. And now he’s the top GOP in the Judiciary Committee. That is very scary indeed!

My question is, does a Senator rise in power just because of longevity and damned be his/her views or can his/her views pre-empt them from such a rise to power? If the former, change the promotion criteria immediately. If the latter, then the Senate is showing just how out of touch they are with the population by allowing this egregious individual any scintilla of power.

Do you really think the majority of Americans believe our civil rights shouldn’t be constantly monitored to prevent their being slyly abridged or even abrogated by those in power? These and other organizations are watchdogs on the rights of every American.

Of course, what the majority of the people in this country want is totally ignored by the Senate, which I’ll get into tomorrow.

While the Broken Minds and Bodies Recover...

Does anybody else have a problem with this? From CNN (May 4, 2009):

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush administration's policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects Sunday, saying former President George W. Bush would not have authorized anything illegal.

Condoleeza Rice says George W. Bush was clear that interrogations during his presidency should break no law.

"He was also very clear that we would do nothing -- nothing -- that was against the law or against our obligations internationally," Rice said during an appearance at a Washington school.

I mean, really! Number one, it has been established in many, many articles, blogs, etc., that what the Bush Administration did violated international torture laws. That assertion is so ubiquitous throughout the Internet that I’m not even going to provide a reference. Either you know by now or not. As far as I’m concerned, Rice is flat out lying when she says that Bush did “nothing …against our obligations internationally.” Excuse me, but we signed an agreement with other countries saying we would not torture AND that we would prosecute anyone who engaged in such egregious behavior. And Ronald Reagan signed it!

How straightforward is that??

Number two, of course he “would not have authorized anything illegal.” He just politicized the justice department and had them make whatever he and his minions decided upon doing “legal.” Though there are now tales floating around that the tortures were being implemented before the Justice Department’s final determination that they were “legal.”

As far as I’m concerned, to go to the extreme, what the Bush did by “legalizing” torture is the same thing as if he decided to kill someone, push the Justice Department into legalizing murder, having one of his cronies kill someone, then having people like Condoleeza Rice now saying, “Well, he didn’t authorize anything illegal!” Of course it could be Ms. Rice’s intent to fall back on Richard Nixon’s famous line, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Sure. To avoid the illegality, just make it legal. Easy-Peasy!

It continually amazes me that there are those that want to obfuscate the blatant, horrific torture of human beings into some kind of “debate” on “policy issues.” Or the other “brilliant” excuse of “we must look forward” and just “reflect” on the past. Reflect? Puhleeze. Give me a frakkin’ break! At least Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain is still pursuing the illegal acts of torture by the Bush Administration. As one of my earlier post headlines read, “Good for Spain and bad for the U.S.”

The Great George Carlin

Last night (Sat.), PBS aired the Mark Twain Award tribute to George Carlin. Right off the top I have to say that George Carlin is one of my all-time favorite comedians. I’ve always been fascinated with words, as did the late Mr. Carlin.

How ironic, though, that here is a great man who made fun of our society’s laughable fear of the “wrong” words being spoken on television having his “honored” bits bleeped by PBS during the tribute! Even funnier was that the telecast aired his “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” routine and every one of the seven was bleeped. I really hoped there are those out there who saw this tribute got as much of a laugh over that as I did. Those words are still being bleeped to this day, some forty years later. Maybe “never” means “never.” Who knows?

Even more hysterical was his talking about “half-way” words. Those that can have more than one meaning. One meaning the TV networks will allow you to hear the word. The other meaning is a big no-no. I particularly noted his use of the word “ass.” You will be able to say on television that you would like to “kick someone’s ass," and PBS dutifully allowed the word to be said on the air. When Mr. Carlin then proceeded to say that if one were to remark something like “Boy, I’d like a piece of that ass,” PBS bleeped the word! Funny stuff. Same exact word, just a different context. To bleep or not to bleep, that is the question.

I remember seeing George Carlin when he was an “establishment” comedian back in the 60s. He wore the typical suit and tie, and he had some great bits, such as the Hippy Dippy Weatherman (“tonight’s forecast…Dark!”) and the Congolia Breckinridge “Let’s Make a Deal” routine (“Oh, Monty, Monty, Monty!”). I loved what he was doing then. Little did I know what was to come.

I distinctly remember not seeing him for a while, then all of a sudden his appearing on a show I happened to be watching, and he suddenly had a ponytail and beard. A 180 degree turnaround from his former self, and yet he was even funnier. Check out his before (establishment) and after (anti-establishment) “AM/FM” album (I know – it’s on a CD now, but back then it was an album…with real vinyl!). I was impressed at the time how a person can do such a major makeover and still be so great. What a giant among us.

I realize this post is a bit off what I usually write about, but, to me, George Carlin is one of the true greats. I consider myself lucky that he lived in my lifetime and that I was able to enjoy his thoughts/routines as they were first performed. His perspective of how we as a people approach words and the meanings behind them truly helped shape my view of the absurdity of our handling of words.

Finally, it is truly amazing the relevance Mr. Carlin’s routines are to this day. Will we ever get over our puritanical mindset? After all, they're just words! They won't "curve your spine" or "keep the country from winning the war."

And in my tribute to Mr. Carlin, I just have three little words: “R**t in P***e.”

"Only Following Orders" Now a Good Excuse

Well, gee…back in post World War II, the “We were only following orders” defense didn’t fly at the Nuremberg trials. Flash forward sixty years later into the twenty-first century and the Obama administration is letting the CIA torturers off the prosecutorial hook because they “were only following orders,” i.e., they were told that what they were doing is legal by the Bush Administration.

What’s wrong with this picture? At least, the Obama people said nothing about letting the Bush Administration off the hook. That’s a good sign.

But why did the lower ranks in the military get jobbed for indecent behavior at Abu Ghraib? The higher ranks up to and including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn’t even get a passing look at being culpable for what was going on in the prison. Shouldn’t the CIA torturers been equally held accountable in addition to the Bush Administration?

Can't anybody see this pattern? First, the Bush Administration tells the telecommunications giants that illegal wiretapping is legal. So the corporations blithely go forth illegally wiretapping their merry hearts out. Then when the sordid affair is exposed, our government pushes through a retroactive immunity law to get the corporations off the hook.

When the CIA is told that illegal torture (waterboarding internationally since post WWII, for one) is legal, they go forth merrily torturing “enemy combatants” until it is exposed with the release of testimony and documents detailing the tortures. Now, the Obama administration is letting the CIA torturers off the hook.

Amazing what sixty years can bring about. I believe that this is a very serious issue. It illustrates that even when common decency tells a person something is absolutely wrong (including the fact there are international laws against it), if the “Powers That Be” say go ahead with it, it shall be done – with no future recriminations. Is this the new precedent we have set forth? Is this the mind set we want in our country in this day and age? Basic rights egregiously violated because higher-ups say it’s “OK”? Then not to be held accountable when the abhorrent behavior is exposed?

My final question is: can Congress (weak and feckless as it is) override the administration and prosecute the individuals who caused such misery to our fellow human beings? We should also point the cross hairs at the entire Bush Administration and make sure that those responsible for saying it is “OK” are equally held accountable.

I await, albeit with a major lack of confidence, that the Bush leaders will be held accountable.

"Homeland" Uber Alles?

In a recent post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, he uses the line “…still creepy phrase ‘Homeland Security’…” Boy, howdy, amen! The first time I heard this phrase, I cringed big time. All I could think about at the time it was introduced was the similar use of the word “fatherland” to describe the German Nazi regime. It has a whiff of “Let me see your papers!” I keep waiting for black leather trench coats to become the uniform of the day for those in Homeland Security.

As for “fatherland” here is the Wikipedia description of the word:

Assuming a specific Nazi usage of the term ‘Vaterland’ (which in fact never existed), the direct English translation "fatherland" featured in news reports associated with Nazi Germany and in domestic anti-Nazi propaganda during World War II. As a result, the English word is now associated with the Nazi government of Germany (unlike in Germany itself, where the word means simply "homeland"). The word is not used often in post-World War II English unless one wishes to invoke the Nazis (emphasis mine), or one is translating literally from a foreign language where that language's equivalent of ‘fatherland’ does not bear Nazi connotations.”

For me, as “fatherland” is cited above, “homeland” also represents fascist thinking. Notice that in German the word literally means “homeland.” Hmmm…

I propose that this word be banned from ever being used to describe our country in any way, shape or form. As with Mr. Greenwald, it really does creep me out upon hearing it to this day.

Good for Spain! Bad for us...

I just wanted to do a quick post on Spain’s pursuance of a criminal investigation of six of the Bush Administration’s key personnel regarding their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens.

Good for them! Bad for us. We should be the ones aggressively investigating these men. From what I’ve gathered, if the country perpetrating these tortures does not investigate their own countrymen’s violation of international laws against torture, the other countries which signed the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture agreements are obligated to investigate.

My take? How sad that the once greatest country in the world refuses to even acknowledge that the torture of human beings is not a prosecutable offense. The Obama administration is even fighting to quash three documents regarding torture which are apparently so outrageous that the administration is afraid to release them. Perhaps they are so bad, it would force the Obama administration to open meaningful investigations into the violations. It makes one wonder exactly why the administration is resistant to the public exposure of these documents. Interestingly, according to the above accords, if we as a nation do pursue these alleged offenders within our country, Spain will drop their investigation.

I’ve been hearing a lot lately the phrases “Rule of Law” versus the “Rule of Men.” Tragically, our great country has slid down the slippery slope toward the “Rule of Men.” The American people need to be enlightened to what exactly is going on and they must realize that should we become a bona fide country embracing totally the “Rule of Men,” our nation is deep, deep trouble.

We must return to the “Rule of Law,” and break up this two-tiered system within our society where the elite are bound by one set of rules heavily slanted in their favor, and the rest of the country by another set of rules heavily slanted against. All men and women, no matter how powerful, must be held accountable both domestically and internationally by the “Rule of Law” if they have committed crimes.

I sincerely hope that the Obama administration will do the right thing, but I’m not holding my breath. Hopefully, this international pressure will force the administration into acting. But how sad, that this country’s power brokers would have to be forced to do the right thing and not do it from the outset just because it would be the decent thing.

A Little Slow on the Uptake

I am really happy that Captain Phillips was able to come away from his capture relatively unscathed, but there are a couple of points that I need to address.

First, how on earth can a little tiny lifeboat with four pirates and a captive hold the greatest naval fleet in world history at bay? I mean, come on, I don’t know the exact figure, but we must have spent literally billions of dollars playing war games of various scenarios over our history. We have some of the finest minds regarding war strategy in world. Yet no one ever thought of the scenario of a tiny life boat holding an American citizen hostage?

Another thing – Captain Phillips jumped off the lifeboat last Friday. Our keen-minded military lights bulbs didn’t think of maintaining a constant vigilance on the lifeboat just in case that opportunity for the snipers arose until after the fact?

I think we might want to rethink our concept of “invincibility.” Those guys running the war games don’t seem to be the best and the brightest.

And one last point that’s been nagging me for years. I’ve never liked the use of the word “surge.” It’s “reinforcements” for pity’s sake. Has been, always will be. Of course, that word couldn’t be used. Too militaristic. "Surge" sounds so clean and fresh. Almost like a laundry detergent…

A Good Start

I’ve written in earlier posts about the “We are the world” concept of the United States. This attitude of American exceptionalism can be found in many areas of our geopolitical stances. One of the great examples of this position has been the United States’ harboring of Luis Posada Carriles. He is a former CIA operative who has been accused by both Cuba and Venezuela of participating in the bombing of a Cuban airliner which killed seventy-three souls back in 1976.

Yet for years, Mr. Carriles has been living under our protection in Florida. For years, we have rejected the Latin American countries’ cries for his extradition.
But just look at what Bush said a few years ago: “If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.” He used these words to justify the Afghanistan incursion. This was our excuse to bomb Afghanistan with impunity. We bomb Pakistan for the same reason. Think about it, we are killing innocent people in the name of that country being determined a terrorist state because of their harboring those we accuse of being terrorists.

Now think about Cuba or Venezuela creating their own “Manifesto” with the exact same words. They could then bomb Florida with impunity because we are harboring someone they consider to be a terrorist, since of course their newly created manifesto says we are now a “terrorist country” for harboring Mr. Carriles.

What I’m saying, of course, is patently absurd. Neither country would do such a thing. But that is exactly the point. The United States is so into its exceptionalist attitude that it cannot even conceive that another country would dare to attack us even for the exact same reasons we are bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The good news is that, according to Thursday’s telecast of “Democracy Now!” Mr. Carriles has been indicted on charges of lying about his role in several 1997 bombings at tourist areas in Cuba. This is a positive step in moving away from our exceptionalism attitude.

We need to respect other countries’ positions on the world stage, and treat them as equals. If they determine that someone in the United States is suspected of terrorist activities, we should honor their position and investigate thoroughly. We should have that suspect extradited just as we would want that country to extradite someone we believe should be brought to trial on terrorist activities. We should not be the 800 pound gorilla in the (world) room, doing whatever we want at the expense of other countries and disregarding their rights to justice and equality.

Yeah...Really "Concerned"

From CNN (emphasis mine):

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

In an interview with CNN's Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department was particularly concerned the government would face lawsuits if bonus contracts were breached.

So, Geithner’s the man who created the loophole. This has to be one of the lamest excuses I’ve ever heard. Let me get this straight. The auto industry and others of its ilk force unions to rework their contracts to the detriment of the workers in order for the industries to be solvent. Yet the wealthy financial executives “scare” our government into thinking lawsuits will ensue if the bonus contracts aren’t honored to aid in their future solvency? Are you frakkin’ kidding me?

“Concerned” my a**. This is a spin job from the word go. Not a chance was “concern” EVER in the mix. Cronyism at its finest. I’m glad he confessed and got Dodd off the hook though I’m sure he had no choice, or he would have never admitted it.

Geithner should be tossed out on his ear.

No Fingerprints...No Accountability...No Joy

Of course, everyone is aware of what’s going on re the bonuses being given to AIG executives, even though they tanked the economy with their “expertise” in finance. But right now I’m really incensed about one part of the whole debacle.

There was a provision in the stimulus package that would have helped deter the huge bonuses. Somehow, that provision magically disappeared from the final bill.

Even more magically, no one is admitting to pulling the provision out of the bill. Here is what Ariana Huffington wrote about it:

The mystery over who killed a provision in the stimulus package that would have curtailed bonuses at bailed out companies is a disturbing D.C. whodunit. But even more disturbing is what it reveals about how our government is run. "It is the ultimate indictment of what Washington has become," Sen. Ron Wyden, co-sponsor of the eliminated provision told me. "It's a place where, again and again, the public interest is deep-sixed without any fingerprints." Wyden has no idea who killed the provision. And, so far, no one in the administration of a president who promised that transparency would be a "touchstone" of his presidency has demanded that whoever is responsible own up to it. We deserve better.

The key line for me in this quote is:

It is the ultimate indictment of what Washington has become… It's a place where, again and again, the public interest is deep-sixed without any fingerprints.

And there you have it, folks. This is our government today and for what I would say the last fifty years or so. The politicos come out on TV or Radio and say something like “The American people are not going to stand for this” or some such nonsense. As if they represent "the American people," when in fact they don't give a G*****n about "the American people." They’re doing everything behind the curtain to stab “the American people” in the back in order to further their own ends.

What scares me most is what have they been doing behind our backs that we don’t know about? Somebody blithely extracted that provision thinking nobody would be the wiser. Unfortunately for him or her, it’s blown into a huge mess. Hopefully, this person will be outed and ousted. He or she should be appropriately vilified for putting himself or herself ahead of the people and tossed out of office.

But that begs the larger question. Who lately has blithely forsaken the American people for their own self-interest, and we don’t even know about it…perhaps we’ll never know that something that could have greatly enhanced our lives was secretly eliminated because it was counter to the interests of a select privileged few.

We elected these charlatans, people! It’s time for a major housecleaning.

Birds of a Feather...

Well, how about this? President Obama invited all the mainstream media press “giants” to lunch today. Here’s the “Who’s Who” who attended:

NBC News: Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor, NBC Nightly News; David Gregory, moderator, Meet the Press.
ABC News: Charles Gibson, anchor, World News; George Stephanopoulos, chief Washington correspondent.
CBS News: Katie Couric, anchor and managing editor, CBS Evening News; Bob Schieffer, anchor, Face the Nation.
PBS: Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor, NewsHour.
FOX NEWS: Bret Baier: anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier; Chris Wallace, host Host, Fox News Sunday.
CNN: Wolf Blitzer, anchor, The Situation Room; John King, anchor, State of the Union.

So what’s the purpose of the lunch?

It gives the White House an opportunity to help shape the television coverage before and after the speech, which will be seen by millions of Americans. Along with the president, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and senior adviser David Axelrod also were on hand.

So...where is “Democracy Now!” host Amy Goodman? Not on your life would she be invited. And if by some miracle she was, I bet she would demurely decline the offer. Or maybe she wouldn’t, if the administration granted her free reign on questioning the President. But I don’t see that happening in this lifetime.

This is so typical. The mainstream news media cozying up to the President and his administration. How can they possibly assume an adversarial position (which is what the fourth estate is all about) with an administration's policies if they're getting in bed with it?

I’m really, really sure that hard, penetrating questions were asked of the President during lunch. You betcha! Now just watch how these "journalists" rave about the speech tonight.

These TV "actors" are the stenographers of the policy spins that the administration spews, and God forbid that they lose access to the inside power if they were to criticize anything that's said.

Wimps...

The "Common Sense" Right to Take a DNA Test

Now this to me is outrageous:

The solicitor general's office has turned down a request by the Innocence Project to disavow a Bush Administration stance on prisoners' access to DNA evidence in postconviction proceedings. As a result, on March 2, Neal Katyal will make his debut as deputy solicitor general by arguing before the Supreme Court in support of the state of Alaska's view that prisoners have no constitutional right to obtain DNA evidence that might help them prove their innocence -- even if the prisoners pay for the DNA testing themselves. The case is District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne.

The quote above is from “The Blog of Legal Times,” February 20, 2009.

Excuse me? What on earth is going on in our justice system? Glenn Greenwald has posted previously on his blog about the “two-tiered justice system” whereupon the rich have one form of justice and the rest of the country a draconian one. For me, this is a prime example of what he's saying.

DNA testing should not be a "constitutional right." It should be an unequivocal basic right for all people. It's just common sense fairness to do everything we can to make sure that the right people, not the innocent ones, are locked up. If DNA can be used to determine the guilt or innocence of a person, it should be utilized immediately. Without question. No matter when the opportunity to obtain the DNA arises.

Now President Obama's solicitor general’s office is trying to deny those convicted of utilizing DNA to help prove their innocence, picking up where the Bush administration left off.

How can we as a society possibly reject outright the opportunity for a convicted felon to prove his innocence via a DNA test, especially if he’s willing to pay for it. What kind of down side is there? What kind of people are we?

With so many men on death row being proven innocent via DNA, imagine how many convicts not facing the death penalty are innocent.

There is absolutely no reason not to give these men and women the test. Absolutely none.

I posted an earlier blog right after the election that I was reserving judgment on Barack Obama. I believe both the Democratic and Republican parties are cut from the same cloth. Money greases the wheel of both; unfortunately at the expense of the citizenry.

Those who hailed Barack Obama as a messiah should take note of this and other issues he’s siding with the last administration. Like I said, the same cloth…

We definitely need a third, maybe even a fourth party.

What, Again? (Surprise, Surprise)

This truly amazes me. After the brouhaha about Citigroup going ahead with the purchase of a corporate jet subsequent to receiving taxpayer bailout money, then having to back off the buy when it received a somewhat less than cordial phone call from the White House, we discover Wells Fargo & Co. is going ahead with a 12-night Las Vegas junket at two expensive hotels. Despite the fact that their handling of a $25 billion taxpayer bailout is being heavily criticized.

As I pointed out in my last post, this is nothing but pure, unadulterated Arrogance. Another excellent example of my postulation that the corporate bigwigs think they are “The World” and anything they do should not be scrutinized. Of course, the corporate heads were aware of the Citigroup fiasco. Yet, they still plan on this expensive junket as if nothing is amiss.

Now that the Vegas plans are out in the open, the corporate bozos are “reconsidering” the expensive junket. One of my pet peeves about the press is that we never get specific names of these clowns who are treating the country like we’re interfering with their lavish lifestyles. I believe that every one of these stories comes with the name of the CEO and the top execs so we can identify those who believe they are above the “unwashed.” We need to hammer their names into the public conscience. A pox on all of them.

As I wrote last time, who knows how many of these unseen massive expenditures are being incurred at this moment? We must keep uncovering these corporate shenanigans every time. If they even think of spending frivolously, we should be on their butts hounding them to no end.

We need to pass a law (if that’s what it takes) that the U.S. can inspect every penny of any corporation that feeds at the trough of taxpayer money. To the last detail. The accounting expenditures and profits should be in the public domain for every citizen to peruse. No exceptions. They want our money, they pay that price.

One day, there will be a corporate straw breaking the back of U.S. citizens whereupon they will finally say “Enough!” Perhaps then we can totally rewrite the way corporations do business. The Washington political circle is absolutely in bed with these corporations, thus it will take a major protest of the people to enact changes. I hope it’s not too late.

Update: Wells Fargo has canceled its foray into Las Vegas. But as I wrote, no names of the deciders were given. Who made the original decision for the junket? Who exactly decided not to go forward with the trip? These executives cannot continue to be faceless. Let's get those names out in the open. We need to know who to target to get terminated from these positions.

Another thing I want to mention. I realize that these peccadilloes (junkets, salary bonuses, etc.) are not the meat of the problems the financial institutions are in the middle of. However, they are symptomatic of the institutions' overall egregious behavior. By keeping tabs on these smaller issues we are sending a message that I hope they will understand. Of course, with their "We are the world" mentality, I seriously doubt it. We need to oust these guys and bring in new blood.

We Are the World

I’m borrowing my topic header from Noam Chomsky. He uses it to refer to the United States and its allies (Britain, Israel and a few smattering countries) exclaiming such nonsense as “The World condemns country 'X' for its current policy regarding ‘Y.’” Of course, they aren’t speaking for the “World.” They are condemning country “X” for policies running counter to the interests of the U.S and its minority allies. Most of the “world” could either care less about “Y” or might be inclined to the opposite of the U.S. and its remarkably few allies’ opinion.

As far as I’m concerned, the financial institutions also view themselves as “The World” and nothing (or nobody) else matters. Take a look at the eighteen or so billion dollar “bonuses” that the financial institutions gave themselves last year in spite of the disaster the executives led this country into. President Obama called the bonuses “irresponsible.” I beg to differ. I call it arrogance. They don’t even think or care that it should matter what they did. Of course, once there is a major outcry, the Public Relations Departments (and various Spinners in favor of the corporations) start to do damage control.

I love this spin, as an example: Something to the effect that salaries are more tied in with bonuses in the financial sector than the industrial side of the work force. Give me a break. For my entire life, I’ve been under the impression that a “bonus” given at the end of the year represented a job well done. Not for running a company into the ground and needing taxpayer bailout money.

How about Citigroup signing off for a fifty million dollar corporate jet? Even after its multi-billion dollar bailout. It took a phone call from the White House (“We are not amused”) for Citigroup to “decide” to pass on the jet. One more time, this is not “irresponsibility.” It’s arrogance, plain and simple.

Finally, John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, spent over a million dollars for office “redecoration” and to hand out millions of dollars of bonuses a month earlier than usual in order to get the money out before Bank of America took over the corporation. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was gaming the system so his fellow corporate executives could get their millions before he relinquished control to BofA. Arrogance. Not irresponsibility.

What really scares me is what we are not seeing. I bet there are many such instances of arrogance and frivolous spending that is unseen. Recall that AIG tried to cover their "retreat" (spending hundreds of thousands of dollars) in Arizona after they got their bailout. What other corporations are hiding egregious spending such as this? It will be interesting to see what else these execs are doing behind our backs. Hopefully, we will be able to find out, though I believe most of the shenanigans will slip by.

These guys don’t give a frak about the U.S. or its people, many of whom are leading desperate lives. It’s about greed and the conception that they are “The World.” Until we can oust every one of these money-grubbing egoists and bring in those who think in terms that all of us are a part of this great country and all citizens should benefit from the resources that this great country has, we will have an ever widening (arrogant) upper and (exploited) lower class system.

A New Legal "Process"?

OK. I’ve really refrained from saying anything about the upcoming Obama administration since the man hasn’t even been sworn in. However, upon reading Glen Greenwald’s Sunday post about Obama’s position on closing Guantanamo, I have to say something.

Here is what Obama stated (per Mr. Greenwald):

“It (the closing of Guantanamo) is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

You mean to tell me that he is considering creating a whole new set of rules to use evidence that is not admissible in our current legal system? And somehow allowing confessions under torture under this "process" is "adhering to the basic principles of Anglo American legal system"? What the heck is that? Maybe we should set up a new set of court proceedings for anything that can’t be used in our present court system. Hey, I’ve got it! If a person is found not guilty in our legal system, we’ll just create a system where he can be found guilty. To hell with double jeopardy, that only pertains to the current legal system…not if there were two different ones. Cool!

I totally agree with Glen Greenwald and his take on Obama’s scary statement. We must not find any kind of “process” which will allow evidence obtained during torture to be used against anyone. Obama’s posture is not what defines us as “civilized,” “decent” and “fair,” and does not conform to our Constitution’s intent.

Our laws have unfortunately enabled individuals guilty of crimes to be set free because due process was not followed. This is obviously a disagreeable outcome of adhering to our constitutional rights that were established by our forefathers in order to protect the innocent. We must, however, never deviate from these inalienable rights.

Letting one person be convicted by evading these rights can lead to the total obliteration of our fundamental laws by those who wish to have absolute power. A crack in the dike leads to the inevitable flood.

Barack Obama’s position is unacceptable. I hope that’s clear enough.

Breathe Easier...The Economy WILL Be Fixed

This morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” George mentioned that the producers had given the public an opportunity to send in questions for their sole guest President-elect Barack Obama. According to George (easier to type than his last name), the overwhelming question was (I’m paraphrasing all this since I don’t have a transcript – feel free to correct me if I say anything incorrectly) if the economy can be fixed.

Now let’s think about this. Does anyone REALLY think that Obama is going to say “Gee, George, not gonna happen. This economy has been too corrupted in the last thirty-five years and there’s just no way in Hell I can fix the darned thing! I sure hope it can right itself. I’m really crossing my fingers! But thanks for electing me anyway.”

Be real, George. Is that the best you can do? That was a hanging softball question. Does George really think that his audience is that stupid? That when Obama says (I’m paraphrasing again) it can be fixed though it’s going to take a long time, the viewing audience is going to at last sit back and say “Whew! Now I can relax because our Guy says it can be fixed”? I can see the headline now in tomorrow’s papers: “President-elect Barack Obama Says the Economy Can Be Fixed!” That ought to make everyone breathe a HUGE sigh of relief. Time to go back to business as usual…the economy will be fixed…Obama says so…

As far as I’m concerned this is just scripted political theatre by both asker and asked to alleviate the anxiety of the not-so-bright. Both know that they’re catering to an audience that cannot handle the complexities of economics so good old platitudes will keep those poor people from wringing their hands.

On “Democracy Now!” Amy Goodman aired a clip with FDR explaining to the public how the Social Security System that he implemented would work. In the clip, FDR used the word “vicissitudes.” I wonder how many politicians even know what that word means, let alone use it to inform anything to the public. They wouldn’t dare. They are scared it would make them sound “elitist.” Keep it to two syllable words only. Yet 70 some-odd years ago, our President used it as a matter of course when explaining to the public his policies. My, how times have changed.

It always gets me when a politician says on TV that “The people are smart!” Hogwash. That politician is playing to the stupid. Can’t you just see it? Some “smart” person watching the aforesaid pol exclaiming, “Yup! He’s dadgum right! I shur am one smart sumbitch, ain’t I maw? He’s the feller for me! I’ma votin’ fer him!” And THAT’s exactly why the pol says “The people are smart.”

Of course, as I wrote in an earlier post, for me the real number one issue is the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. The economy will one day recover and people will get better quality of lives. Sadly, once dead, always dead. No recovery for that one.