FRAP? No - CR*P!

Friday, on Rachel Maddow, one of her segments compared her pet dog's idiosyncrasy as a puppy to the U.S. Senate. She said that a puppy affliction known as "Frenetic Random Activity Period," or "FRAP," is also the Senate's problem.

To me at least, the FRAP, the frenetic random activity period, is the most cogent explanation I can come up with for what‘s happening right now in the United States Senate. Things are happening really fast and furious right now in Washington. And we know why that‘s true for one side of Washington.

One of her examples is,

The nukes treaty with Russia, right? This has been on the docket for eight months now...

Republicans decided that they wanted amendments, that nothing could happen on this until they had no time for their very important amendments. They wanted to add amendments to the treaty.

But, OK, Democratic Senator John Kerry, who appeared on this show two nights ago, said essentially that even though that was kind of weird, if that‘s what Republicans needed in order to finally bring this thing to a vote, then, sure, you want to debate amendments? We can debate amendments...I got the floor time right now. Here‘s your time for amendments.

Republicans, it turned out, did not have any amendments. Nothing ready to go. Nothing written out, nothing to offer, nothing planned.

Ultimately, today, a day later, John McCain finally figured out an amendment that he might want to try. Republicans insisted this could not be voted on. They could not vote on this treaty until they had time to offer their many and very important amendments. So when they got the chance, kerplunk, one, and it took them a day to come up with it.

I'm sorry, Ms. Maddow, but this is an example of a horribly broken Senate - that's the "most cogent explanation." It has nothing to do with some "syndrome." These knuckleheads are solely out for their own interests and don't give a hang about the people they supposedly represent. It's all about making the other side look bad and give their side an edge.

In other words, they're full of CR*P, not FR*P. ;-)

Security Theater 101 (or the Keystone Kops revisited)

So...Are you feeling safe yet at airports? Hah!

A Houston man got a .40 caliber handgun by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport inspectors the other day. On top of that,

A person briefed on the latest tests tells ABC News the failure rate approaches 70 percent at some major airports. Two weeks ago, TSA's new director said every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners at some airports.

And don't you just love that those "dangerous" bottles greater than three ounces are tossed into bins right next to the authorities? I mean, if the bottles did hold explosive liquids, wouldn't you think that they would be taken to a safe place away from the TSA authorities? Just in case those big, bad bottles explode, you know. Maybe the TSA personnel are just really, really, really brave. Not!

Why is it that Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport, one of the most secure airports in the world, doesn't require passengers to remove their shoes?

Full body scanners? According to Ralph Nader,

The technology has already been challenged by recognized academic specialists on both safety and efficacy grounds. After six months of testing at four major airports, Italy is likely to drop these scanners, finding them ineffective and slow. The European Commission has also raised "several serious fundamental rights and health concerns" and recommends less-intrusive alternatives.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The security system at our airports are nothing but "security theater" brought about by inducing fear into the citizenry, thus making them more docile for Big Brother to take away as much of our rights as they can.

Or to put it another way: "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em cowed."

The dumbing down of committees...

I see on the MSNBC news ticker this morning that soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner has offered Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) a seat on the Congressional Intelligence Committee.

I sense an oxymoron in there somewhere...

The Washington/Wall Street Circle Game continues

After leaving the Obama Adiminstration position as head of Office Management and Budget (OMB), Peter Orszag has been hired by Citicorp. And so the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Federal Government continues. As Glenn Greenwald puts it,

Just think about how this works. People like Rubin, Summers and Gensler shuffle back and forth from the public to the private sector and back again, repeatedly switching places with their GOP counterparts in this endless public/private sector looting. When in government, they ensure that the laws and regulations are written to redound directly to the benefit of a handful of Wall St. firms, literally abolishing all safeguards and allowing them to pillage and steal.

Then, when out of government, they return to those very firms and collect millions upon millions of dollars, profits made possible by the laws and regulations they implemented when in government. Then, when their party returns to power, they return back to government, where they continue to use their influence to ensure that the oligarchical circle that rewards them so massively is protected and advanced. This corruption is so tawdry and transparent -- and it has fueled and continues to fuel a fraud so enormous and destructive as to be unprecedented in both size and audacity -- that it is mystifying that it is not provoking more mass public rage.

Get that? No one is at all concerned about this. No "provoking...mass public outrage." Even when it's blatantly stated that he is powerfully connected. No one seems to care that the Circle Game expertly pointed out by Mr. Greenwald boldly continues. As the Huffington Post article states,

Orszag, who had worked as director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama, left the White House in July. He was one of the president's most prominent advisers and remains well-connected in U.S. political circles.

Now he will bring those connections to Citigroup -- although the bank said in a prepared statement that his role will not involve direct contact with federal government officials.

Oh, no... Of course his role will not involve direct contact with federal government officials (maybe indirect, hmmm?). They just hired him because he's an all-around nice guy and fun to be with! And I've got Florida swampland I want to sell you.

Last week, Carlos Gutierrez, Commerce Secretary under George Bush also got hired by Citicorp. So he will be making tons of money under the Citicorp umbrella until the next Republican President comes into power. Then watch as he goes back into government service to further enrich Wall Street. Looks like Citicorp is covering both Democratic and Republican bases. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Has Obama jumped the shark?

Last night, Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC had a special comment regarding the great tax "compromise" engineered by Obama and the Republicans. It was great. I really liked what he had to say near the beginning of the comment:

In exchange for selling out a principle campaign pledge, and the people to whom and for whom it was made, in exchange for betraying the truth that the idle and corporate rich of this country have gotten unprecedented and wholly indefensible tax cuts for a decade, in exchange for giving the idle and corporate rich of this country two more years to accumulate still more and more vast piles of personal wealth with which they can buy and sell everybody else—

In exchange for extending what he spent the weeks before the midterms calling tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires to people who have proven, without a scintilla of doubt, without even a fig leaf of phony effort to make it look like they would do otherwise, that they will keep the money for themselves—

In exchange for injecting new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved-for-a-decade three-card Monte game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous Republicans, that tax cuts for the rich will somehow lead to job creation, even though if that had ever been true in the slightest, the economy would not be where it is today.

In exchange for giving tax cuts for the rich which the nation cannot afford, and extending their vintage through the next election and thus promising, at best, a reenactment of this whole sorry, amoral, degrading spectacle during the 2012 presidential campaign, when the sides will be climbing over each other to again extend these cuts—

In exchange for this searing and transcendent capitulation, the President got just thirteen months of extended benefits for those unemployed less than 100 weeks. And he got nothing, absolutely nothing for those unemployed for longer, the 99ers.

Very well said.

Rachel Maddow, at the end of her show right after Countdown, pulled out a favorite quote of hers supposedly from Gandhi,

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

Sadly, she then proceeded to illustrate how the Obama administration has it backwards,

So, first he won. Then they fought him. He got a lot of legislation passed in his first two years as president. But by fighting him in this way, the Republicans destroyed him in the midterms.

And in the first big test of whether those midterm losses had seriously wounded the president, or whether he was going to come back stronger after that defeat, the president face-planted, calling a hastily-arranged press conference to try to defend an inexplicable capitulation, even before his opponents have taken power, even with public opinion on his side.

So first he won. Then they fought him. And now, with the way he lost this fight, we have arrived at the part you would hope would be the worst of this process, but it isn‘t.

What is happening now is that this presidency is at risk of becoming a punch line. It‘s not that he has lost a fight or two or three or four. It‘s that the very idea that he knows how to win or even wants to win has become a joke.

In my opinion, this administration is over. Time to move on. Of course, with the two-party system, whoever grabs the torch will perpetuate this travesty against the people of the United States...except for the politically elite and the rich and powerful.

The great tax "compromise" blowback begins

I've run across a couple of posts re the tax cut "compromise" that I think are spot on. The first is Dave Sirota's writing that we in the United States (or at least those who govern it) have gone "batshit crazy." His first of four reasons is very telling:

We just had an election that focused intently on the problems that come with a growing national deficit and debt. Correspondingly, almost every major poll after the election shows the majority of the country therefore doesn't want to extend Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year. Nonetheless, a Democratic president who won the biggest electoral landslide in contemporary history on a promise to rescind those tax cuts -- that same president is now pushing to extend those very tax cuts, thus seriously increasing the national deficit/debt.

I recommend your reading the entire article.

It's also great that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) is incensed about this horrible deal. He's is totally on point when he says,

"I can tell you with absolute certainty that a couple of months from now our Republican friends will have driven up the national debt by giving tax breaks to the very rich, and then they're going to come back and say, 'Oh my word! We have a growing national debt and a big deficit! We're going to have to cut back on Pell Grants, on education, on health care, on environmental protection -- all of which will impact the middle class!'" said Sanders.

I sincerely hope that when the Republicans do start falling back on the debt/deficit excuse that people such as Mr. Sanders will look them right in the face and say, "Well, you extended the tax cuts for the rich putting us further in debt, so let's not hear any whining while we help the middle class get back on their feet."

The great tax "compromise" debacle is imminent...

I am really going to be steamed if the democrats (read: Obama) cave and give the upper income a continuing tax break. You just KNOW that they will be saying, "It's going to be 'only' for two years" or some such idiocy.

There should be NOTHING for those earning above $250,000. We don't need to add to the deficit by giving the "haves" more money. And the weenie response of, "We got so much in return for it!" is unacceptable! Any bets, "Some will be disappointed" will be spoken by our fearless leader as an attempt to mollify his base?

As usual, the "We will never compromise!" Republicans win again. Obama's duplicity is appalling. He had a chance to be a great President, but he acceded to money before the people.

A pox on the democrats! I've always said that the two parties are made of the same cloth. One more piece of evidence.

Update (one hour later)

The Huffington Post says a deal has been struck. To wit (emphasis mine):

...the contours of a final package emerged with more detail than ever before. While it's clear that the White House gave in on its main front -- the desire to let the tax levels for the upper-income levels revert to pre-Bush rates -- administration officials claimed that they were able to secure major victories in return....to continue for two years...

In reference to my comment about the Dems and Reps being the same, Jeremy Tri comments in the article,

Sure would of been nice to have elected a democrat to be president in 2008!

Boy, howdy, amen.

Noam Chomsky on the Wikileaks dump

Noam Chomsky was on Democracy Now! this morning (It's about the only place on American TV that he can be seen). He discusses the ramifications of the latest Wikileaks dump. Very interesting stuff. Here he states something that the U.S. pointedly ignores:

"Latest polls show Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership."

He mentions the democratic election of the Hamas in 2006 and the American/Israeli response as an example.

He also says that when American diplomats/administrators use the word "Arabs" they are referring to dictators (e.g., "Arabs believe that Iran is a major threat to the Middle East"), not the Arab public at large.

You can see a streaming of the interview here.

The point of all this is when the U.S. goes into a country in the name of "Democracy" (read: "invades") they are actually trying to prop up dictators (in order to exploit the country's resources) so that the U.S. does not have to rely on the whim of the people ("democracy") possibly kicking them out.

Bush's third term rolls along

The cover-up and "Let's look forward...not backward" meme goes on.

Let's face it, "folks," (One of Obama's favorite words) the third Bush term is alive and well, thriving in the Palace of Versailles...now called Washington, D.C.

Obama will never get it

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Last week):

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (Last week):

This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles…We're going to do everything -- and I mean everything we can do -- to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.

Michael Moore (Election night):

In the morning, President Obama is going to hold a press conference, and he’s going to take the wrong path. He’s going to say what we really need now is more bipartisanship and more kumbaya. And the other side wants none of that. And I don’t know—I don’t know how much you have to be battered and bruised to understand when the abuser is not going to stop abusing.

President Barack Obama (Day after election):

We must find common ground in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges...I do believe there is hope for civility. I do believe there is hope for progress and that's because I believe in the resiliency of a nation that has bounced back from much worse than what it is going through right now.

Obama had his chance when he had both houses in his pocket and he chose not to take advantage. Notice how he still doesn’t get it. He keeps believing in “hope” and “civility” when the Republicans are hell-bent on taking him down. Michael Moore is right on point. Pathetic.

The Ultimate Sin

The opening paragraph in Glenn Greenwald's post two days ago is exactly what I've been asking myself about this and many other issues for years (the US torturing of individuals, detaining without any due process whatsoever, US-sanctioned assassination, not-at-Ground-Zero mosque, etc.). I am amazed to this day how this whole debacle has been framed into "issues." We shouldn't even be having discussions about these. These concepts are so egregious as to not warrant a pro-con conversation:

During the Bush-era torture debates, I was never able to get past my initial incredulity that we were even having a "debate" over whether the President has the authority to torture people. Andrew Sullivan has responded to some of the questions I posed about his defense of Obama's assassination program, and I realize now that throughout this whole assassination debate, specific legal and factual issues aside, my overarching reaction is quite similar: I actually can't believe that there is even a "debate" over whether an American President -- without a shred of due process or oversight -- has the power to compile hit lists of American citizens whom he orders the CIA to kill far away from any battlefield. The notion that the President has such an unconstrained, unchecked power is such a blatant distortion of everything our political system is supposed to be -- such a pure embodiment of the very definition of tyrannical power -- that, no matter how many times I see it, it's still hard for me to believe there are people willing to expressly defend it.

This is the deal breaker for me regarding President Obama. I will never support an individual who has no problem in authorizing the killing of another human being without any kind of due process, no matter what else he might accomplish. That is so against the grain of what I believe our country should represent. A living, breathing, totally unique human being possibly being snuffed out forever on one person's say-so. That is the ultimate sin.

As Mr. Greenwald says, "The notion that the President has such an unconstrained, unchecked power is such a blatant distortion of everything our political system is supposed to be..."

We're now on the slippery slope. Where will we go from here?

George Bush II is an unacceptable person

On Democracy Now! today, Amy Goodman interviewed spy author John Le Carré (real name David Cornwell) in London. She only showed part of the interview and promised that she would devote a show entirely to the interview. I am looking forward to it.

One thing Mr. Le Carré said that struck me was in reference to George Bush II,

...there are very few absolutes about human behavior. But I think a leader who does take his country to war under false pretenses is simply not an acceptable person. I don’t think that we should be weighing the rights and wrongs of that. It seems to me to be quite simply wrong.

That is so basic and so true. Yet, the Washington Courtiers in the Marble Palace refuse to vilify (or bring to justice) Bush or any of his administration who killed so many Americans and middle easterners "under false pretenses." I will say again (and I will continue to say it until the day I die), the Bushies should have been charged with War Crimes and dealt with appropriately. They are murderers in my book.

Until they are brought to justice, we are a third world country, not deserving to be standing tall with civilized countries.

A "tiny minority of people"

Did anybody besides me catch President Obama's comment at the end of his press conference Friday afternoon? To wit:

And so from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here. It’s a handful, a tiny minority of people who are engaging in horrific acts, and have killed Muslims more than anybody else.

Get that? The "enemy" is "a tiny minority of people" who are engaging in horrific acts. I've maintained from day one that the 9/11 attack should have been treated as a criminal conspiracy and having law enforcement, such as Interpol, pursue these criminals, who according to our President is a "tiny minority of people."

Instead, President Bush used the act of a "tiny minority of people" to declare an unending "War on Terror" and get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of middle easterners killed with millions more displaced. President Obama continues the same prosecution. Over a "tiny minority of people."

I am surprised that no one has picked up on this comment. Maybe they are choosing to ignore it, so let me put it a slightly different way.

In addition to causing hundreds of thousands of American and middle easterners' deaths, we have spent over three trillion dollars, according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. All over a "tiny minority of people."

The political elite have been sowing massive amounts of fear into the very souls of the American population to perpetuate the massive war effort, maintain the profits of the military industrial complex and keep America "safe" from these terrifying, evil "tiny minority of people." They who will creep into our bedrooms and slit our throats at any moment if we don't watch out!

A "tiny minority of people" threaten our "national security," and the United States as we know it will be taken down forever by a "handful" of these pseudo-masterminds if we don't throw three trillion dollars and over 5,000 American lives at them. And we're continuing this blasphemy to this day and beyond - A "Forever War"...

Since the inception of the United States there have been a "tiny minority of people" who have plotted against it. Same as any other country in the world having a "tiny minority of people" plot against them.

Doesn't anybody get what's going on?

Cable news anchors: Journalists? Not!

I just ran into another shining example of the vapid newsreaders who are described as "journalists" in our Mainstream Media. CNN's Tony Harris was anchoring on Labor Day when it came over the wire that a member of the Little Rock Nine had passed away. The cable news show got on the line one of the Little Rock Nine to comment on it. Her name was "Minniejean Brown-Trickey."

Now, granted, I wouldn't hold that anyone could remember the names involved in an event the occurred in 1957. But a little research (i.e., Journalistic behavior) would have pulled up the names of the nine lickety-split. I did it in about five seconds. And laptops wired to the Internet are ubiquitous on cable news shows.

Instead, our intrepid anchor Mr. Harris proceeded to call her "Millie." She corrected him, but he wasn't even listening to her and proceeded to call her "Millie" a second time. Again, she corrected him and he finally got it right.

Interestingly, the transcript (below) edits out the second time he calls her "Millie" and the second time she corrects him. I was watching it live and I distinctly remember both corrections:

HARRIS: This just in to CNN. Jefferson Thomas, one of the Little Rock Nine members, has passed away, we're just learning. And you remember the Little Rock Nine, nine black high school students who really are heroes of the civil rights movement, who braved segregationist mobs to integrate an all-white high school, Little Rock Central High.

I believe we have someone on the phone with us.

Millie (sic) is on the phone with us?

MINNEJEAN BROWN TRICKEY, ONE OF "LITTLE ROCK NINE": It's Minniejean.

HARRIS: Minnie, it's good to talk to you.

TRICKEY: Thank you.

Now why would CNN edit out the second mistake? Is it to make their anchor look not as, shall we say, "vapid" as he is? I thought transcripts were supposed to be accurate quotes of on-air conversations. Apparently, CNN is pulling a little CYA and painting their anchors in the best possible light and to heck with accuracy.

Also, don't you just love that he makes it sound like he new all about the story...like it was right there in his razor sharp head, and of course we had to know too, since it was a Very Important Story back then:

And you remember the Little Rock Nine, nine black high school students who really are heroes of the civil rights movement, who braved segregationist mobs to integrate an all-white high school, Little Rock Central High.

Of course, I remember! I was just thinking about it a minute ago! What a coincidence! I tell you, it's a daily occurrence with me, remembering the Little Rock Nine!

So - two examples of non-journalism. No research prior to the interview (but he remembers!) and not listening to the interviewee (just rambling on with the questions without paying attention to the what's being said).

It just goes to show that the anchor "journalists" are reading what's put before them or echoing what's put into their earphones and not bothering to delve into the story. And the media corporations love it. Far be it that CNN's crack "journalists" do any investigating (or any other cable news network, for that matter).

The Power of Nightmares: Great viewing

I watched a three-part series (one hour long each) yesterday produced in Britain called "The Power of Nightmares." Excellent look at the rise of "terrorism" starting thirty-forty years ago with a middle easterner watching teens dance to "Baby, It's Cold Outside" and getting an inspiration. Here is the opening of the series:

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror.

But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It’s a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

And here are the closing remarks of part three:

In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. Whilst the 20th century was dominated between a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomised rather than of their inherent strength.

But the fear will not last, and just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so, too, will the nightmares, and then our politicians will have to face the fact that they have no visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer.

Of particular note to me was this "Bush Doctrine," British-style called the "Precautionary Principle" (note the Orwellian overtones):

...the precautionary principle says that not having the evidence that something might be a problem is not a reason for not taking action as if it were a problem. That’s a very famous triple-negative phrase that effectively says that action without evidence is justified. It requires imagining what the worst might be and applying that imagination upon the worst evidence that currently exists.

And a "mysterious" philosopher (Leo Strauss) from the 50s and 60s held this belief that rings down to today:

Strauss believed that the liberal idea of individual freedom led people to question everything—all values, all moral truths. Instead, people were led by their own selfish desires. And this threatened to tear apart the shared values which held society together. But there was a way to stop this, Strauss believed. It was for politicians to assert powerful and inspiring myths that everyone could believe in. They might not be true, but they were necessary illusions. One of these was religion; the other was the myth of the nation. And in America, that was the idea that the country had a unique destiny to battle the forces of evil throughout the world.

And how about this re the "Dirty Bomb" scenario?:

VO: And Abu Zubaydah also told his interrogators of a terrifying new weapon the Islamists intended to use: an explosive device that could spray radiation through cities, the “dirty bomb.”

[ EXCERPT , CBS EVENING NEWS ]

DAN RATHER : First, a CBS News exclusive about a captured Al Qaeda leader who says his fellow terrorists have the know-how to build a very dangerous weapon and get it to the United States.

VO: And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and, in the process, they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But, in reality, the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion, but almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and, providing the area was cleaned promptly, the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past, both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.

[ CUT TO INTERIOR , LIVING ROOM ]

INTERVIEWER : How dangerous would a dirty bomb be?

DR THEODORE ROCKWELL , NUCLEAR SCIENTIST AND RADIATION RISK EXPERT : The deaths would be few, if any, and the answer is, probably none.

INTERVIEWER : Really?

ROCKWELL : Yes. And that’s been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, “But, you know, people won’t believe that, and they’ll panic.” And then all the people working on this project, you know, the defence and so forth, breathe a big sigh of relief because they got their problem back: you know, we’re gonna all panic. I don’t think it would kill anybody and I think you’ll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise. The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. And they—they—the measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose—not life-threatening, but fairly high—and I checked into how the calculation was done, and they assume that after the attack, no one moves for one year. One year. Now, that’s ridiculous.

To sum it all up:

The driving force behind these new global policies in the war on terror was the power of a dark fantasy: a sinister web of hidden and interlinked threats that stretched around the world. And such was the power of that fantasy that it also began to transform the very nature of politics because, increasingly, politicians were discovering that their ability to imagine the future and the terrible dangers it held gave them a new and heroic role in the world.

You might consider watching this in the future (I got it through Netflix). If you wish, the transcript of all three episodes can be found here.

I wrote my brother about this and he had a response that's right on point:

Good luck trying to talk someone out of believing what they read, hear and see in the media that is now owned and operated by the corporations that benefit most from perpetuating the misinformation.

Boy, howdy, amen.

Dissecting Obama's "Iraq War Is Over" speech

(Italics are my comments of the text of President Obama's speech last night)

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

Though we still have 50,000 troops and an untold number of private contractors that will be there for frakkin’ ever…

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war.

…And the next decade, and the next, and the next…

We’ve endured a long and painful recession.

And will continue to endure for a very long time…

And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

It will be - what with the kowtowing to moneyed interests needing war for profit and not the people who need government assistance ("We can't increase the deficits caused by expensive wars!")…

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.

Rest assured Wall Street and Military Industrial complex, you’re safe in my hands…

It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

Our imperialism will not falter in these deficit-heavy times…

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq.

And used every bogus, false excuse in the book (not to mention the Main Stream Media jumping on the bandwagon) to get the country behind him…

Much has changed since that night.

We’re 4,400 fewer (American deaths in Iraq), heavily in debt, etc.

A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency.

Duh! Who'd a thunk that would happen??

Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart.

Gee…I wonder what brought that on?

Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

Heckuva job, Bushie!

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars.

“Rough waters?” 4,400 dead Americans, a million dead Iraqis and over a million displaced Iraqis and it’s “rough waters”? Give me a break…

Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

Me, too…too bad it was for all the wrong reasons…

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

Like how to we can get a monopoly on their oil…

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

It will never be over. Like Okinawa and Germany, our hegemony will reign for decades… They will do what we tell them or there will be another regime change…

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

"Support"…as in "dictate"…

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

But millions more remain…

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

Now that’s funny, seeing as how Al-Qaeda wasn’t there in the first place when we attacked…

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout.

And months later they still don’t have a functioning government…

A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

“Strong partner” as in do what we say…or else!

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.

And even more private. corrupt contractors will enter…

As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This way we will still control exactly what they can and cannot do in order to exploit their resources…

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And impose our imperialism on yet another country…

Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Only as long as they do exactly what we want them to…

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest -- it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home.

Again, all on bogus reasons…

We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility.

Yes, the military industrial complex made their huge profits, we’ve got a choke hold on the oil…

Now, it’s time to turn the page.

We must look forward, not back. No one will ever be held responsible for this most murderous act…

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home.

No sh*t! Mindful? What a platitude…

Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.

His love for special interests, you mean. Not the people, definitely not the people…

As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

At least he didn’t call those dissenters “traitors” as was done during the Bush years…

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Yep, we must keep the "forever war" going for the profiteers who pay into your coffers, Mr. President…

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11.

Only because they were intentionally mislead by our leaders, and there were a great many who were opposed, but totally ignored…

Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.

Let’s hear it for “Whack-A-Mole” in perpetuity! Endless profits!

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who -- under the command of General David Petraeus -- are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.

Gotta keep the war profits up!

As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future.

Same thought as Iraq, and look where Iraq’s “government” is, but definitely more imperialistic territory to lord over…

But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

I’m telling you…this is the same-old, same-old BS as Iraq…

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -- including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example -- to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -- a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Our empire will prevail!

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Notice the egocentrism of the “leader of the free world” comment. Not ONE of the leaders, but THE leader. More imperial rhetoric to notify the rest of the world who rules the roost…

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security.

“…willing to bear the burden…”? How about, "We’re doing it, whether you like it or not!"

But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

The middle class is gone, kaput. Decades away from ever being close to what it was, if ever…

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.

So let’s raid the Social Security vault and fight anything that increases the deficit…other than the Afghan was, of course…screw our infrastructure!

For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

Try the last forty years “working harder for less.” This began a long time ago. We no longer are the manufacturing giant we once were, we’ve never had a comprehensive energy policy, and our education system is grossly underfunded not to mention skyrocketing college tuition…

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for
 -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

As long as you’re rich or politically powerful. Anyone else, forget it! Though we will spew platitudes to calm the population while knifing them in the back.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Pure rhetoric. How many decades have we heard, “end our dependence on foreign oil”? As I said before, the education system is defunct, and manufacturing is no longer the giant it once was and will never be again…

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars -- post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury -- while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II -- including my grandfather -- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Let’s hope he at least adheres to this. Bush certainly didn't what with trying to raise the co-pay, billing the wounded for equipment lost when they were wounded, buying cheap, less effective armor so the profits can soar at the expense of keeping our military personnel safe, etc.…

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq -- the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade -- journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

And then be re-assigned to Afghanistan to potentially be killed there…

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Such a tragic waste…and no one will be held responsible for this reprehensible act…

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations -- war -- and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

So that we can exploit their resources to the fullest and to expand our imperialism…

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Our children will be worse off than us…there’s that “rough waters” BS again…our course IS true – expanding our hegemony and maintaining war profits…

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

I guess Allah isn’t going to bless us anytime soon…

What anti-incumbent fever?

Last night, Rachel Maddow talked about the anti-incumbency wave that's "sweeping across America." She listed all incumbents from Congress (the House and the Senate) who have won vs. those who have lost so far in the primaries. Out of 324 races this year, only 7 incumbents have lost. That's an anti-incumbent "sweep" of just over 2%. So that is a 98% re-election rate! The old Cold War Communist Politburo (which we in the the good ol' U.S. of A. thought the "elections" there were obviously rigged) should have been so lucky.

I like her examples of how the press is trying to make this an anti-incumbent year,

Check out this contortion in today‘s “Washington Post” in an article about tomorrow‘s primaries. Quote - see if you can follow this, “The contests offer more evidence that establishment candidates can prosper in this year of the outsider.”

Translation, we‘re still calling it the year of the outsider no matter how many outsiders lose, no matter how many insiders win. We like this story too much to change the headline.

This was another one, another really good one. This was from the Associated Press last week before Washington State‘s primary. Here‘s the quote, “Fighting off anti-incumbent fervor, President Obama is rallying Tuesday for Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.”

And then, after Sen. Murray won that primary, there was this from the “Seattle Times,” quote, “The primary results in both the Senate and Congressional races showed a few signs of the sweeping anti-incumbent sentiment seen in some other states.”

Though, like she said, when you view Fox News (or any other cable news outlet) tomorrow, watch how they will say something like, "John McCain (or any incumbent who wins) beats the national anti-incumbent movement" or some such. Maddow calls it (The national anti-incumbent movement, that is) the "story that won't go away"...

What's amazing is that this Congress has had one of the lowest approval ratings in history. Here's what that says to me. An American thinks that the House of Representatives and the Senate suck big time and are a bunch of egomaniacs who care nothing for the people and everything for the rich and powerful, but not MY Representative nor MY Senators! And the pundits keep saying the people are smart...

Musings for a Monday

1. This is absolutely ridiculous. Our privacy is being ground down to nothing. I mean when Disney does it...is nothing sacred?:

Disney spied on surfing habits

Hopefully, we can come up with a method for deleting "flash cookies" easily.

2. So eight of 15 case have been rejected by the courts due to faulty interrogation evidence. Let alone "coercion-tainted evidence is one obstacle" that the prosecutors are having trouble getting around:

Judges reject interrogation evidence

I still say that the attack on the twin towers should have been handled as a criminal enterprise, not as a "War on Terrorism."

3. Let's see...so now we have a figure of an estimate of 1,366,350 Iraqi deaths on our hands, not to mention an "official count" of 4,732 American deaths in Iraq and 1,999 American deaths in Afghanistan. Terrific...:

Iraqi and Afghanistan death counts



When will the people in the U.S. get it? These wars are purely for profiteering.

What two parties?

Let's face it. Obama and his crew cater to the moneyed power players and that's it. Period. He caved to the Health Insurance Industry (no public option AFTER he dismissed single-payer outright), is balking at having Elizabeth Warren be appointed to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection agency (he could have appointed her immediately upon the creation of the agency or he could now appoint her while Congress is not in session) and now he won't even comment on the Google/Verizon agreement that's in the wings.

He talked the talk during the campaign for presidency,

"The most important thing we can probably do is to preserve the diversity that's emerging through the Internet...something called net neutrality," he declared in April 2008. "I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."

but he certainly doesn't walk the walk. Even his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, is crabbing at the "Professional Left" as he puts it. Gibbs is not even taking back his words. Instead, he uses the lame word "inartful" to describe his comments.

I've written about it before, but the two parties in power are cut from the same cloth. The only difference I see is if the Republicans were in power we would be symbolically hanged immediately by being dropped through the scaffold and snapping our necks. With the Democrats it's more of a case of slow strangulation (the boiling frog analogy). Either way, those of us who are not very rich and powerful are dead.

Lack of education a good thing to the "bubble-heads"

I saw on MSNBC this morning ("The Daily Rundown") a graphic indicating that 40 years ago, the U.S.was number one out of thirty countries in high school graduates. Now it is twenty-first. I'm not surprised.

I'm also sure that those within the power bubble (and I include the Washington Elite, Wall Street and the Military/Industrial Complex among others) are very pleased regarding that statistic.

Why, you ask?

Because the last thing the "bubble-heads" want is to have an educated and informed public paying attention to what they do. Plus, it is much easier to manipulate the uneducated and uninformed. The fear factor that is constantly used to garner support for causes that are detrimental to the public at large is much easier to sell.

Of course, this is a secret delight. The "bubble-heads" will never admit such feelings. Instead, they will dry-wash their hands lamenting the sad statistic whenever asked about it in public and vow to strive to improve our education system. I'm just sayin'...

Freedom of religion is sacrosanct

I just want to add my thoughts about the mosque that's been approved for being build near Ground Zero.

I know many more eloquent than I can say it better, but I want to be another voice in the blogosphere decrying those who would deny equal rights of a religious entity.

I want to say up front that I am not a religious person. I hold no affiliation to any religious group. I personally think that organized religion is ridiculous.

However, I do feel that if one can find peace and happiness through religion or faith (organized or not), great! I wish them the best and hope they have happy lives.

We are a country that has always maintained freedom of religion. There is no reason to slam a religion because some of its extremist followers committed a crime on U.S. soil.

Muslims died in the Towers as well as those of other faiths. I believe we cannot in good conscience deny the right of a religion to erect a place of worship wherever it is legally allowed. If we did, who would be next? It's a slippery slope to start denying a group the same rights as other similar groups. What if the next criminal catastrophe involves another extremist religious group from another faith? Do we start denying them as well?

One of the main reasons our forefathers came here was to escape religious persecution in the Old World. We should maintain that ethic today.

The moneyed war machine keeps cranking along

Amy Goodman, on Democracy Now!, said Tuesday that,

In Congress, House leaders are rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as today, fearing that the (Wikileaks) disclosures could stoke opposition to the measure.

And, of course, the vote passed later that day adding another $59 billion (Yes, with a “B”) to the coffers of the military-industrial complex.

Very telling, indeed. This is another fine example of those who are supposed to represent us (“We, the people,” don’t you know) scrambling to give the war profiteers more money at a faster than usual rate. Never mind that our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, etc., are dying…all for profit and nothing else. The legislators have got to keep feeding these multi-nationals their profits in order to reimburse them for all the donations made to those in Congress.

This is strictly a money machine enterprise, folks. Nothing else. Meanwhile, our country languishes in joblessness, foreclosures, etc. And we can’t forget that the unemployment extension was delayed because of so-called deficit concerns! Well, concern this: let’s end this war, bring our troops home and spend the billions (with a “B”) on what’s desperately needed here at home.

Of course, that will never happen. We are a Permanent War society. The oligarchs benefit greatly from conflict. We have now built our entire country on military enterprise. We will have conflict and occupation until long after I’m gone. And “We, the people,” or should I say "sheeple," don’t care.

One of the most honest statements made by a dishonest politician was Dick Cheney back in 2008,

When asked how that assessment comports with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"

That is our politicians' view in Washington today. Who cares what Americans think? It's what the war profiteers and Wall Street demand that counts.

The people are smart...Not!

For years, it has been annoying me that politicians and pundits keep saying, "The American people are smart." That is so much hooey. You know who they are saying that to? The couch potatoes who, after hearing that pap, say to themselves, "Uh, yup! I shore am a smart 'un! He's my kinda guy!" In other words, the pols and pundits are pandering to the populace. "Rubbing them down" so to speak, in order to get these "smart people" to buy into what they're are selling..

So let's be real here. All my life I've been aware that the average IQ in the U.S. is 100. One then applies the Bell curve (see figure to the right of the linked article), and one sees that half the population is below average intelligence. So don't give me this "The people are smart" tripe. Some are smart and some are not. The smart ones get what these people are saying (which is BS) and the not so smart are hopefully not falling for it (though ego probably dictates that they do buy into it).

So the next time you here some politician/pundit say,  "The people are smart," remember, it's just cynical pandering in which the speaker is trying to win over the uninformed. At best, the people are average intelligence. which is a lot more generous than Bill Maher's thinking.

Elizabeth Warren a (very) long shot

So all the progressives (or at least mostly all) and even some of our legislators want Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Protection Bureau. Barney Frank even wants President Obama to make it a recess appointment, "if necessary."

Of course, Tim Geithner is at best cool on the subject. How's this for a ringing endorsement?

I think she would be a very effective leader of that institution...

Considering President Obama's penchant for  being a "centrist" and disappointing his progressive base, I predict that he and Geithner will do a secret head count to see where the land lies to getting her approved. If they don't have the votes, he will nominate her and watch her go down in flames.

He can then say that he tried, but darn those legislators! He certainly won't push very hard.

If it looks like she would be approved then he won't nominate her. I would definitely be surprised if he went with Rep. Frank's idea and made a recess appointment. I seriously doubt that.

Hottest on record: Where's Glenn Beck now?

After hearing about how we’ve just had the hottest June since record-keeping began, and that we’re on track to having the hottest July ever recorded, I’ve been thinking back when Glenn Beck was harping about global warming. He was lambasting the idea during last winter’s blizzard that encompassed the northeast.

I was going to write about it, but I first decided to look and see if anyone else had thought of thde same thing. Of course, a ton of bloggers have pointed this out, including one by Joan E. Dowlin at the Huffington Post.

She brings up Beck’s Looney Tunes statement to Al Gore, “I’ve got your global warming right here” in a Mafioso voice. She then rhetorically asks Mr. Beck,

So by his logic, now that we on the East coast are in the midst of a record third heat wave (and it's only the beginning of July) and the temperatures in Philly are supposed to reach 101 degrees today, does this not prove global warming?

No? Well, how about this past year of not only record snow amounts, but thunderstorms, floods, wild fires, earthquakes, mud slides, tornados, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and hurricanes around the globe? Is that a coincidence?

Personally, I think that Mr. Beck won’t say a thing about global warming until next winter when he will pull off the same stupid stunt. That’s the sad part. Our populace is a very forgetful society, and I’m sure that all those who heard Mr. Beck’s inane remarks about global warming have completely forgotten what he said and are now listening to dumb things he’s saying that will be proven equally as inane down the road.

Too late, Mr. Secretary

I'm sorry, Mr. Vilsack. Your apology is too little, too late. In your position as Secretary of Agriculture you have the power over many lives. And in that position, you almost destroyed one. Bless Ms. Sherrod for standing up against a bully like you.

Of course, one makes mistakes; however, this is such an egregious error that you should not be our Secretary of Agriculture for one more minute. The greater the power, the more glaring the mistake. The only out I see for you is if you come forward and tell "we, the people" that you were forced to fire Ms. Sherrod at the order of the White House. In that case, you're exonerated. Then we should move to oust whoever put you in that position.

Obviously, though, that if that particular scenario occurred you bit the bullet and took the hit for your boss. So be it. Go ahead and be the fall guy. I do believe that the White House had a hand in this, but of course I can't prove that. I do know that they could have come to the fore and cautioned you about your reflexive reaction to the edited tape.

It does make one wonder what else you've been up to under the radar. How many lives have you destroyed that didn't make the news? You have demonstrated yourself to be a dangerously reactive person, allowing your emotions or fear to dictate your actions rather than utilizing the reasoning process. We don't need people like you in such important positions.

With all the time you've been in positions of power up to and including being Secretary of Agriculture you still react without thinking, thus potentially destroying lives, you need to get the hell out of Washington and hopefully retire. We don't need people like you in any position of power.

Shame on the Obama Administration and the NAACP

What happened to Shirley Sherrod was a travesty. To think that the NAACP and the Obama administration would leap to a conclusion without all the facts is beyond the pale. The President and CEO of the NAACP, Benjamin Jealous, said on the Rachel Maddow show that they were “snookered” by the edited tape. Yeah, right. He was on Ms. Maddow's show strictly for damage control. I think Ms. Maddow gave him a free pass on his spinning. She should have hammered him more about his organization's initial response.

As far as I'm concerned he and his organization are just as guilty of prejudice as anyone. Here's what his pathetic response was just after the edited tape came out, as reported in the Huffington Post:

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous issued a statement late on Monday saying his organization was appalled by Sherrod's "shameful" actions.

Shame on the both of them! This knee-jerk, reactionary behavior by those in power illustrates exactly where the country has descended. These are the people who hold our lives in their hands. They are supposed to help us. Yet they bow to unsubstantiated accusations without any due diligence.

To think that the NAACP, who deals with racial insensitivity probably on a daily basis, should be so egregiously insensitive as to fall for this claptrap is despicable.

Ms. Sherrod should be reinstated. The head of the Agricultural Department, Tom Vilsack, who demanded her resignation should himself be asked to resign. He obviously is not a good leader. What else has he done, or worse yet, what will he do in the future if he can’t perform the necessary and simple steps to find out the truth about Ms. Sherrod?

Here is his great leadership qualities in action per the Huffington Post:

Her resignation as the agency's state director of rural development was quickly accepted by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. He cited a zero-tolerance policy and told CNN that he was working to "reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department."

That's it, Mr. Vilsack, look before you leap...a great leadership attribute. And I love the "checkered civil rights" spin. You go get 'em, cowboy!

This says a lot about the Obama administration. It didn't even come to the forward in defense of Ms. Sherrod. It just went along like a stupid lemming heading for a cliff.

This administration has been a disappointment since day one. This episode is further proof that this administration is not for the people, it’s for its own self preservation. Any whiff of bad publicity results in rash decision-making with careful analysis.

For the political elite, "change" means "damage"

I posted this on the Bill of Rights Defense Committee site last week. Lumping dissidents into one generalizing category and then shouting from the rooftop that they are "damaging the system" is very telling.

In early June, an appellate court in Philadelphia refused to look into the conviction on terrorism charges allegedly perpetrated by animal rights activists. The conviction stemmed from the activists' posting a web site that brought animal testing site Huntingdon Life Sciences to near bankruptcy.

What's really interesting about this article is the quote by the lead prosecutor, Charles McKenna, after his announcing that a new computer profiling method would be brought to bear (Emphasis mine),

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

"Damage the system"? That's the key. Those in power are constantly trying to maintain the status quo...the "system" if you will. Change is the enemy of those in power. They have a hammerlock on all our lives and continually squeeze to maximize their power.

Mr. McKenna was promoted after he successfully prosecuted the activists. One inevitably gets rewarded for publicly slapping down anyone who tries to buck the "system."

As the article puts it,

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

It is by attempting to "damage the system" (i.e., exposing egregious behavior normally covered up or buried in order to maintain the "system") that true change for the populace can come about.

Forward (Power) vs. Backward (No Power)

I wrote this last month, but I neglected to post it. I feel so strongly about the President's double standard of looking forward for those in power, but looking backward to those who threaten those in power (or not in the inner circle of American Exceptionalism), that I just had to post this, albeit belatedly.

I urge everyone who reads this to listen to (or read) what Obama says about forward/backward looking. There is a glass ceiling. Above it, why, you're part of the forward moving crowd, not to be held accountable for past transgressions. Below the ceiling, and those in power will viciously go after you.

If the transgression is so egregious it can't be ignored, why those in power will just find "nobodys" low on the totem pole to take the fall (see the low ranking military guards from Abu Ghraib who got nailed while those "in power" overseeing the prison got a pass, promoted and such).

But on to the post:

Last month, President Obama has achieved the dubious distinction of "pursuing leak prosecutions" more than any other President. His latest target is the indictment of Thomas A. Drake for contacting a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. Mr. Drake was concerned about the "squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on failed programs while ignoring a promising alternative. "

He tried every avenue without success. Ultimately, he took it to the press. In addition to the persecution of Mr. Drake,

...in May, an F.B.I. translator was sentenced to 20 months in prison for providing classified documents to a blogger; this week, the Pentagon confirmed the arrest of a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to the Web site Wikileaks.org.

After Obama's letting the Bush Administration officials off the hook for human rights, privacy and secrecy violations by using the "look forward not back" rationale, he decides to look backward at those who tried to prevent the abuses and nail them to the wall.

On April 15, 2009, when a Spanish court was "threatening to investigate former Bush officials for their complicity in torture," the President said this (Emphasis mine):

"I'm a strong believer that it's important to look forward and not backwards, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there..."

In March, 2010, during an interview with an Indonesian reporter, he had this to say (Again, emphasis mine):

Reporter: "Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?"
Obama: "We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can't go forward without looking backwards . ."

It appears that his "looking forward, not back" platitude only pertains to the Washington, D.C. political elite and insiders. Looking back for condemnation is perfectly fine for the rest of America and the world. It is tragic to me that the general populace doesn't appear to be a bit concerned about this egregious (and obvious) double standard. Somehow, it's just completely ignored.

Keep 'em scared

H.L. Mencken once said,

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary

A shining example of this can be found in a recent report that was obtained by the Associated Press. Of course, it had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get it. According to the report,

It's one of the safest parts of America, and it's getting safer.
It's the U.S.-Mexico border, and even as politicians say more federal troops are needed to fight rising violence, government data show it actually isn't so dangerous after all.

Furthermore,

The top four big U.S. cities with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix and El Paso and Austin, Texas, according to a new FBI report.

Lloyd Eaterling, spokesman for the U.S. Border Patrol, states that, "The border is safer now than it's ever been..."
OK...so what's the current spin by the lawmakers and governors in the region?

"Violence in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border continues to increase at an alarming rate. We believe that this violence represents a serious threat to the national security of the United States as well as a serious threat to U.S. citizens that live along the 1,969-mile long border," a dozen bipartisan members of Congress from border states wrote President Obama

Thus, President Obama is sending 1,200 National Guard troops and increasing funding by $50 million. I suppose to mollify those who are "clamorous to be led to safety."

But FBI crime reports for 2009 say violent crime in Arizona declined. And violent crimes in southwest border counties are among the lowest in the nation per capita - they've dropped by more than 30 percent in the last two decades. Of 25 of America's largest cities, San Diego - with one out of four residents an immigrant - has the lowest number of violent crimes per capita.

I live in the Back Country about 60 miles east of San Diego and am very involved in the community (volunteer communications for the local fire department, etc.). We have many "travelers" (as the local Border Patrol agents call them), and yet there are very little crimes associated with them, other than their being here illegally, of course. Our "crimes" consist mostly with alcohol-related issues or domestic violence by the local citizenry. There are isolated incidences, of course, but certainly not an "increase at an alarming rate."
Isabel Garcia of Derechos Humanos sums it up quite well,

"Politicians are hyping up this incredible fear across the country about the border, but these numbers show these are lies being perpetrated on the American public."

Score one more for the fear-mongers who are manipulating our country to further their own agenda.

Note: This can also be found on the Bill of Rights Defense Committee blog, where I posted it earlier.

Blowback from the new AZ law continues

For about the eight months or so, I've been posting at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee web site. It's one of the reasons that I haven't been here as much as I would like. I've decided that I want to share what I post here on my own personal site.

Last week I referenced a post from Foreign Policy in Focus regarding the new Arizona immigration law:

Christine Ahn and Linda Burnham have a nice overview of Arizona's new immigration law at Foreign Policy in Focus. They point out the many that political entities around the country are responding negatively to the law,

City councils across the country — in Boston, West Hollywood, Oakland, Tucson, and Flagstaff — have all passed resolutions against SB1070, and San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on city worker’s official travel to Arizona. The Phoenix Suns even demonstrated their solidarity with migrant communities when they wore jerseys with “Los Suns” on Cinco de Mayo.

Testimonies are being taken from undocumented woman and children. The fear that has been generated by this law has intensified,

Woman after woman shared how everyone is afraid to come out of their homes, whether to drive to the grocery store or to send their children to school. One woman named Terri told the delegation that she had often given rides to people going to the doctor or to the store, but “since SB 1070 was signed, a lot of people haven’t been coming out, even to get free food.” Women testified that not only were they afraid to access medical or other urgent social services, the threat of deportation also prevents them from reporting incidences of sexual assault, domestic violence, or exploitation on the job.

There have also been incidences of violence,

Then there are the cases of police brutality. One woman named Alejandra was the victim of police violence during a raid by Maricopa County sheriff deputies wearing ski masks. They slammed her into a wall, and she suffered injuries to her jaw and teeth. While detained for three months, she was denied any medical care. The mother of four children, she was still nursing her three-month old baby at the time of the raid. Stories like these abound.

One point that is rarely mentioned in all this has been the reasons behind the mass immigration. As an example the writers explain,

What is often absent from debates about immigration is why so many people are seeking work in the United States. According to Timothy A. Wise of Tufts University, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) doubled migration to the United States, “despite stepped up enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

The writers end the article by pushing the point that the President must be pressured into overturning this bill.

Poor, put upon Congress says Mr. President

Last Wednesday, April 26, aboard Air force One, President Obama had this to say about Congress dealing with the immigration issue this year:

We’ve gone through a very tough year and I’ve been working Congress pretty hard. So I know, there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue. There’s still work that needs to be done on energy. Mid-terms are coming up. So, I don’t want us to do something for the sake of politics that doesn’t solve the problem.

I'm sorry, but this is totally unacceptable for me. No "appetite"? These men and women actively campaigned for these jobs. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them into these positions. The Senators and Representatives make $174,000 a year. The leaders make even more.

We're not talking heavy manual labor here, folks. These guys dress up in suits and business attire and sit on their butts pontificating, bloviating and arguing with each other. Hardly debilitating work, wouldn't you say? We have urgent decisions that need to be made, such as immigration and energy. And the President thinks these poor babies don't have an "appetite" to deal with them? And we have to forestall solutions that are desperately needed for another year or more because of a lack of "appetite"? Bull puckey!

Do you have any idea how many of the 9% unemployed in this country would love to make that kind of salary? And, I'm sure they would work their butts off to earn it. Hey, they might even start on immigration or energy bills right this minute if they had the job. And, maybe, just maybe, they would plug all those freebies that the current elected members of Congress gave to Wall Street, the mining industry, the oil multinationals, etc.

This president needs to quit mollycoddling Congress. Make them earn their money. Get on the stick, Mr. President!

Not to worry...the moneymakers will survive this PR crisis

Let's see...

Starting in the 80s, major deregulation occurred within the financial industry, culminating with the end of Glass-Stiegal in the late nineties. All due to pressure from the rich and powerful financial institutions and their cronies (read: Washington legislators who were paid millions by Wall Street lobbyists). Ten years later, a world financial crisis happens because of the egregious manipulation of derivatives by Wall Street.

Regulation is sorely weakened with major loopholes within the mining industry by the manipulation of rich and powerful mining interests. Last month, the worst mining disaster in forty years occurs. Last week, another mine collapses killing two miners. Both mining companies had major safety violations going years back.

Regulation is very weak in the oil industry due to lobbying and pressure from the rich and powerful multinational petroleum corporations. We are now on the brink of an oil disaster in the Gulf that will exceed the Exxon Valdez catastrophe. I just heard today that a safety device that would help cap an underground oil leak is not a regulation for U.S.-based oil platforms, but is required throughout the rest of the world. British Petroleum has the device on its platforms elsewhere around the world, but not here in the U.S. Had that been in place, it is very possible the U.S. wouldn't be facing this debacle.

Anyone else see a pattern here? Obviously, rich and powerful giants pose a great danger to the rest of us on this planet. Once they get the big bucks, all sense of decency for the human race gets defenestrated. There needs to be some check that keeps these money cartels from lessening the restrictions on them. I don't know how, but as long as there aren't checks in place, we, the people (and our planet), will be in grave (and mortal) danger.

As for the oil spill, I predict that once the dust settles from the immediacy of the situation (whether weeks or months), a "reason" for the explosion will be reported (and guaranteed it will happen even if they have to make a reason up). Beltway Washington will back them up (and thank them for the multinational corporations' due diligence in this time of crisis) and mainstream media will transmit the meme out to the sheeple. A fall guy (or minor corporate division) will be held responsible and appropriately "punished."

The oil multinationals will "fix" the "reason" for the explosion and say that the oil platforms are now safer than ever, with all the 21st century technology in place. We can all rest easy. Then it will be back to business as usual, Obama pushing for platforms on the East Coast (because that's part of his "energy plan") and putting all of the oil workers and our planet in danger yet again. All for maximum profit.

Same with the Wall Street (continued derivative manipulation, among other things) and the Mining Corporations (sidestepping safety regulations). Trust me. This will happen.

The "let me see your papers" law

I've been pretty much remiss in keeping this blog up to date. My basic reason is that I've been posting on a weekly basis to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) site. For anyone who is interested, my two posts are published every Saturday.

I thought I would put up one of my recent posts here. I am very unhappy about the new Arizona bill that I call the "Let me see your papers" law (I made a small edit...I added a link that I didn't have available when this went online at the BORDC):

Talk about opening up a can of worms. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into law the "Let me see your papers" immigration bill (as I call it). The very idea of allowing "authority" to exercise proper "reasonable suspicion" is absolutely outrageous.

According to the article,

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

...and I've got a bridge to sell you in the Florida swamplands. Real cheap.

If history tells us anything, it's that "authority" does not use restraint. In my opinion, if and when this law comes into effect, forget just racial profiling, the authorities can stop anybody, let me repeat that...anybody, demand papers and claim it was "reasonable suspicion." I predict that there will be many arrests and seizures founded on the "authorities" having "reasonable suspicion" that the "perpetrators" were illegally in our country. ("Oh, and the we smelled marijuana in the car!") So much for the "search and seizure" laws in Arizona...hey, they were reasonably suspicious that the perps were illegally in our country! That's all it would take.

In addition, on Friday, Keith Olbermann brought up the possible financial hits Arizona could take because of this law. As an example, he wonders how much pressure the baseball cactus league teams, which play in Arizona during the spring, will receive from the teams' home states. He imagined Manny Ramirez driving on his way to a spring game being stopped by the police.

Tuesday, Mr. Olbermann and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) discussed bringing economic sanctions to the state.

OLBERMANN: I have never heard of a congressman in the history of this country proposing retribution against his own state. So, I‘m assuming you‘re even angrier about this than I am.

GRIJALVA: No. It is—we are codifying into law—if the governor signs this—racial profiling, discrimination under the Constitution. We‘re codifying the fact that law enforcement now has a free hand to stop anybody that looks the part in terms of undocumented people, ask them for verification.

It‘s unprecedented. It is a horrible, horrible precedent for the nation. And it—and we can‘t allow it to continue as though there are no consequences. And the consequences that we can only bring up right now is economic sanctions. We‘re asking organizations, civic, religious, labor, Latino organizations of color to refrain from using Arizona as a convention site, to refrain from spending their dollars in the state of Arizona until Arizona turns the clock forward instead of backwards and joins the rest of the Union.

Personally, I don't think this law will see the light of day. And that will be a good thing. The scary part is that there are those in authority that find it perfectly reasonable to trample on rights that were given us over 250 years ago.