On Wednesday I blogged; Vote For Your Favorite Modern Artist.  As it was midweek, tax day, and the now infamous, Day of the Tea Baggers, there were requests among the comments for, deja vu, so here it is.

Please vote in The Times Online of London poll and share, here your favorite artists and link to their work for all to enjoy.  The artists do not have to be on the Times list.  There are many here that are artist and/or have family members so please share.

Let me start the ball rolling.

When my wife and I married we bought each other a piece by Yaacov Agam, an Israeli sculptor and experimental artist best known for his abstract optical and kinetic art and modern Judaica.  The piece we have is what he calls an Agamograph, which uses lenticular printing to present different images, depending on the angle from which it is viewed (and how much wine one has consumed). He is also a sculptor and is known for his modern Judaica.  His work is accessible, and fairly affordable.  Some of his art can be found on e-bay.

I've always been fascinated by the art of René Magritte, a surrealist known for witty and thought-provoking images.  Two of my favorite Magritte paintings are, The Human Condition (La condition humaine) which contain a painting within a painting. Condition 1. Condition 2.  More René Magritte.

My wife and I love the work of David Hockney it's truly magical.  He is a master of many disciplines, painting, drawing, photography, grafix and stage design, and does mix them together. We hung a print of his The Road to the Studio on our landing before I built her a room for her pottery, and jewelry making, and my sound project studio.  Irony.  More David Hockney.

A final favorite, for today, is Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen.  Their large scale projects never fail to put a smile on your face.  When visiting Minneapolis a must-see is their Spoonbridge and Cherry at the Walker Art Center.  Just love the Flying Pins.  They have the rare ability to turn the ordinary, extraordinary.  More Claes Oldenburg.

Enough of what we like.  What's on your wall?

Its a dark gloomy day today. So I guess thats why I'm having gloomy thoughts. But this one is the one I ask of you.  Everybody ask this question now and then'

  Do you know the answer if you asked it? Would your best friend have fond memories of you or would they remember you at all after a few years,

  People have asked this question for years and most are forgotten today, Except by a few members of there family or friends.But some are remembered very well by there sons and daughters. Kids are what keeps your memory alive. So what happens when you have no kids?

 I have been fortunate to have had 6 step children but does that count? I really don't know.Two of them were from my second marrage and I often wonder if they remember me now. I really do miss them. They would be adults by now and I haven't seen them since they were 11 and 13 yrs old. Do they remember me? I will never know.

 The four that I have now 1 I unfortunately and saddly will probably out live. Possibly I will out live 2 of the others if they dont change there ways. and the fourth one I wonder if he remembers me now even though we live in the same house.

  So remember to tell your kids if your lucky enough to have them just how much you love them everyday. Do special things with them take time out of your busy scedule just for them and make some very good memories. So that you don't have to sit and wonder....Would I be remembered.

 Sorry about letting bad thoughts out like this instead of the good ones I ussually post.

 

BUT REMEMBER ALWAYS TELL YOUR KIDS YOU LOVE THEM AND MAKE GOOD MEMORIES!!!!!

 Hope everyone is having a nice day.

If you’re one of the seven people on the Planet Earth who haven’t seen Susan Boyle on Britain’s Got Talent, you should immediately watch this.

Dennis Kucinich is almost as homely as Susan Boyle, but way back in October 2008 he made some beautiful music about helping the rest of us instead of giving away $9 trillion to international banks, and you can read that beautiful music here.

But the Democrats didn’t nominate Dennis Kucinich. They nominated a pretty man instead, and instead of a great Presidency, dedicated to helping the rest of us, we got something more like this…

Why did they torture?

Torture is against the law.  It is always wrong.  It shocks the conscience.  It shames the nation.  It now turns out it was shaped by psychologists.  Even before it was "legally authorized."  Let's look at the facts.

Abu Zubaida was captured in March of 2002.  And for the first two weeks, during which time his wounds (from being captured) were treated, he was questioned in a non-threatening manner by the FBI.  He was cooperative and gave valuable information, the most important of which was the name of Kalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

Two weeks after the initial interrogations, the treatment was changed:

A C.I.A. interrogation team that arrived a week or two later, which included former military psychologists, did not change the approach to questioning, but began to keep him awake night and day with blasting rock music, have his clothes removed and keep his cell cold.

By the summer it was changed drastically:

When the CIA began what it called an "increased pressure phase" with captured terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida in the summer of 2002, its first step was to limit the detainee's human contact to just two people. One was the CIA interrogator, the other a psychologist.

During the extraordinary weeks that followed, it was the psychologist who apparently played the more critical role. According to newly released Justice Department documents, the psychologist provided ideas, practical advice and even legal justification for interrogation methods that would break Abu Zubaida, physically and mentally. Extreme sleep deprivation, waterboarding, the use of insects to provoke fear -- all were deemed acceptable, in part because the psychologist said so.

Psychologists would have known about the experiments where volunteers were willing to follow orders given by a psychologist, to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to persons who failed to "learn" a task.  Who better, then, to utilize that information so as to enforce compliance with the torture program they designed?

Psychologists would have known that the first rule of our profession, as in medicine is:  Do no harm. 

So why did they torture?

Like everyone else in this despicable torture "program" the psychologists and physicians were carefully selected.  Nothing was left to chance.  Lawyers were willing participants, ready to bend the law to achieve the aims of extracting information via torture.  Psychologists were willing participants, ready to use their skills and knowledge against human persons to achieve the aims of personality breakdown as enablers of the interrogation process.

How was this accomplished?  Via psychological assessment.  Of both a prisoner and his torture designers and monitors:

The CIA dispatched personnel from its office of medical services to each secret prison and evaluated medical professionals involved in interrogations "to make sure they could stand up, psychologically handle it," according to a former CIA official.

.........

The agency then used a psychological assessment of Abu Zubaida to find his vulnerable points.

 
If you were able to stomach the so-called DoJ "authorization" to torture Zubaida, you saw the description of his personality.  And rather than "weak points" they describe him as resilient, they seem to have built a case for why it is necessary to break down his personality:

He is confident, self- assured and possesses an air of authority.  ... He is intelligent and intellectually curious.  He displays "excellent self-discipline."  The assessment describes him as a perfectionist, persistent, private, and highly capable in his social interactions.  He is very guarded about opening up to others... tends not to trust others easily.  He is also "quick to recognize the moods and motivations of others."  Furthermore he is proud of his ability to lie and deceive others successfully.

So they built a "case" - using psychological assessment - of a person they describe as so strong and so resilient that nothing but torture will break him down.  So I am asking:

Where is that report?  Where is the raw data upon which that assessment was made?  Where are the tapes that would prove how uncooperative they say he was?  Where are the tapes that would prove how narcissistic and unbreakable he was deemed to be?  Does the psychological report really "fit" the raw data?  

Let's subject that report to the same careful scrutiny as these torture memos.

Because that report was used to "justify" stepping up the interrogation in ways that broke the law.

Mind you, all of this was done well before any secret legal memos purported to "legalize" torture!  And mind you, torture is always 100% wrong, unethical, illegal.

A detainee, held in secret, without recourse to the Red Cross, without recourse to any legal protection, was systematically probed by psychologists for his weak points, while described by these same psychologists as so strong and resilient that only torture would break him down.  The point of the torture was personality breakdown.  And its willing designers were psychologists.

Personality breakdown is not temporary.  Personality breakdown is, in effect, a state of permanent mental torture, where nightmares and flashbacks and every other sort of PTSD symptom becomes one's daily life.  All of that happening while the person remains jailed in secret, subjected to isolation, humiliation, degradation and deprivations of every sort.  Induced mental illness of the worst possible sort - and left to languish in solitary confinement with no legal recourse.

This is what we've done to a human person.  (Even animal research would never allow such treatment.)

We have legal memos supposedly justifying torture.  Where were the ethicists?

Personality breakdown of Abu Zubaida was the aim.  Some say he was crazy to start with.  Some claim he was mentally strong as a rock.  The latter claim was used to justify torture.   But either way, torture is wrong.

But there was another effect.  His captors were also traumatized by what they witnessed.  They were traumatized watching a man systematically degraded and dehumanized, stripped of clothing, deprived of sleep and adequate nutrition, forced to listen to deafening sounds, to endure cold, to endure painful forced positions, to endure physical abuse of the worst sort.  The captors had to watch this.  This too is a kind of torture.  Imagine yourself - forced to watch, day by day, as a human being is deliberately MADE to break down physically and mentally.  Even an animal would get better treatment than they gave this human person.  And others.

Permanent personality breakdown.  A lifetime of PTSD symptoms.  Of nightmares.  Flashbacks.  Depression.  Anxiety.  A living hell - deliberately induced - after they knew he really had nothing more to tell.

Where are these other poor souls that we now know are also suffering, likely from PTSD symptoms, simply from having been forced to witness someone break down right in front of their eyes?  We know the health care personnel were carefully selected (sadists?).  What about the regular CIA interrogators?  Where are they?  How many folks are now on disability?  With possibly a lifetime of PTSD symptoms - due to watching the dehumanization of a human person?  Oh, they're out there.  We now have proof:

 Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, "seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect."

I'm beginning to think that the reason why there will be no prosecutions of lower level folks is because the government knows they too have broken down mentally, they too are emotional wrecks, and if they were brought to trial, then we would have the public acknowledgment, based on psychological assessments - that torture destroys normal human personalities on both sides of the torture chamber.  Unless, of course, they have been carefully screened to make certain they won't break down.

What type of personality does not break down watching torture - day after day?  You be the judge.  Among them, likely, the health care professionals, carefully screened - to not break down.

How did they know to carefully screen them to not break down?

 

Public Servants: Persons chosen by the people to properly distribute graft. (M. Twain)

The problem aint that there are too many fools. The problem is that bolts of lightning are not properly distributed. (M. Twain)

　

Meanwhile, back at Camelot:

Arthur awoke as if from a coma. He felt as if he had been asleep for years. He felt refreshed and alert. He turned and saw Guenevere who had come to him the night (?) before.

She slept so peacefully and he watched over her with loving eyes. For some reason, ever since this Quest for the Holy Pail began, Guenevere was much more drawn (shall we say) to her husband.

But there was a cloud over Camelot that Arthur only vaguely sensed.

There was a secret room at the stables and the cabal was all present and accounted for.

Sir Chunkey with his sneer sat at the head of this not so roundish table.

Sir Boner sat to his right and Sir Mitch sat to Chunkey's left.

Herald Turd Rover, Herald Sean Handjobber, Herald Rush Limper, and King Foxnews were all there.

Chunkey pounded the gavel. What are we to do? This first year of the new era has been a catastrophe. It is getting so that we can no longer hide our monies. All who paid their taxes in full for fiscal year 485 raise their hands.

Everyone raised their hands.

If the aristocracy must pay their due and legal taxes all will be lost, the sneerer continued. For this is only the beginning of the ignomy we must face. Did you hear what happened to Duke DeLay? The Duke's entire child slavery operation was shut down. And for what? To SAVE THE CHILDREN. To save them from what? What would they have had without our help. I myself had a 20% investment in that enterprise. I was getting a 40% return on investment.

Those children were given three squares a day-well two square meals on weekdays but three on the feast day and they had a place to sleep and some of them even got blankets. And the chains?

Well so what, I say. DeLay had to account for each and every one of those wretches. And that was the only way to properly keep track of them.

Other slavery operations have been shut down just over the last fortnight or so. Lancelot shut down the Duke and it is rumored that he put our representative down, had him eaten by pigs. Can you imagine the shame of it all? A traitor to his own class.

Sure, some of the guards at the plant received some sexual favors from the cherubs, but the cherubs received love and care from it all. And it was not like the children were being eaten or anything. Well, once in awhile, but only when supplies were late in coming due to mauraders in the area.

The wars are now only exercises in containment. The Southeast is secure and treaties have been signed with the Angles. The Northern Wall has been secured. The road projects are employing thousands of our peasants.

And we are now forced TO PAY OUR OWN PEASANTS. What good is it for Chrissakes? (Cheney did not bless himself for he never blessed himself or anyone around him. I MEAN EVEN WHEN SOMEONE SNEEZED for Chrissakes (narrator blesses himself)

And with peace and the aristocracy paying their fair share and with work programs and with these new minimum wage programs what is going to happen to our caste? It is almost like we cannot do what we wish to do anymore. We have lost our freedom. Our freedom to rape and pillage and take advantage of the less fortunate. Do you know that they are thinking of making it a law, making it mandatory that we must separate our garbage into metal and plastic and food stuffs?

Handjobber raised his hand as he slobbered in his sleeve. Handjobber had this speech impediment that drove Chunkey the Bastard out of his mind. Sir Chunkey, what pray tell is plastic?

Ah shut up Handjobber. That's the problem, fools. We have let fools run our aristocracy.

And what of these elites like Lancelot? This Chivalry will be the death of us all. CHARITY, I DID NOT GET WHERE I AM TODAY THROUGH CHARITY.

And longing for peace? PEACE, I DID NOT GET WHERE I AM TODAY THROUGH PEACE. I, alone, have lost thousands of pounds through losses in my weapons manufacturing concerns. I mean, man was meant to be at war and stay at war. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY THINK HUMANITY MEANS. It means raping and pillaging and torturing and all the good things that go along with our caste and class.

Turd Rover raised his hand. My Lord, I have a great idea. We must contend with these liberal chivalrics. These pigs who teach charity. We must organize the peasantry. Organize them into protest units. Taxes and tax policy will be our main bone of contention. NO MORE TAXES, NO MORE TAXES. We will raise a hew and cry against unfair taxes.

WHAT ARE YOU AN IDIOT? Here Rover. Here Rover. A bone for thou Rover. What a fucking idiot you are. And why, pray tell, do you always look like you are going to kiss the person you are talking to. The peasants do not pay taxes.

Yes, my Lord, but they do not know it, Rover replied. Besides, we will claim that taxing the aristocracy has a deleterious 'trickle down' effect upon the masses. When we are over taxed we are not able to pay bonuses to them for the 'fine work' they perform. We...

We only pay bonuses to ourselves, Sir Boner chimed in. We never pay bonuses to the peasants for Chrissakes (blesses himself as Chunkey sneers).

Yeah, but Boner they do not know that. The peasants might be revolting but they are stupid too.

We are already organizing a GREAT TREE BANGING protest across the realm. From Kent to Greenwich, from Oxford to York, we shall organize Tree Bangers all over this great country. The organizers are all in place and so far it has cost only a few hundred coins that we stole from our graft coffers only recently. Great stages have been built around the largest trees in the realm and the peasants shall be given bats to bang against the trees. And the banging shall be heard all over and especially in Camelot.

Tree Banging? What the hell does tree banging have to do with our heavy tax burden Handjobber? What the hell is wrong with you anyway?

Turd Rover spoke up. No no no, I think this will work. We already have heralds in place at each stage in the protest. Everything will be publicized. And once the King sees the great groundswell, we shall get our relief.

What relief you fools? I have been funding these right wing cabals all over the country. They want to see Arthur dead, Lancelot dead, Tristan dead....all these goddamn liberals who give not a damn for their own class. We have been providing these rubes with arms and teaching them proper fighting techniques. We have three different dukedoms openly discussing secession. Bashing trees, are you all nuts? With that Cheney left the stables snarling and sneering and went back to his suite. He was looking forward to the imported cherub pie that was awaiting him for his dinner. Nothing like cherub pie. Kinda tastes like chicken, this monster of vice thought.

The tree banger balls went awry so to speak. In York, twenty five people showed up to listen to Hankerty lisp and slobber for an hour. Tom, the manure spreader, turned to his bride Kisser and asked, What the hell is he talking about? Kisser looked askance at her husband and replied, Look, it's the new thing. You never like new things except when I wear that dance hall costume. And if you ever wish to see me in the costume again, go bang on that tree.

Just then the King's Guard arrived. Sixteen soldiers headed by Snerf. WHAT'S ALL THIS THEN?

We are taking advantage of our rights to freedom of speech and games and you have no right to interfere, replied Handjobber.

INTERFERE WITH GAMES? Hell, I am not going to interfere with games Hankerty. Guards, attach Hankerty to the tree so that he may better participate in these games.

With that, Hankerty was tied to the tree of hurtful life, as it were, and peasants were offered new washers and dryers and Foreman Grills for each finger and toe broken by each contestant in the shortest period of time.

The guards arrived at each of these game sites and performed similar adjustments in the tree banging festivities.

None of the cabal were able to pick their own noses for a fortnight following the games. And all the organizers had their taxes raised fifty percent.

Only King Foxnews and Cheney were excused since they were not caught in the gaming.

Meanwhile, again, at Camelot Eduardo was conversing with Palidan.

Palidan, I spoke with you about the tree bangers. What came of it all?

Eduardo, the trees were saved and no one will have to listen to Turd Rover or Handjobber for sometime.

All well and good, replied Eduardo. But I am more worried about these right wing nuts in the hinterlands. Chunkey is somehow behind all of this and I fear that the kingdom is at risk.

We are working on that said Palidan. But say, how is that new mare working out for you?

Well they say:

A horse is a horse of course of course.

But a mare, well There is more there than meets the eye

So to speak.

　

　

　

　

　

　

Mark Halperin published another one of his lists in which he offers reasons for why something seems to be happening.  The latest version is 16 Reasons Why He's Dominating.  (At least he counted correctly in this edition).

Obama's dominating?  I thought he was The Most Polarizing President in The History Of The Human Race.  How can you dominate if you're so polarizing?  (Stupid question: George W. Bush).

I check in with Halperin, because I like to be aware of what the so-called "conventional wisdom" is these days among the Villagers, if for no other reason than to laugh at how out of touch many in the media seem to be.  But I have to admit.  This edition worries me.  It's not this perplexing reason:

12. He talks to his constituents as if they are adults who are willing and able to deal with complexity-- which is intellectually and practically satisfying to him, pleasing to elites, and gratifying to many citizens.

(Why wouldn't this be pleasing to everyone?  Elites or otherwise?  Hello?)

What worries me is Halperin's track record: In December, Mitch McConnell was one of the 5 (sic) most important people in Washington not named Barack Obama?

So does this mean Obama isn't dominating?  That the Republicans really are?  Texas isn't going to secede?  Michele Bachmann makes sense?

I'm all confused at this point.

 

In the final moments of any classic horror film, as the last ghostly images spool out on the screen, the monster at issue - Frankenstein's electric zombie, Godzilla, whatever - assumes an almost sympathetic figure. In its thrashing death throes, the scourge which had so recently stomped peasants or scorched Tokyo becomes strangely noble, tragic.

So why, as it slips down the drain of political relevance, does this phenomenon not grace the fading Republican Party?

Could it be the comic, slapstick nature of its frothy desperation?

Read more »

Sarah Palin is back on tour. She's still bragging about her choice to deliver her baby with Down's Syndrome and still trying to deny that choice to everyone else. Her daughter couldn't even manage a shotgun wedding. It was a shotgun engagement that lasted all of Grandma's Vice Presidential campaign. But we're not supposed to talk about that.

Palin reminds me of the heavy metal band Bang Tango. They were as talented as any other eighties band. Their spandex was just as tight and their hair just as big. Their "tattered" blue jeans were meticulously sculpted into just as many perfect, parallel little rows. They deserved at least as much success as dozens of other bands, but they were late to the party. By the time they debuted in 1989, hair metal had all but played itself out. Then along came Pearl Jam and Nirvana to seal the coffin.

Sarah Palin is no more or less talented, articulate, intelligent and attractive than George W. Bush was. Her daddy was a nobody, but other than that, she's just as good. But Palin was late to the party. It was only after 8 years experience with W that voters found her embarrassingly unqualified to be President, and frankly just a little bit frightening.

Meanwhile, it looks like Bang Tango is opening for Skid Row, May 9 here in Phoenix.

"And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it -- and rather successfully. Cassius was right. 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'

Edward R. Murrow, William Shakespeare, See It Now, CBS-TV, March 9, 1954

And so we have it now. Laid out before us is the legal justification for doing what the United States had never before accepted as part of its national policy.

Read more »

There is absolutely no point in any state, perhaps least of all Texas, even thinking about secession from the United States, were it remotely legally possible under the Constitution.

 

Texas can't afford it.

 

This just shows what fools there are among us as the core Republican Party dwindles down to the whack jobs and nutcases, and for Governor Rick Perry to not rule the absurdity of secession out immediately and forcefully just shows where he's pitching his tent.

 

Consider that, according to the U.S. Census Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Texas in 2007 (available at http://harvester.census.gov/cffr/asp/Geography.asp), the federal government sent over $171,000,000,000 into Texas through direct payments and obligations and a nearly equal amount, about $160,000,000,000 indirectly through loans, guarantees and insurance.

 

Let's say just for fun, we all sign the papers and Texas becomes the Lone Star Republic again.  After the last refrains of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" die away, here's what else stops:

 

Medicare

Federal Medicaid share

Food Stamps

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

Military spending

NASA spending

University grants

Scholarships

Federal housing assistance

Federal jobs

Interstate highway maintenance

Airport operations under the FAA

Farm subsidies

Small Business Loans

Coast Guard operations

National park operations

 

Why bother continuing this list?  The very existence of Texas is part and parcel with the continuity of the federal government and federal spending before we consider dime one of the stimulus package.  Of course, all the wages that this generates, the purchases, the state and local tax revenues, well, that's got to stop of course. And that's just what stops NOW.

 

I think Texas owes us for those interstate highways my tax dollars helped build, plus the cost of relocating our military bases, not to mention NASA operations, and those independent Chuck Norris wannabe's better pay up if we're leaving those national parks behind.  Of course, there are also oil, mineral, and grazing rights on federal (sorry) FORMERLY federal lands but I'm sure we can work something out.

 

By the way, Texas, we'll be expecting you to keep that border secure with Mexico.  If you don't, we'll just have to secure your border with us.  And that super-duper truck highway from Mexico to Oklahoma City that was in the pipeline?  Fuggedaboudit.  Rail travel is going to be a little trickier, too.  And you'll have to secure your own seaports.

 

Social Security and Veterans programs will, of course, have to transition.  Over time, those who have already paid into the Social Security system will be taken care of, but any new enrollments stop.  Veterans are a slightly different category - would Texas veterans forego their rights to benefits?  Tough question, and I'm 50/50 on it right now.

 

I know, we're in a bit of a housing slump, but don't count on any federal support for a secondary mortgage market.  You'll have to build your own.  But it's going to be awfully tough to get Texas housing sales started again with 85% down payments.

 

On the subject of finance, no more FDIC insurance, PBGIC insurance, SEC coverage, well, the list gets awfully long awfully fast.  And since American Airlines would no longer be American Airlines if it stays in Dallas, maybe it can move up to Chicago where United is already, I'm sure they'd have lots to talk about. 

 

Not to mention Bank of America, Citibank, J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, we know these guys "follow the money" and there's just not going to be as much in Texas anymore so don't expect the money center banks to remain there in strength.    That's OK - I'm sure the financial largesse of the First State Bank of San Antonio will pull you through.

 

Come to think of it, I don't think the NCAA has room in its charter for foreign country athletic teams, so goodbye to the UT-Oklahoma annual football clash and any other games with teams beyond your turf.  I'll grant that there is plenty of precedent in professional sports so the Pokes and the Redskins will probably still have their twice-annual tilts.  You'll have that going for you anyway.

 

I see a lot of advertisements "here up north" for vacationers to come to Texas.  Even if the U.S. is generous and doesn't slap travel restrictions onto your fair nation while easing those on Cuba (what delicious irony) I'm thinking that a lot of U.S. travelers will be spending their vacations in California.  "Remember the Alamo" will go from being a statement to a question.

 

By the way, have we come to the point of your new currency?  Good luck with that, folks.  I see you trading initially at 50 "Texas Stars" to the Ruble, but there's nowhere to go after that but up.  Maybe.

 

The scariest part of all this for Texans is that maybe Mexico is going to want you back.  I think they might still be pretty pissed off.  But that's OK because Dubya can come out of reitrement, suit up, and lead the Texas Air National Guard to repel the invaders -- Hollywood couldn't come up with anything better!  Oh, wait -- isn't that the basic plot of "Independence Day"? 

 

The notion of any state seceding can only be described as infantile, and for any political figure to indulge the idea even for a moment is idiotic, even if they're just trying to get some face time on Fox.  It's so remarkably stupid, I was able to dash this posting off in about 45 minutes, research included.  I'd really like to see experts take some time and dimension what it would involve to disentangle Texas from the United States.  Truth is, there won't be a lot left after We The People leave.

 

Hey, I don't hang around where I'm not wanted.

Iran Convicts US Journalist of Spying, Ali Akbar Dareini, AP, April 18, 2009:

The case of the 10 Iranian Jewish "spies for Israel" arrested in 1999 against whom charges were pursued (originally 13 were arrested, but  3 were acquitted) may be a useful guide as to how the case of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist who has been living in Iran, will unfold now that she has actually been sentenced.  First, as a spy she could have been sentenced to execution under Iranian law, but, like the 10 Iranian Jews, she was not.   Second, the Iranian Jews were arrested as Iranian hardliners tried to thwart the progress that Khatami had  made in improving relations with the US in 1998.   A similar struggle over the relationship with the US is taking place in Iran now, in response to the Obama overtures.

So what might happen next? Convicted in July  2000 after a highly publicized trial,  by September the sentences for all ten of  the convicted Jewish spies, some for as long as 13 years, had been quietly reduced by 2-6 years.  (Note:  All but one of the alleged spies reportedly confessed, and, according to a report published in  the Jerusalem Post on Aug. 9. 2000, the Israeli govt. admitted that they had, in fact, been spying for Israel!)    Two had completed their reduced sentences by 2001, three were pardoned by Khamenei in Oct. 2002, and the last were freed by April 2003.

My guess is that, now that she has been sentenced, Saberi will probably be released soon after the Iranian election, whether the winner is Ahmadinejad, Mousavi or any of the other candidates.  (However, an Israeli military strike against Iran, particularly if it is condoned or is only mildly rebuked, could change this.) 

 BTW, based upon past results, I leave room for the possibility that Iran's next president may be a total surprise to the US and global media, and perhaps even to Iranians.  In 1997, conservative Ayatollah Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri seemed to have the election sewn up, with the solid support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei--Khatami came out of nowhere.  In 2005, Ahmadinejad's election also came  a surprise, even to members of his own party and faction.

Image via Wikipedia

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be given a great deal of credit for releasing the latest memos produced by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, to the American Civil Liberties Union. Glenn Greenwald makes this point strongly in his first post following the release of the mostly unredacted material. It contains a number of excerpts from the memos with interesting points about each. He and many others were unsure at the start of the day what the President would do, given the huge fight going on within the administration. Greenwald is sharply critical of the administration's decision not to prosecute however, pointing to an inability to reconcile certain basic principles of the rule of law, treaty obligations, etc.

President Obama's written statement upon the release of the memos, is included in Firedoglake blogger, emptywheel's post, which adds to the discussion and reflections on the lack of accountability for the wrong-doing. She makes a couple of useful points about the release: "The ICRC report may have made a difference in this fight. . . No mention of who wrote these memos. . ." And Wheeler closes with this: "If we're a nation of laws, then we cannot let those who have broken the laws to go unpunished. That's not retribution. That's what 'nation of laws' means."

More from emptywheel -- A further point made by this outstanding investigative writer, who labels the OLC memos "erroneous and inflammatory assumptions, and John Rizzo's lies," is that the OLC memos should not be taken as authoritative regarding the events surrounding the interrogation program. For example, the section on the supposed mental health of Abu Zubaydah is patently wrong. Also the ICRC report contradicts the section on the frequency and harshness of the use of sleep deprivation. Another post links to the ACLU website that has the original memos (in pdf) posted, and reminds us that the ACLU lawsuit was what freed up the memos from the DOJ in the first place.

Here is the latest on the torture memos from the investigative journalism organization, ProPublica:
1) Newly Released Memo Inadvertently Reveals CIA Held and Abused Missing Prisoner.
2) Obama Promises to Defend Interrogators, But No Promise on the Bush Lawyers Who Signed Off.
3) Resource: The Missing Memos

References: Following are several authoritative and complete articles on the story of the release of these OLC memos:

• "Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the C.I.A," by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the New York Times (4/16/09). An earlier NYT story: "Memos reveal scope of the power Bush sought in fighting terror," by Neil Lewis (4/3/09).
• "Obama Releasing Four Torture Memos," by Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker (4/16/09). Includes a good AP overview along with the official statements of the President and the Department of Justic
  
• "Obama says no prosecutions, no 'laying blame' for interrogation techniques," is by Keith Perine and Seth Stern of the Congressional Quarterly-Politics website (4/16/09).
• "Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute," by David Kravets from Wired-Threat Level (4/16/09).

See also Behind the Links, for further info on scandals and excesses.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama

I fought for this guy for almost two years.

I spent over a grand on him.

The fighting and money were not easy to come by, but I knew the alternative would kill us all.

Sounds extreme, I suppose, but I mean it. 

Now that he's there I want him to concentrate on what he needs to concentrate on.  But I want the DOJ to investigate the war crimes.  I want the people who need to be working on this work on it. 

I don't blame Obama for backing off and I don't even blame him for the continued wire tapping if he's so inclined, but he'd better send me an email before I go all sexy on my honey in the middle of the night via cell phone and Obama'd better put his henchmen's earphones on.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm a little disappointed in my man tonight.  And he'd better talk to his henchmen in the DOJ and let them do their investigating.  Cuz Cheney and Bush et al need to be questioned. 

I have a lot of questions for them.  1.  Would you like to be waterboarded?  2.  What do you consider the Geneva Convention to have accomplished.  3.  Are you proud of America?  4.  WTF is wrong with you????!!!

You can add your question 5.  I'm too busy beating Cheney with his pacemaker.

 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BORDERING ON A "NANNY GOVERNMENT"

Before the federal Constitution was ratified by the Thirteen Colonies that would then become the original States of the American Union, Founders debated their concerns in New York newspapers so that all Americans could be apprized of the critical issues at hand regarding the creation of a federal government.  They had proclaimed the Declaration of Independence in AD 1776. They won the Revolutionary War in 1783, upon which time General Washington removed his military uniform and returned to his farm to plant and harvest his crops.   Washington became our first elected President in 1789, thirteen years after the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence.   During those thirteen years, Americans took care of their business and governed themselves locally, without the benefit of a central government in Washington, DC.  This tradition of self-government is the foundation for the federal principle upon which the Constitution is framed.                      

In Publius (The People), Federalist Papers No. 51, the articles in which the federal Constitution was publically debated, James Madison states: "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."  Religious rights are supreme; so are civil rights.  The Constitution of the United States declares that we have three distinct and independent branches of government, with checks and balances that prevent usurpations of delegated powers and corrupt collusive interventions that infringe upon the delineated jurisdictions of those respective branches - mainly, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial.  Only Congress is empowered to legislate or "make law."

 Acting against the grain of these universal principles, an agency of the Executive branch, the Environmental Protection Agency, has threatened to "make law," regarding smokestack emissions, the impact of which would cripple private industry production, innovative business practices, and new manufacturing building projects.   An executive branch agency is not constitutionally empowered to regulate business activity; it does not have original jurisdiction.  However, powers of enforcement of Congressional legislation or regulation are delegated by Congress to the Executive branch, which must act in accordance with legislative guidelines so as not to violate the inalienable rights of our citizens.

This is not the only instance of attempts by Executive branch agencies to infringe upon the legislative powers of Congress.  In addition, our First Amendment rights are being indirectly assaulted via budget directives, vague conditions for receiving federal dollars, and subsidization of "left wing" agendas by monetary allocations to specific groups, the activities of which are of questionable constitutionality. For example, ACORN, which is currently under federal investigation for trying to commit fraud in voter registration during the 2008 election cycle, has been found "eligible" to receive federal tax money from a fund of $4.19 billion.  The National Education Association, which is also an unabashed, self-interested advocate of the homosexual agenda in State-controlled public schools where children are captive audiences of "left wing" administrators and teachers, has lobbied to receive billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, while at the same time attempting to silence God-believing parents and concerned citizens exercising their inalienable religious rights to protect their children as secured by the First Amendment.

 Additionally, the Obama administration, while fully knowing that more than seventy percent of Americans are opposed to the federal government using our hard-earned tax resources to fund organizations that provide abortions overseas, has allotted substantial sums of money to them in the guise of so-called health and medical treatment, on a "cost-benefit analysis" rather than real need.   

But there is more.  The Obama administration is attempting to make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights to support charities and non-profit institutions of their choice, by raising taxes on private gifts to faith-based groups, in contradiction to his political campaign speeches that pretended to respect these traditional American religious rights and free enterprise priorities.  Government can never replace individual initiative in providing care and assistance to concerned citizens who have transcendent needs greater than just food, clothing and shelter.  The liberals advocate so-called "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, but are fanatical in their opposition to "school choice," at taxpayers' expense.  That hypocrisy must be defeated by faithful representation of the truth regarding the monopoly stranglehold State-controlled public schools have on the minds and hearts of our children.

Our foundation in Judeo-Christian traditional morality states that our rights come from our Creator, that they are inalienable - that they do not come from Man or government, but from Almighty God.  Therefore, no mortal human being can ever take them away!  In fact, Founders concluded that the only reason for instituting government is "to secure these rights;" and that government derives "its just powers from the consent of the governed."

However, "rights" cannot be concocted "out of thin air" by activist judges or via unconstitutional policies by executive branch bureaucrats and administrators.  Individual faith or belief cannot be divorced from social actions that have great impact upon our local populations.  Government's chosen path of actions has not only transient, but also long-lasting, eternal consequences, for the present generation and the next.   We are spiritual-moral beings who have been taught by our Creator to have a sense of right and wrong that activates constructive living on the Earth. 

We are certain that, the President of the United States, whose first term lasts four years, has a greater understanding of actions that have eternal consequences.

God bless the United States of America and watch over We, the People, in Christ, our Savior.

 

Sorry but I have been away for a bit and have seen nothing posted by 2D (Dick Day).

We're chatting in the TPM-aholics chatroom and would enjoy your company, folks.

From Pearl Jam to On the Waterfront, we've got it all covered.  Please join in.  The bar is stocked, the room is cozy, and talkative people abound.

Happy Friday!!

Said it before, say it again, don't mess with a guy from the South Side of Chicago.

Israel's ynetnews reports; US official: No alternative to 2-state solution;

American president's special envoy to Middle East, George Mitchell, holds marathon talks with political echelon. 'Contrary to the impression created in Israel by the new government, Obama is determined to advance the peace process with the Palestinians in the near future,' says source involved in meetings.

Mitchell is making it very clear to the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who are pushing for an "economic solution," that there is only one plan, "the Road Map in accordance with the Annapolis understandings, which call for the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state." 

"There is nothing to add to the very clear statements made by former Senator Mitchell," said an American source involved in the meetings. "Whoever hasn't comprehended this, doesn't understand what President Obama is saying."

Obama made it clear that he has no patience for Netanyahu stalling tactics:

"Contrary to the impression created in Israel by the new government," said an American source between one meeting to another, "President Obama is determined to advance the peace process with the Palestinians in the near future.
 
There is a reason for envoy Mitchell's third visit to Jerusalem, there is a reason for his intention to rent offices here, and there is a reason for President Abbas and the Jordanian king being invited to the White House.

Obama is starting to push Netanyahu into a metaphorical corner:

 ...Mitchell's pressure during this visit, which may be followed by a meeting between Netanyahu and Obama several weeks from now, is making senior governmental officials sweat.

When confronted with the American demand that Israel recognizes the two states for two people solution, Netanyahu told Mitchell that the Palestinians must first recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Israeli demand, which is presented as a condition for moving forward, is aimed at shaking off the pressure.

Netanyahu is a tough cookie and so are his supporters - but so is Obama. 

The is an old Jewish story (one year our Rabbi told it on Yom Kippur):

An old Jewish man finds a lamp in the desert.  He begins to polish it when a genie emerges and offers him a wish: "Anything you want."  So the old Jew says, "You know, I'd like for there to be peace in the Middle East, for Israel to live as a free and open country, and all the people there to live in peace and harmony with the Arabs. Here's the map of the Middle East, here's Israel, and here's the Arabs, and they've been fighting for centuries."

The genie says,  "That's world politics. I don't know if I can do that."

The old man says, "Well, in that case, my wife, uhh,  I really want her to give me oral sex once in a while."

"Is she also Jewish?"  the genie asks.

"Yes."

And the genie says, "Let me see that map again."

I say there is a new genie in town, President Barack Obama.

 Famous Jewish Punch lines

I watched Keith Olbermann's special comment from last night on Youtube, as I was too busy wrapping Passover to watch the show.

While I generally agree with him, I find him powerful even when I disagree with him, or find his conclusions lacking, as was the case last night, and I'm not referring to the Kaiser thing.^*


In this case, I believe that KO did not go far enough.

While he is correct that letting people off for "just following orders", as is implied by the statements that those , "carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice," will not be subject to prosecution.

This is wrong, and there is a bigger point, made ably by Glenn Greenwald, that there is a real and legalally binding obligation obligation under the Convention Against Torture, which was signed in 1988 and ratified in 1994, to actively pursue and prosecute torturers ( roll Article 7 para 7):

The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

This is not to say that refraining from after the little fish to target the big fish is a violation of this.

That is a legitimate prosecution strategy.

However, it increasingly appears that President Obama and Attorney General Holder do not intend to go after anyone, and in so doing, they are, but not going after anyone, witht he explanation that this is, "moving forward".

This is a obstruction of the prosecution of these actsis a war crime, and if this means no prosecution, it is an affirmative act to obstruct the course of justice.

Certainly, there are alternate venues, such as some sort of "Truth and Reconciliation Commission," but all indications are that the White House are fighting even this weak tea.

I bwelieve that, in the absence for support for some sort of fact official fact finding process, it makes Eric Holder and Barack Obama accessories after the fact to a crime against humanity.

In the short form, people who actively work to subvert any process of judicial or semi-judicial fact finding inquiry, outside of the context of legitimate activities of defense counsel, are war criminals, including the current President and Attorney General of the United States of America if they choose to continue this course.

That being, said, I am an engineer, not a lawyer, dammit,^‡ and I would be interested in hearing opinions from people with a deeper knowledge of both US and international law.

^*The Kaiser commited no war crimes by the standards of the day, notwithstanding the accusations of amputation Belgian babies hands^† made in the early days of the war. The rules had not yet caught up with the technology of war, and if the Kaiser were guilty, than every participant in the war would have been guilty.
^†Ironically, the Belgians, during the genocide phase of their rule over what was then the Belgian Congo DID require their native levees to return a human hand for each bullet fired, in order to prevent them from "wasting" bullets hunting game for food, along with holding families hostage, etc.
^‡I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

In the context of explaining the importance of actually staffing, and performing some sort of industry in, offshore offices in order to avoid the less forgiving parts of the tax code, my ever-so-beloved pontificating adjunct professor cried out in exasperation:

"Why would anyone want to limit H1-B visas??? Why would we ever want to tell the smartest people in the world they're not welcome??? would you *rather* companies offshore their R&D operations???" 

Okay, I was good, and sat on my hands and managed to roll my eyes without making eye contact. 

But if I was stupid brave, I would have said this:

First: as if any US multinational would establish an overseas office to avoid dealing with the visa issue.  Um, it's about tax...and the fact they may actually be doing business overseas.  This vivacious 2-years-from-centennial old tart of an adjunct night school law professor and bill gates are the only people I've ever heard of complaining about not being able to hire enough smart people because of our immigration laws.  Needless to say, valid arguments exist justifying the assertion that both sources are slightly out of touch with reality.

Second.  Obviously this guy's never heard of, for example, Ed Rendell hiring deloitte and touche who of course never donated to any of his campaigns to contract out at $400 an hour indians from India (who get paid $20 an hour) to write software program manuals (when they don't speak english) for various state agencies when, of course, there aren't any really smart kids graduating from Penn State with degrees in computer science who DO speak english and can't find a job  willing, smart Americans to do the work. You know, because no one can read those manuals anyway, even if there were written in legible english.  

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, and I'm sorry to be another verbal vitriol playback artist, but I can't help but wonder: if even the smartest, most educated of the opposition is so...off track...how can we possibly hope for better in the future?

  If you read the newspaper or watch the news everyday seems to bring more bad news. Well I for one am very tired of it. If they cant find anything good to print then they are not looking very hard.

   The somewhat good story I heard on the radio today should tell people how bad things are getting but at the same time show them that there are still honest americans out there.

  There was a man (Idont remember where) that got desperate enough to rob a donut shop. After getting away his consience got the better of him and the next day he returned to the shop and gave back the money, He was later arrested and charged but I think it was great that he couldnt keep the money. He must have been a good person that got very desperate.

 I'm sure there are a lot of good stories and good people out there, a month ago I wouldnt have said that but if there is good people here theres got to be more right. The newspapers just refuse to write about them becouse they dont think it sells papers.

   I know they keep saying things are bad but I couldnt tell it by my job. I make cabinets and we have been just as busy as ever. So there is construction work going on somewhere. Why dont they report on that.My roommate works for amazon.com and they have been as busy as ever so people are still spending money. Again why dont they report on that.

    It is just terrible that they think nobady wants to hear good news. I deliver newspapers for my part-time job and have noticed that on the rare times they put something good on the front page my paper sells increase about 50%. They have to see it also!!! So why dont they.

   OK I'm done ranting about the news it isnt as bad as they want us to believe.  Sure money may be tight but it may also make family and friends have to spend more time together becouse they have nothing else to do. And friends and family is what makes a man or woman rich or poor  not money.

 I hope everybody is having a nice day. Remember to give your neighbor a hug they may need it. (Just dont let your wife or husband catch you hahaha)

MJR is no more 'anti-Israel' than a pork chop is kosher.  He is explicitly pro-human-rights and believes, as I do, that all life is of value - not merely the lives of those Israelis and their families who support Likud.

There WILL be a Palestinian state in Palestine - but what other statal entity there will be extant 20 years hence, is a matter of conjecture.

You know that Department of Homeland Security assessment report on right-wing extremists in the country that need watching?

You know, the one the right-wing extremists are calling a move by the Obama administration to strip us of our Constitutional rights and demonize certain groups, such as returning military veterans and those opposed to abortion?

Turns out the report was written in January, 2007. When George W. Bush was president.

I can't take credit for that, it was someone over at Infowars.com (I know, I know) who discovered it. And the way it was done was pretty intelligent, I must say. The report is a .pdf document, and all .pdf documents come with a set of properties, including a time and date stamp of when it was created. You can see the properties by going to the "File" menu.

Turns out, according to Infowars.com -- and I have confirmed this with a copy of the document I downloaded from the Michael Savage Web site -- that the document was created on Jan. 23, 2007. About a year before Obama took office.

Another intelligence assessment I recently wrote about, this one looking at left-wing extremist groups, was written about the same time, according to the time/date stamp in the properties listing.

So it turns out the right-wing nutjobs have no one to blame but themselves. Go figure.

Keep the faith.

Treasury says bank lending declined in February -- AP at TPM headline

The median, or midpoint, for lending activity dipped 2.2 percent in February.

But that marginal statistic (it only applies to the top 21 TARP banks, for starters) hides a whole other story:

While the median level of activity in mortgage lending rose 35.4 percent and home equity lines of credit grew 17.7 percent, lending to businesses for commercial and industrial loans plunged 47 percent.

So banks clearly ARE lending, but some business lending is down a lot, apparently not because of lack of funds to lend but because businesses are not ready to take on sound debt.

So once again, why the push get "get banks lending again"?

The unemployment rate that hit 8.5 percent in March is the latest reminder of the severity of our country's economic crisis. As economic activity dries up, governments across the nation are faced with growing budget shortfalls. Missouri is no exception.

In my book, "Competing for Capital," I estimated that state and local governments spent almost $50 billion annually on subsidies to business in 1996, a figure that was confirmed in 2002 by University of Iowa economists Peter Fisher and Alan Peters. According to a study by Susan Mason and myself last year, Missouri cities have given more than $5 billion in tax increment financing subsidies since the program's inception in 1982. At least $262 million in TIFs were approved in 2007, based on my compilation from the Missouri Department of Economic Development website and news reports.

Continued at St. Louis-Post Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/7368EF92A11F26DA8625759A00608E83?OpenDocument

As I watch the sorry spectacle that used to be American conservatism continue its descent into absurdity, I think that "left" vs. "right" is a much less meaningful distinction today than "reality-based" vs. "reality-blind".  It is deeply disturbing to see adult citizens (voters!) who demonstrate no logical coherence or intellectual openness at all in their deeply held beliefs on taxation, government spending, economic fundamentals, climate science, evolution, religion, race, culture or even the history of the United States itself.  Ideological blindness is not limited to the political right - it has been found (and continues to exist) at all extremes of the political spectrum.  But at the present time in our country, the political right seems to be overloaded with willful ignorance.  This can be morbidly entertaining but it is actually a very bad thing.  Government policy-making would benefit from serious, thoughtful conservative input; effective single-party rule will inevitably lead to corruption and waste; our democracy itself can be threatened if the willfully ignorant through some unforeseen circumstance achieve political power.  

How did this happen?  What "broke" the right (and could the left "break" for the same reasons)?  I'd guess this subject has been written on already; here are some theories.

1.  Over-reliance on issue-based polarized voters

Political parties exist to win elections.  They spend money to convince voters to support their candidates - they win when they beat the other party in cost-per-vote.  Highly polarized voters - motivated partisans who would never vote for the other guys - are valuable because their cost-per-vote is very low.  Both major parties pursue polarizing strategies with various subgroups, seeking to maintain a "base" of loyal partisans with low cost-per-vote.  

Republicans and Democrats have both seen success with "identity polarization".  To be white and Southern is to be Republican.  To be African-American is to be Democratic.  These alignments are deeply rooted in individual identity and can mostly be relied upon even when parties pursue policies that are against the interests of the polarized groups.

Republicans have been much more successful than Democrats in "issue polarization".  Abortion, gay rights and gun control are all highly polarizing issues; opponents of each are much more likely to be "single-issue" voters.  Republicans seized upon this and widened their polarized "base" with aggressive positions on these issues.  However, this comes at a price:  a loss of flexibility around these issues.  Identity-polarized voters will live in a "big tent"; issue-polarized voters will not.

2.  Agenda conflict with right-wing media leaders

The media landscape has changed enormously over the past three decades, and a strong right-wing media has emerged - talk radio and Fox News.  Within right-wing media, certain individuals - Rush, Hannity and others - have established themselves as strong opinion leaders with a sizable audience.  This has largely benefited the Republican party, giving them a "propaganda arm" to build support for right-wing positions and demonize political opponents.  But this is a marriage of convenience for right-wing opinion leaders:  their agenda is to make money, not to win elections.  

There are left-leaning opinion leaders with large audiences too:  Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, John Stewart.  But the Democratic party has so far not made the mistake of entangling its electoral agenda with these figures.  By contrast, the Republicans - at both a party and individual level - have sought out the endorsement of right-wing opinion leaders.  This is a winning strategy when partisan fevers are running high and the country is tilting rightwards, but it's a disaster when the party needs to seek the center.

Centrism is not where opinion leaders make money.  They thrive on controversy and extreme opinion - this is what sells ad time and books.  Rush would bite the heads off live guinea pigs if he could make enough money from it; he may prefer Republican government, but he won't help Republicans win elections if it costs him advertisers or audience.  The entanglment of Republican politics with right-wing media and its opinion leaders is preventing Republicans from staking out centrist positions.

3.  Failure of key "big ideas"

Conservative intellectuals were buoyed by successes in the 1980s-90s.  The economy was booming under supply-side economics; the Soviet Union collapsed when the US took a more confrontational, muscular approach to foreign policy.  These two "big ideas" were central to modern conservative thought:  deregulation and lower taxes to fuel economic growth; an aggressive, hard-power foreign policy to build a more free and peaceful world.  Both ideas were pushed too far and led to catastrophe.

When the intellectual underpinnings of a movement are so badly discredited, the intellectuals hang their heads and shut their mouths.  They don't want to say that the ideas were just plain wrong (and they weren't; they were just pushed too far).  But they don't have strong new ideas to put forward, and they don't want to try to defend the old ideas when there is so much evidence that they brought about disaster.  So they stay quietly out of sight.

Unfortunately it is the thoughtful intellectuals in the conservative movement who are badly needed by Republicans right now to shape more centrist views and sell them.  With these guys off the stage, the only voices being heard are the loud and unreasonable ones, spouting the old ideologies in more partisan terms.  

Will this situation fix itself over time?  Possibly.  My worry is that single-party rule by Democrats will lead to corruption and scandal, angering independent voters, and that Republicans will get back into power (at least partially) before they've worked out these problems.  

These tea baggin' days are not so strange. They are the consequence of the Republican party following its tried and true play book of the last 20 years (perhaps more) and finding that it is no longer working. To appreciate how a party (in terms of its public national face) can go, in less than three months from complaining about a lack of "bi-partisanship" to full blown secessionist fantasies, we need to put these responses in historical context and think through their implications for the future.

It looks like someone wants to get a jump on the Texas Secession Movement by selling them on eBay before they hightail it out of the union.

This actually strikes me as s fairly reasonable way to offset all that bailout money.  And there shouldn't be a shortage of bidders - Mexico, China, Drug cartels, Right-wing militias...TX does have all that wide open space, perfect for people, military maneuvers or guerilla operations.

Unfortunately,  bidding starts at $100,000 or I would have made an offer myself.

 

 

I had no idea.

I knew John Yoo was a Berkeley law professor. That's his day job. A lot of these other neocon skunks collect checks from anywhere they can--think tanks, cable news appearances, and op-ed contributions (the going rate for this ex-Senator is more than I can command with my four-piece jazz band for five hours). If they're big enough, they just start their OWN think tank, like Rummy did. And if they're complete losers, well, I'm just not sure what Alberto Gonzales is doing these days.

But one of the original Torture Neocons walks free despite his crimes against humanity, and that's John Yoo's boss--Jay Bybee. Those two names are hard to forget, and will never be historically dis-associated with our nation's worst hour. As it should be.

No, not only is he free, his day job came as a complete surprise to me today, via Atrios.

The Nuremberg Trials brought justice to tools like these some years after the fact. And according to "Judgment At Nuremberg", most of those not sentenced to death or life imprisonment were given fairly light sentences. If you sent thousands to death but didn't pull the trigger, five years was the average time served, even for the capo of the Nazi 'justice' system.

But these are our own. These men authorized torture. They committed both U.S. and international crimes. Reconciliation is unnecessary. Who would we be placating--a miserable German population already ground under the heel of World War II?

No. By not prosecuting Bybee and Yoo and Rummy and Cheney and Bush and Rice and Hayden and the rest of the gang, we are placating the FOX News crowd. Them and them alone.

My op-ed in the April 16 St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/7368EF92A11F26DA8625759A00608E83?OpenDocument

I am writing from Michelle Bachmann's "Real America," and if this is "REAL America" count me out!

Normally I live in suberbia, but we have a 2nd home in the mountains, and that is where I am at the moment. We spent 25 years living here and raising our family.

I have no cable (because we turn it off unless we are going to be here for quite awhile,) and no internet access unless I drive around what there is of downtown and find a few-and-far-between hot spot, which I finally found. Even having found one, this area is set up for analog, not high-speed, and it is taking me forever to even change a page. I hit load, then I can go to the bathroom, do my business, pluck my eyebrows and by the time I get pack the page is loaded. I can see why people give up and quit trying.

I can't believe I used to live like this. If I am unable to check my e-mail or log onto TPM, I might as well dispense with my coffee, in which case I will have a terrible headache and be a very grouchy girl. I am like a smoker trying to give up the habit,  in search of that butt on the side of the road that was burned down to the nubbins, but may one or two hits left in it.

Yesterday I trekked down the road about 1/2 a mile from my house, trying to find a break in the ridgeline to get just enough of a signal to get into my iphone and check my e-mail. It was frustrating, but I was able to do it, and got just enough of a fix to regain my sanity for a bit. My daughter drove by and I got busted! She whipped out the camera and took a picture of me standing on the corner in my pajamas, 38 degrees outside, iphone in hand! We'll be laughing about that for years!

Anyway, now I have come to the conclusion that this is all a right wing plot to keep a large portion of America ignorant. If there is no access to the outside world, they can keep us stupid. We don't know what they are up to, they can run amuck with no one to keep an eye on them. I firmly believe that this is how they got me to stay a Republican for so long.

When President Obama says he wants to make it so that broadband is available to EVERYONE, I can see why the right is panicking. How will they keep us in line if we know what they are up to?

So, the bottom line is, there are good people in rural America. When rural America is gone, we will have lost something special. But this is NOT (all caps, extra large font) the only place where REAL Americans live. Real Americans are those people who care enough about their country to keep informed about what its leaders are doing, and unfortunately, as it stands now, it takes extra effort to do that if you live in a small, rural town.

My hat is off to all of you who endure the slow connection speeds to  keep up on world events.

P.S. Dick Update: I finally heard from him! His computer crashed and he just discovered he can get an hour of free internet access at his local library once a day. He is going to try and post today!!! Yay!

I'm not much more than a semi-fan of John Hockenberry's The Takeaway.  It's a bit too rushed, a bit too sarcastic, and a bit too New York for my taste: but the theme music does serve to jar me awake at 6:00 weekday mornings, and today I heard something which reminded me once again about the power of the spoken word.  I have not read all four memos.  I have read my way through the longest one-looking at the footnotes, even.  I developed an intellectual comprehension of the subject and arguments therein.  But understanding didn't entirely occur until I heard Hockenberry's commentary on this morning's show.  It is devastating: one of the most powerful spoken pieces I've ever heard.  The tone, the nuance, the background music are as close to perfect as I can imagine anything of this sort being.  John Winthrop wrote about the different between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge".  This short work brought the knowledge from my head and incorporated it into my heart.  I understand better than ever the venality of the Bush administration.  Please do listen to the segment, test your reaction against mine.

I think it appropriate, no, necessary, to bring Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury before investigative committees of both the House of Representatives and Senate to answer for what they wrote: to defend it not with footnotes and endless legalese, but as if their own humanity was at stake.  I would applaud bringing them to justice as the next logical step.  

Finally, I would love to know if there was at least one operative, with or without knowledge of the memos, who stood on his or her honor and said, "no, I will not do this!".  I'd love to see this person get the Freedom Medal at the same time the names of Bybee and Bradbury (and those who ordered these memos written as they were written) receive the ignominy due them. 

As a child you probably played a game called "Simon says." The rule is simple. From the group one person is selected to play the role of Simon. The "Simon" proceeds to tell you what you must do and according to the rule of the game, if he precedes his directive with the phrase "Simon says" then you must follow that directive. If he does not use the phrase "Simon says" then you must not follow the directive. Fail in either circumstance and you are out of the game. So for example if he says "Simon says raise your right hand" then according to the rule of the game you raise your right hand. If you don't you lose and you are out of the game. If Simon says "Bow at the waist" and you bow at the waist then you lose because according to the rule of the game you may only do what Simon says when he uses the phrase "Simon says." Otherwise you must refrain from following any order from Simon.

Sometimes it is hard to remember what it is like being a child and so it may be hard to recall why a game like this was such fun. To be a child is to be full of the élan for life and its many excitements and distractions. Self-control is one of the hardest tasks for a child and this game is a tease about the conflict between self-direction and self-control. And it is a bit of farce on the theme of dealing with adults, who are creatures full of rules and directions and forever insisting on good behavior, on following the rules.

Eventually we all grow up and slowly, inexorably loose that internal voice of self-direction in favor of the utility and even benefits of following the instructions of others. "Good behavior" becomes simply "behavior" as the child in us goes to sleep and the adult, that creature of self-control, takes up the role of "Simon."

It never occurred to me quite this way before but yesterday as I read President Obama's statement accompanying the torture memoranda, I started to think of "growing up" as a moral failing. As a child there was a loud inner voice that contended with the various directives from others. As an adult it seems I should be content to wait and listen for the phrase "Simon says." Without that inner voice this game is no longer any fun.

Because we will.  If we have to, we will.  And it will be all your fault.  Believe it, buddy.

See, we were fine with it.  We were.  Because we had it knocked.  We did.  So a few electoral reversals came down the pike... it's going to happen.  We knew it.  We rolled with it.  The country was confused, our own base was disillusioned, we didn't handle our Presidential primary as well as we could have, we lost focus for a few crucial seconds.  All that gay stuff, that prick Larry Craig, that sonofabitch Foley, it hurt us bad.  Plus, we got the greatest military in the world and we can't beat a bunch of goddam towelheads, I mean, look, we don't really WANT to win, we're making a lot of money off this nice little war, but it's not like we can explain that to the rubes, you dig?  So all that took its toll.

Also, we underestimated the opposition, although, you know, given the givens, that's understandable.  I mean, it's not like anyone really seriously expected some colored guy to win, right?  I mean, be serious.

So in 'Six you guys got back a pretty thin majority in both Houses of Congress.  And then in 'Eight you brought it up some, and got one of your boys (heh, see what I did there?) into the White House, too.  No biggie.  Momentary lapse of reason on the part of the electorate.  We'd get it back.  And in the meantime, there was no way you or your shiny new black President were going to get anything through Congress while we were the minority.  Noooo way, Jose. We perfected the fine art of obstructionism back under our man Newt.   Gridlock is our middle name.   We'd just lock up everything you tried to move for a couple of years, then take back our majorities and gear up to boot your uppity shoeshine boy straight the hell out of our White House again in 'Twelve.  Nooooo problemo.

But suddenly you sonsabitches wouldn't play the game.   You're supposed to be bi-partisan, you're supposed to reach across the aisle, you're supposed to let us fuck with you.  And you wouldn't.  Goddam you, for thirty years we've absolutely owned your miserable liberal Democrat asses, and now, all of sudden, out of the clear blue sky, you're growing a backbone on us?   Excuse me?  What's up with that?

You won't let us tie up bills in committee.  You don't care when we mobilize our base.  You issue press releases that actually correct our press releases, and the goddam media actually prints your nonsense.  And takes it seriously.  I mean, what the hell is that? Listen, maybe you didn't get the memo, all that liberal media nonsense?  That was just b.s. we came up with to make the TV stations feel sorry for us.  The media has always been conservative, they've ALWAYS been on our side, that's our media,  we own them, you guys need to leave them alone.  Okay?  Capiche? Just keep your grubby hands off our press flacks, you dig?  What, all of a sudden this is too much to ask?

But okay, okay, whatever.  You're bitches, you're little punks, you suddenly got no appreciation for how we do things, you think you're big now and you've got hair on your balls and don't have to listen any more.  But that's fine.  We still got your number.  We know where you suckers live.

So we bring it.  All the stuff that's always worked before.  You're soft on defense, you're making the country less safe, you're cutting back on military spending, you're socialist, you're communist, you're fascist, you love homos, oh God how you love the homos.  This is the good stuff, the solid stuff, the stuff that always works.  This is what always brings the weak sisters in your coalition over to the right side of the fence, those Blue Dogs who are from mostly conservative districts, we dog whistle and they jump up and bark, yessir.  This will give us the muscle to block votes, to stall legislation, to filibuster without having to actually, y'know, filibuster.   Maybe even win a few votes, you never know, weirder things have happened.  But definitely we can lock you up now.

Except, I don't know, that bitch Pelosi, that wimp Harry Reid, that sonofabitch Obama, they did something.  I don't know what.  Some kinda liberal voodoo bullshit.  Something.  We're saying all this stuff, it's all good stuff, it's the stuff that always works, we got our boy Rush out there pushing this crap 24/7, and Hannity, and Bill-o, and we even got that crazy man Beck pushing all the really nutso stuff like Obama's not an American, the Democrats are gonna throw all the right wingers into concentration camps, all that b.s.... and nothing. 

We got nothing.  Zero, zip, zilch, nada.  Great big goose egg.  Donut, baby. Nobody cares.  Nobody's listening.  I mean, yeah, the usual nuts are eating it up like Cheetohs, but, it's like, nobody cares about them any more.   Nobody CARES.  About all the right wing loonies!  I mean, how is that even possible?

So we're doing this tea party thing.  Great big nationwide grassroots movement dealio.  Can't ignore that, right?  It's in your face, it's populist, it's a protest march, all the hippies love a protest march.  Except it's like everybody knows it's fake, it's Fox News, it's astroturf... no, it's weirder than that, it's like, everybody knows, and people actually care.  I mean, what is that?

So it's like that guy Venckman says, the usual stuff isn't working.  What do we do?  Okay, I know, I know, maybe it's a little controversial, but what choice do we have?  You're not going for it, you're not playing ball, you're leaving us no choice.  So we escalate.  We ratchet it up.  We let the dogs out.  We're talking about armed revolution, we're talking about secession.  We're whipping up the hoi polloi, because it's what we've got to do.   Dirty Mexican gangsters bringing drug war violence over our borders.  Yeah, it's b.s., sure it is, but you know that's going to get people all stirred up, right?

Do we want to secede from the Grand Ol' Union?  Of course not.  We're Americans, we're proud Americans, we're loyal, dutiful Americans, we're patriotic, God fearing Americans, but, you know, if you people aren't going to listen to  us, if you're going to pass laws saying we can't make as much money bilking the poor and middle class as we want to, if you're going to keep marginalizing our base and raising our taxes and closing our loopholes and seizing our overseas assets and trying to tell us how we can do business and all that crap.. I mean, seriously, if you goddam Democrats are going to start playing hardball with us like this... well, we're not gonna take it.  Never did and never will.  The great nation of Texas will do right by us, President Norris has already guaranteed that the middle class will pay all the taxes, the poor will all mow our lawns for us, and we'll be allowed to steal the place blind through an extremely... eh... understanding... government procurement process.

Don't make us do it.  We will if we have to.  We'll bring the whole kit and kaboodle down in a smoking heap o'rubble.  And if we do it, it will be all your fault. Because you wouldn't play ball.

Bet we can get Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona to come in with us, too.  You can keep that damn Louisiana, though.  They're nothing but trouble.  Whiney little bastards.

Texas, my state, has very qualified conservatives like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Congressman Ted Poe with whom I mostly disagree but have respected for their deeds. Texas Governor Rick Perry is the perfect encapsulation of what conservatives have allowed themselves to become. Threatening Texas' cessation from the United States of America was not only silly but dangerous for the militia and fringe element in our state that will use that statement as a catalyst for their movement. One simply needs view the crowd's reaction to his statement. The irony in all of this is that Governor Perry and his cohorts would normally accuse anyone making such statements as being un-American or hating their country. What hypocrisy.

With sizable sections of the progressive community chafing at President Obama's rebuff of torture prosecution, the new chief executive is left to reflect that he's been allowed a honeymoon shorter than any in Dennis Hopper's serial marriages.

You know the bloom is off the rose when Keith Olbermann sizes up Obama, whom he practically canonized during the President's candidacy and post-inauguration glow, for the "Countdown" version of a firing squad - the dreaded, delicious Special Comment.

Despite some really dodgy historical interpretation (arresting the Kaiser?!), the cheerily fulminating Jeremiah of MSNBC hit the nail on the head when he accused Obama of dropping the ball on this one. The President has no excuse for shrugging this off, although doing so comes as absolutely no surprise.

Read more »

Image by marc.benton via Flickr

Image via WikipediaCongress is on spring recess until April 20. They still have a few more days to hear from constituents on the subject of Bush administration accountability for misdeeds. Today's post digests a few items on the subject that remain timely.

OLC - leaderless -- Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Obama administration's Office of Legal Counsel is still on hold, emptywheel includes Johnsen's OLC philosophy in this interesting post, as well as key senators' phone numbers. In another revealing post, this fine blogger discusses President Obama's signing statement that apparently weakens whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

Sen. Patrick Leahy recently proposed a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses during the Bush-Cheney Administration - so they never happen again. These abuses include the use of torture, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws. A website, BushTruthCommission.com has a way to sign his petition. So far it has accumulated 92,770 signatures. Following on the heels of Senator Leahy's March hearing and proposal, Firedoglake's Christy Hardin Smith explored the question of immunity as it was laid out by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse here: "Open questions: truth commissions, accountability and immunity." Smith concludes,

What should be done? Any number of things, but that quote from Whitehouse made me wonder if he knows something about prosecutors already looking at these issues and, if so, who and what issues? It's likely he was just talking generally about folks at DOJ...but I'd love more details if there are any, wouldn't you?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was brilliant during the Judiciary Committee hearing. Blogger emptywheel featured the Senator's telling exchange with "Republican shill David Rivkin" regarding "the gallery of horribles that might go wrong," using Whitehouse's term for Rivkin's straw man arguments. TPM Muckraker, Zachary Roth summarized Rivkin's testimony as "GOP witness: by historical standards, Bushies' war on terror conduct was 'exemplary'." Roth also reports that Republican Senators Specter and John Cornyn were predictably opposed to a "truth commission."

Glenn Greenwald, my favorite investigative journalist, who writes at Salon.com convincingly argues that "a war-crimes fact-finding commission could uniquely enable prosecutions." Glenn reported, on the other hand that Speaker Pelosi criticized the Truth Commission as inadequate, advocating criminal prosecutions instead.

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics congress truth commission

Related articles by Zemanta

• Legal Wrangling: Why the Fuss about Legal Nominees? (firedoglake.com)
• George Bush 'truth commission' probing alleged 'war on terror' abuses to get under way (telegraph.co.uk)
• RI's Senator Whitehouse Warns Against Blanket Immunity For BushCo (alan.com)

Sour Grapes, Sore Losers, and Sedition

by Ron Powell

On April 15th, Tax Day, conservatives held "tea parties" all over the country, to protest against taxes, government spending and the growing federal deficit. The affair was billed by various conservative advocacy groups and think tanks as the biggest moment in what has become a growing movement. By most accounts it amounted to little more than a tempest in a teapot.

Since the election and inauguration of Barack Obama as 44th President of the United States, Conservative Republicans have become increasingly more confused , apparently suffering from cognitive dissonance, the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. Their attitudes and beliefs regarding patriotism, and the awareness of behavior that is contrary to those beliefs and attitudes are causing the dissonance which normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her thoughts and actions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. Awareness of the contradiction can cause anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. Love of one's country and disdain or hatred of its newly elected black president are causing internal psychological conflicts for many individuals and ideological identity conflicts for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Like the fox in the fable, many conservatives and Republicans are expressing a "sour grapes" attitude regarding their failed attempt to win the presidency and control of the executive branch. The "tea parties" have been characterized as nothing more than an unsportsmanlike or ungracious expression of anger or frustration at having failed to defeat the black Democratic candidate. In short, they are behaving like a bunch of sore losers. The efforts to instill or rejuvenate fear of a black man in a position of power and authority, the attempts to vilify and/or demonize the President and his plans or policies are clear evidence of this.

Further evidence of the 'sore loser' mentality being adopted and even encouraged by conservative Republicans is the obstructionist posture that congressional and gubernatorial Republicans have taken. Some have expressed their wish to see the president fail. Others have refused to help him, and hence the country, succeed. Some have gone so far as to call for secession from the union in language which borders on sedition or which is, at the very least, seditious in nature.

Sedition is the legal term which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of the constitution and incitement of discontent or Resistance to lawful authority. It may also include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence, against the law, and or legitimate enforcement of the law. Seditious words in writing are deemed seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition. Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power.

In 1940, the anti-sedition or Smith Act was passed. The Act made it a crime to advocate or teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law.

Be sure to visit my blog The Modern Times Post.

Nate Silver has compiled a pretty good list of just why it wouldn't be such a bad idea for Rick Perry to take his state elsewhere:

-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate -- or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats' 12) is by far their largest.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, George W. Bush would never have become President in 2000 -- not because he'd be constitutionally ineligible (Bush, despite his Texas twang, was born in posh New Haven, Connecticut). Rather, he wouldn't have had enough Electoral Votes to defeat Al Gore.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, Barack Obama would have won the Electoral College 389-147 instead of 365-173 (note that there are two fewer votes total, because there would be two fewer Senators). The vast majority of Texas' electoral votes would be redistributed to lib'rul states like California (which would go from having 55 electoral votes to 59) and New York (34 rather than 31)....

-- If Texas were not in the Union, Bush would still have defeated John Kerry 269-267, but Kerry would have an easier go of things, winning the election if he'd won either Iowa or New Mexico; he would not have had to win Ohio or Florida.
-- If Texas were not in the Union, there'd be a good case for making football an Olympic sport, which would sure as hell beat rhythmic gymnastics.

Me, I just have one reason why Texas should be sent packing: 12 years of my life wasted on two bad presidents with a first name starting with a "G" and a last name starting with  a "B".

Adios muchachos!

In the United States, anyone who advocates economic justice is immediately accused of fomenting class warfare, and relegated to the same slag-heap of history as Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and the New York Times is currently reinforcing this meme with a typical headline…

“Taliban Exploit Class Rifts to Gain Ground in Pakistan.”

But the Times is still the Times, and only slightly buried in the story of divisive Taliban class-warriors there are also a few odd facts which help explain why “exploiting class rifts” has been an effective strategy in the Swat Valley, which the central government of Pakistan has recently conceded to the control of Islamic fundamentalists.

1,300,000 people live in the Swat Valley. 50 landlords own it.

Unlike India after independence in 1947, Pakistan maintained a narrow landed upper class that kept its vast holdings while its workers remained subservient, the officials and analysts said. Successive Pakistani governments have since failed to provide land reform and even the most basic forms of education and health care. Avenues to advancement for the vast majority of rural poor do not exist.

Today Pakistan “remains largely feudal,” in the compact language of the Times, and although Islamic fundamentalism is usually pilloried in the Western press as a reactionary movement devoted to imposing medieval religion on “modern” societies, if the Taliban fulfill their promises to redistribute land in the Swat Valley, they can also claim to be the most progressive economic force in South Asia.

A note about the concept of ownership in South Asia: In order to forestall a particular objection from readers who may not have enjoyed the privilege of traveling in India and Pakistan, it’s probably worth noting that ownership assumes a variety of forms in those miserable countries, and an outright title to land isn’t necessarily the most salient.

For example, in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh, which is about the size of Alabama, at least 1500 farmers have committed suicide this year alone, because of drought and debt, and although the synergy between drought and debt may not be obvious to city-dwellers, most of the small farmers in Chhattisgarh are already indebted to the limit of their collateral, and can’t even borrow so much as a copper paise to tide them over. The “modern” secular government of India is providing them with nothing in the way of meaningful assistance, and creditors appropriate whatever meager crops the drought may allow, so it isn’t exactly surprising that at least 1500 of them have taken their own lives, rather than embracing either of the available alternatives: Relocating to a shanty-town adjacent to one of the globalized mega-cities which are the pride of India, or starving.

It isn’t much consolation to the farmers in Chhattisgarh that their names still appear on the titles of those parched and bankrupt farms, and it’s easy to imagine that a “medieval” religious party which promised to abrogate their debts might attract as many adherents in Chhattisgarh as Islamic class warriors recruited in the Swat Valley.

Jacob Freeze

Just when you start to become concerned the Republican Party is taking the nation's problems seriously, Tom DeLay pops up to save the day. DeLay is the face of GOP corruption and the more often he is on television, the more often people are reminded why they hate the Republican Party.

Forget secession. A few more appearances like yesterday's Hardball interview and the other 49 states will be pushing to expel Texas from the union just so we don't have to claim DeLay as one of us.

Remember these fabulous DeLay quotes?

"Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." - March 12, 2003

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" - to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 9, 2005

"We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." - explaining why America must topple Saddam Hussein in 2002 interview with Fox News

As usual, DeLay was a fount of misinformation, claiming Texas only got 70 cents back for every dollar it sent to Washington. Between 2001 and 2005, the actual amount ranged between 95 and 98 cents, according to the Tax Foundation and I'm sure if all of the money funneled back to Texas by the Bush administration was taken into consideration, Texas would show a net profit.  

The Secession Threat smacks of a publicity stunt cooked up by Karl Rove and his merry band of pranksters at the RNC. I don't know if Rove's firm, Olsen & Shuvalov, does this knd of work but it might be worth perusing expenditures made by the Republican Party at the national and state level to check whether O&S or a similar firm has been getting paid big bucks lately.

Seeing Tom DeLay's book in the background reminded me that I want to read it. Texas autobiographies can be pretty funny.

In his 2006 book, James A. Baker III stated outright he knew nothing whatsoever about the Carlyle Group's deal with the Kuwaitis to swindle the Iraqis made while Baker was flying around the world renegotiating Iraq debt terms. If that were true, there is a Carlyle Group partner somewhere who should have been tried on charges of wartime treason.

The best part of the book, however, is Baker owning up to having black relatives. Very trendy. I wonder if Baker picked Obama for a winner from the get-go.

I digress.

More Tom DeLay, please.

President Barack Obama authorized the release of more CIA intelligence reports yesterday that related to torturing of prisoners.

Past and present CIA officials had unsuccessfully pressed for more parts of the four legal memos to be kept secret, and some critics argued the release would make the United States less safe.

Michael Hayden, who led the CIA under George W. Bush, said CIA officers will now be more timid and allies will be more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence.

"If you want an intelligence service to work for you, they always work on the edge. That's just where they work," Hayden said. Now, he argued, foreign partners will be less likely to cooperate with the CIA because the release shows they "can't keep anything secret."

Hayden told The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.

A former top official in the Bush administration called the release of the memos "unbelievable."

"It's damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama's action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are," the unnamed official told Politico.com. 

"We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary ... Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again -- even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake," the Web site reported.

I would argue the complete opposite.  These memos show the lengths at which America will go to try and get information from the enemy.  They show that we are liars and cannot be trusted.  President George W Bush along with his administration repeatedly said that the U.S. does 'not' torture.  The memos prove them liars.  They tell our allies and our enemies that it's 'ok' to do the same or more to our soldiers if they are ever caught during war time.

Just because we can do something doesn't make it right.

If you see a well behaved child in public and ask the parent, "How did you get them to behave like that?"  And the a parent told you that he/she had better control of their kids because they beat them whenever they got out of line or they chain them to their beds whenever they misbehaved, would that make you want to do the same thing to your children if it meant they'd behave better?

Let's say a factory is doing very well financially with an outstanding product.  Let us also say that you ask the manager of the factory, "How did you get your workers to produce such a great product?"  And the manager said, "I work them 16 hours a day for below minimum wage and they are leg chained to their machines all that time."  Would that entice you to do the same to your employees?

Just because the enemy has no 'control' over what they do to a human being doesn't make it right for the U.S. to do the same thing; especially after claiming that we are 'above' such cruelty acts.

After seeing these memos, and after seeing that the U.S. is refusing to punish those that 'approved' such acts, our allies will no longer trust what we have to say, why should they?  Our enemies (even conventional ones with conventional Army's) will use the same or worse tactics on our POW's now and we won't have any right to protest; because we did them too.

President Barack Obama, I realize politically that this could be suicidal for you; but you simply 'must' authorize the investigation into war crimes committed by the previous administration.  Our country's own self respect depends on your doing so.

I posted this yesterday to my blog, where I write about Latin America. You can also find me on Twitter @bloggingsbyboz. This week is obviously focused on Summit of the Americas issues. I hope it's of interest to readers here.

President Obama has an op-ed in a number of the hemisphere's newspapers this morning discussing the upcoming Fifth Summit of the Americas. Obama's op-ed reflects closely the agenda that I believe the US is taking to this Summit. My view on the US agenda comes from various sources including public events, policy statements and discussions with officials and analysts. Here is the agenda as I see it:

Read more »

Yesterday I posted this blog, and today Time.com releases this article on the CNN website by Hilary Hylton.

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing other than my new title is Texas Political Insider.

It was the shout-out heard around the world: Texas' Republican Gov. Rick Perry's praise for his state's tea party protestors, accompanied by not-so-veiled references to a potential Lone Star State secession. The remarks prompted glaring red website headlines and instant fodder for cable TV pundits. But for Texas political insiders, Perry's waving of the flag of secession was just the latest volley in a Texas-sized Republican civil war -- a face-off between Perry and his potential rival for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nomination, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. (See pictures of tea party tax protests across the country.)

When the details of Abu Ghraib broke, the CIA was implicated by those involved the in the abuse and torture. They -- to a man and woman -- said their "orders" to conduct these abuses came from above, the actions they were directed to "apply" to the prisoners were detailed by the CIA, and they were supervised by the CIA. In the photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib, you can see persons not in military uniforms, but civilian clothes.

From Wikipedia:

"The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancee, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation rooms.

On December 21, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union released copies of FBI internal memos they had obtained under the Freedom of Information Act concerning alleged torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. One memo dated May 22, 2004 was from someone whose name was blanked out but was described in the memo as "On Scene Commander "Baghdad".[83] He referred explicitly to an Executive Order that sanctioned the use of extraordinary interrogation tactics by U.S. military personnel. The methods explicitly mentioned as being sanctioned are sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions", and the use of dogs. The author also claimed that the Pentagon had limited use of the techniques by requiring specific authorization from the chain of command. The author identifies "physical beatings, sexual humiliation or touching" as being outside the Executive Order. This was the first internal evidence since the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse affair became public in April 2004 that forms of abusive coercion and torture of captives had been mandated by the President of the United States.[84]

The Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations did specifically absolve senior U.S. military and political leadership from direct culpability:

"The Panel finds no evidence that organizations above the 800th MP brigade or the 205th MI Brigade-level were directly involved in the incidents at Abu Ghraib."[64] In fact, BG Karpinski's immediate operational supervisor and LTG Sanchez' deputy, Major General Walter Wojdakowski was subsequently appointed as Chief of the US Army Infantry School and Fort Benning. COL Pappas's boss, MG Barbara Fast was subsequently appointed as Chief of the US Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca. Pappas and Karpinski were relieved of command but Wojdakowski and Fast became the Chiefs of their respective branches. The senior lawyer for LTG Sanchez and his legal representative on the Detainee Release Boards along with BN Karpinski and MG Fast, COL Marc Warren has since been selected for promotion to Brigadier General.

Who cares?

 

Evangelical marriage concern trolls and right wing idiots have a problem with the word. Their God don't like faggots calling marriage...well...marriage. It's gotta be a boner and a hole to call it marriage dude, don'tcha know? No poles and poles. No holes and holes. Eternal love doesn't matter.

 

What we're really talking about here is equal rights for all people. That includes the legal privileges afforded to people who are joined in a legal union. If I were gay, fighting for equal rights, I wouldn't even want it called a marriage. Shit, I'm hetero and I don't even like the word marriage.

 

Give it up.

 

Fight for equal privileges and give them their sacred name. Let them vow to their fair God and define marriage as between a hole and a pole. Make up a name. I'm kinda fond of Oonga Friggin Boonga' myself, in their right wing self righteous God Squad face.

 

I now pronounce you, Oonga and Boonga. Check the box labeled 'Oonga Boonga filing jointly'.

Professional liar and radio gasbag Michael Savage jumped on the "Obama hates Jesus" bandwagon a couple days ago, getting his Right-eous up over an incident at Georgetown University earlier this week.

Of course, nobody does Right-eous outrage like Savage, who has reverted to his pre-election swipes at Obama, hinting that the president is a closet Muslim.

Georgetown is, of course, a Catholic university and as such has religious symbols and artifacts all over the place. That includes Gaston Hall, the site of the major economic policy statement the president made on April 14.

According to a statement by Georgetown, the White House asked that all Georgetown symbols be covered in the immediate area where Obama was going to stand. The thought was all they wanted seen was the presidential podium and the American flags.

Included in that was a monogram of IHS, which stands for Jesus' name, which would have been behind and above Obama. That was covered with some painted plywood. More than two dozen other similar monograms in different parts of the hall were not covered.

Georgetown apparently had no problem with that. And why should they? This was a policy speech by the American president, not a pep rally for the basketball team. The location was secondary; Obama could have been speaking in a train station vestibule. Any extraneous symbols, religious or secular, should be covered up so as not to detract from the presidential seal and the American flag.

This is the university's statement, as reported by The Hoya, Georgetown's newspaper:

Georgetown University was pleased to host President Obama to deliver a major address on the economy in Gaston Hall earlier this week," university spokesperson Julie Bataille said in an e-mail. "In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage in order to accommodate a backdrop of American flags, consistent with other policy speeches.

Michael Savage, the self-appointed defender of Christianity, has apparently taken great umbrage at this. He asked his listeners on Thursday's program what they thought about Obama "covering up" Jesus. You can imagine what they said.

But he didn't just stop there. He went on to hint, maybe even allege, that Obama is not a Christian, as the president says he is, but is actually a Muslim. And we all know how Savage and the Savage Nation feel about Muslims.

The question then becomes, why would Savage do this? What does he have to gain? Remember the other day, when he was in his rant against taxation, he blurted out that Obama is trying to start a race war? Completely out of left field, it had nothing to do with the topic.

I'm beginning to believe that Savage is attempting to foment, if not a race war, then at least some skirmishes. I can think of no other reason for him supplying his listeners with the red meat they'd need to take some kind of action.

Savage claims he's not a racist, and asserts that he's not looking at the Obama's skin color, and that he does not look at anyone's skin color. But I think 20 minutes of listening to him would put the lie to that.

Savage regulalry laments the "burden" of "heterosexual, white males." I've heard him play the song "Dixie" on his program and claim it's patriotic. (I guess if your country is the Confederate States of America, "Dixie" would be considered a patriotic song.) He takes every opportunity he can to point an accusing finger at people of color for a variety of alleged transgressions.

And then there is "White Man," the song lyric that Savage wrote but then buried in the U.S. Copyriht Office.

I'd love to take a look in Savage's linen closet. I wonder if I'd find anything other than white sheets.

Keep the faith.

I am a staunch supporter of President Obama.  But he has made some regrettable decisions of late.  Instead of ending the domestic spying program directed at the American people as a whole it seems reports say the abuses in the program have been worse since he took office.  His decision not to prosecute people who possibly/probably committed crimes while working for the government, or contracted with the government to work on its behalf, by torturing detainees in our custody further damages the Rule of Law, and what our country stands for, as we know it.

It strengthens the Bush/Cheney Administration's misguided idea of a 'Unitary Executive'.  It allows the government to continue to operate above the law even if President Obama chooses not to have the government operate that way.  Nothing has been changed if the wrongs of the past are not addressed.  We therefore have not learned from history and will be condemned to repeat it in the future.

These decisions need to be questioned in the harsh light of the implications they have on the Rule of Law and not have the queries be dismissed in some sort of noble, but wholly misguided, attempt to move forward politically. 

Today I am disgusted that my government is violating a trust I hold dear to my heart. No one is above the law. That crimes against people who were tortured were caried out in my country's name. I am a citizen of this country and I do not accept torture as a policy of my government. That elected government officials who are responsible will escape prosecution and not be put under oath and be examined for their crimes. There will be no official record of our government's actions of war crimes is not acceptable. One of our victims was picked at age 14 and has been tortured for over seven years. My President, who is constitutional lawyer, believes that these crimes should go away as a time for reflection not retribution. I ask you Mr. President to carry out your oath and discharge your responsibilities. Laws of this country and of international law have been violated and demand your being accountable to see that justice being met. This is wrong and I demand that justice be carried out. Mr. President, you told us to let you know when we think you are wrong and Mr. President you are wrong!

I'm in the hospital, reading my yellowed 1209-page copy of Shogun. The second protagonist, a 17th-century Japanese warlord named Toranaga, is the master of manipulation. He is, it seems, the only one who keeps his head when all around him everyone else, including his devoted (and one treacherous) generals forget everything they ever learned from childhood taught in Sun Tzu's The Art Of War. Karma.

I was reminded of this when thinking about the outrage from the right blogosphere over the release of a report about extreme right wing terrorism and its potential here in America. Of course, the report was ordered and compiled and studied and written on George W. Bush's orders, but since its conclusions do not match the neocons' talking points, it is suffering, shall we say, denunciation? Good word choice. We'll go with that.

But I couldn't help but wonder...did Obama or someone working for him or sympathetic with his policies or even someone with a brain actually 1) give this to a reporter or 2) leak it to them? I'm not even sure if it's in the public domain; it's probably not Top Secret, etc. But someone made a decision, somewhere, to put this into the news cycle, and I think it was probably a Bush Republican, one way or another. Just to sell papers and clicks.

As has been noted by any lefty blogger with a brain, this is a tempest in a teapot, albeit not nearly as hilarious as the priceless 'teabag parties'. But something like this never, ever just 'happens'. Either someone is using it as another red herring to stir the masses, or possibly even an Obama sympathizer actually wanted this story in order to warn the public.

But I don't like being manipulated. I'd rather be the Toranaga guy. And sometimes it's just so easy to see, like trout lurking at the bottom of a Montana spring stream. You have to look, you have to know where to look, but they're there.

And if you don't know where to look, or you're even oblivious to their existence...a lot of people belong in that category.

The President today did a good thing by releasing the Bush regime's "torture memos".  Sadly, at the same time he also chose to avoid doing what he was elected to do: bring change to the country.  Instead, he chose, once again, to adopt a position that essentially let's every brazen criminal act of the Bush years go unpunished.  He defends this position with a weak and, in my opinion, cowardly political dodge about "looking forward".  You've heard all that blather before.  It is used, always, in order to avoid doing what is right. 

The President's refusal to do his job, which is "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" is a dereliction of duty of the first oder.  Looking the other way when we know with certainty that our government has committed these crimes is legally, ethically, and morally indefensible.  It's that simple. 

If we refuse to investigate and/or prosecute those who torture, those who mock the law by creating bogus legal opinions justifying every illegal act, and those whose criminal conduct costs the lives of other human beings either directly or indirectly then we are inviting more and greater criminality in the future.  If we refuse to investigate and prosecute torture is there any crimes that our government, it's leaders and employees can commit that will rise to the level of abhorrent enough, heinous enough, grisly enough that we will then actually go to the trouble of punishing the criminals?

I voted for Obama.  I contributed to his campaign as did millions of us.  I pray for the success of his administration generally.  But I cannot, in any way support what amounts to him sanctioning illegal and immoral conduct on the part of our government it's leaders and it's employees. 

Keith Olbermann, in one of the best "special comments" he has done to date, says it all much better and more clearly than I do here.  But what Obama's position amounts to is saying "I was only following orders" is a valid defense for criminal and often inhuman conduct that any decent, law abiding person would know is not legal, moral or ethical.  We did not accept that amoral defense from Nazi's or from the Japanese after World War II and insisted upon their prosecution which was the only right and just thing to do.  Now, right now, is the time to insist that we live up to our own standards.  What better example could the USA set for the entire world than to make sure that those who use this defense in our country are brought to justice and made to bear the responsibility for their criminal acts?  And I do not mean only those who were physically implementing the illegal policies, but I also mean those who set the policies up to and including the President and Vice President.  If we fail to live up to our moral duty in this instance it will come back to haunt our country in the future in the form of much worse and more widespread crimes in violation of the Consitution, our laws and treaties, and in other egregious crimes against humanity.

I recommend Olbermann's special comment tonight to one and all.  You can find it at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#30254996

 

Bloomberg wants to know and so do we.

"The Board's arguments are based on
wispy speculation, lack evidentiary support and
are contradicted by economic theory," said
Thomas Golden and Jared Cohen, lawyers with New
York-based Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, in a
motion asking the judge to require disclosure.

"These government actions, which have been
shrouded in secrecy, are at the heart of
Bloomberg's FOIA requests," the
attorneys said.

Members of Congress also have demanded more
information than President Barack Obama and
former President George W. Bush have disclosed
on the bailout of the U.S. financial industry.
Congress approved $700 billion to bolster banks,
whose losses on mortgage securities and home
loans contributed to the recession.

And the FED has been resolutely silent on this point.

'Within Their Discretion'

"We've all got a stake in how the
government is managing this program," said
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the
Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press. "The information
is definitely something that is within their
discretion to disclose."

Fed officials are considering steps to provide
the public with more information about emergency
programs, people familiar with the matter said
April 14. The Federal Reserve, consisting of
seven governors in Washington and 12 regional
banks, was established in 1913 and charged by
Congress with ensuring low inflation, maximum
employment and a stable financial system.

Of course we all know how well that's worked out in the
last 96 years. And now they are afraid if they let people know,
they might panic ?? I heard that the so called stress tests were
going just fine.

I think they don;t want people to know because it they did, or
rather congress did - then congress might come down on these
banks and bankers with hob nailed boots. Which they should.


C

I say let Texas secede. The US would be better off without them. Let them contend with Mexico.

Today, Obama absolved CIA agents who tortured on the grounds that they were under orders. In other words, he tells us they are innocent of any crime. 

"In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice  that they will not be subject to prosecution," the president said.

"Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed , or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."

I like Keith Olbermann. Generally, his analysis is spot on. But tonight, I think he was off the mark.

The release of the CIA torture memos by the Obama administration is a big deal. The New York Times suggested in their story -- which leaked portions of the torture memos -- that the leak  came from inside the CIA as a "shot across the bow" of the new administration. In essence, the Times suggested, career CIA execs were throwing down the gauntlet: "cross us, and you'll be sorry. Release the memos, and you'll pay for it. Leon Panetta will get as much or less cooperation than Porter Goss received. And you know how that turned out." They were basically telling the Obama administration to withhold the memos or else.

But President Obama has always signaled that he more prudent. And while stringing members of the Bush administration up by the heels (apparently not torture) hasn't been one of his priorities, he is dedicated to following the rule of law and the constitution and treaties on which the US has penned its signature.

The Bush administration went out of its way to create loopholes and redefine the law to "allow" them to torture. That is not what the Obama administration is doing. Obama has said, flat out, "the United States does not torture." The Bush administration said, "That depends on what the definition of torture is." By releasing the memos, the Obama administration has said, "this is the definition of torture: keep a guy awake eleven straight days, that's torture. Slam a guy's face and head into a wall repeatedly, that's torture. Waterboarding is torture. Stress positions, torture. What the Bush administration did is torture people. Tortured them in violation of our laws, our treaty agreements, our moral imperative."

And what the Obama administration has done is -- at least to me -- as effective as trial. It has put in the immediate historical record exactly what Bush and company authorized in their own words. It is not released under the pressure of a Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) request. It is not released 12 years after the administration has ended, but just 12 weeks. Now while the wounds (so to speak) are still fresh, tender, raw, visible. Released while it still hurts, so sense memory cannot kick in and say, "It wasn't that bad."

Time will tell what Spain or other countries will do with regards to Alberto Gonzalez, Dick Cheney and others. By releasing the memos, the Obama administration has dropped the file and it lies open on the sidewalk. Anyone walking by can read the contents. Whatever details Spain or the private citizens who were renditioned for no reason need to pursue their cases is now available in full in the public domain.

Just 12 weeks in to his administration, Obama has done the right thing. We have no truth and reconciliation commission in this country. And we do need  one. But in lieu of that, let the truth come out as it will. The Obama administration released the memos the Bush administration fought so hard to keep secret.

That is a good thing.

By Erin Ferns

Although the 2008 presidential election showcased a more diverse electorate with an increase in voter registration and turnout by historically underrepresented Americans - including youth and minorities - the movement toward a more balanced electorate that represents all citizens is still a work in progress.  Advocates have long maintained--and recently Congress has heard testimony to the fact--that disparities in turnout rates are less an issue of voter apathy, and more related to a severe lack of democratic access for many groups. The growing awareness of this problem has inspired an increased interest among citizens, advocates, legislators, and officials to improve the administration of elections, particularly regarding voter registration.

Read more »

I just can't hold it in anymore.  Matthews is a moron...he keeps having Delay on his show, he asks him questions...just like he was a real, credible personality!  Delay is a slimy, putrid creep that has no business being treated like hs has anything to say about anything!!  He is under indictment!!!  

I am in the final chapters of reading Phillippe Sands book, "Torture Team" which lays out in fairly simple stark evidential fashion that it was the Bush Leadership that brought about, fostered and desired torture to be used at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and places unknown and operated by the CIA. The evidence that he has already gathered is quite convincing where these masters of the bureaucratic darkside manipulated every government check and balance to authorize torture as a means of interrogation.

These memos released today only lay more evidence to those already gathered. Torture was well defined and understood before Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld who are the biggest fish. The next level the underbosses so to speak; Feith, Haynes, Addington, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Dell'Orto, Wolfowitz, and Cambone were the politco henchmen who worked their legal and bureaucractic magic to this done for the biggest fish. They found the mechanics, General's Dunleavy and Miller, willing soldiers along with secondary mechanics like the gulliable Col Beaver to actually show cover. Underneath this cover is a whole world of blind commited soldiers be they in special ops or the dark side of our civilian claudestine forces who carried out this stuff.

Ironically or not so, Sands states that they never got anything from their torture....nothing except Cheney's illusions or dreams.

This is my take Obama Administration. I think you will be faced with the inevitable. The Congress will have to do its dirty work and investigate not unlike Watergate. This will not be pleasant for many because what was done was Un-American and it will to many abroad that we were criminal in this regards. Once enough evidence is gained the Congress will have to call the bigger and bigger fish....do not offer any immunity. Then refer it to the Justice Department where Obama will not have any choice because simultaneously the World will be seeking retribution.

We will have to be big enough to prosecute our own for war crimes and crimes against humanity including torture---regardless of the intent to protect us from perceived evil that was and could be done to us. It will be a long dark chapter for much more will come out yet unknown. There will be those supporters regardless but so what.

So Obama stop talking and Congress get on with what you need to do. Call those who did this under oath and get it on record. 

God, we need Molly Ivins right now.

It was Ivins who first called Rick Perry "Gov. Goodhair," and I would LOVE to see what she'd call him now.

Gov. Goodhair is a d**khead.

My husband went to school with him at Texas A&M University back in the '60s, and he told me waay back when the man was running for agricultural commissioner, that he was a d**khead.

There was a YouTube going around during his last campaign showing him chewing the holy hell out of a state trooper who had the great misfortune of having actually pulled him over for speeding.  Full of threats and self-importance and humiliation of the hapless law enforcement officer.

I could go to the trouble to look that link up for you right now if I gave a damn.

We hate him in Texas.  The only reason he got into office in the first place was that Bush appointed him when he left for the White House, and the only reason he got elected was because we had a Red State and there was no really good Democratic opponent available to run against him then.  Not to mention that Karl Rove and Tom DeLay OWNED the state at the time.

But in fact, last election?  It was split three ways and he won by 38% of the vote.

I repeat.  Thirty-frickin-eight percent.  A virtual landslide in his d**khead brain.

Texas has a very strong statehouse and a very weak governor's office, thank God.  That doesn't mean that we can't be HUMILIATED nationwide by the d**kheads who get themselves into the governor's mansion.

I'm begging you.

PLEADING with you.

Bush was bad enough for Texas.

Now we got Gov. D**khead.

PUH-LEEEZE don't paint the entire state with their big fat ugly brushes.

We're also the state of Molly Ivins and Ann Richards and Lyndon Johnson and Lady Bird.

We're a big beautiful state and as of this moment WE ARE CHANGING.

Both Dallas and Houston as well as Austin and San Antonio--our largest metropolitan areas--voted completely Blue in the last election, from mayor to dog catcher to county sheriff.

Obama won the caucus here when he ran against Hillary.  Don't forget that.

What I'm saying is that the state is purpling.  I have written about this many times and I would provide links right now if I wasn't so damn pissed I can barely type.

This secession talk is absolutely nothing but a D**KHEAD governor knowing full well that he is polling way behind Kay Bailey Hutchison for the next race, and he's trying to whip up the base into a Rovian frenzy so he can gather up a few shreds of support but I guarandamntee you we are sick unto holy death of the man down here in the Lone Star State and we cannot WAIT to get rid of him.

Hutchison has been a good senator.  I don't agree with her one hundred percent of course, but every time I've had to contact her office for any reason, either by phone or e-mail, I've gotten a hand-signed snail-mail letter in response. 

She's a conservative Republican so I  won't vote for her but I swear to God I'd campaign for her if she was the only candidate against Gov. D**khead.

Most people don't realize that she is actually much more moderate than she began to seem during the Delay/Rove years.  She was called a RINO on Rush.  You know, Republican In Name Only, because of some ridiculous little thing she did or said.

But she takes good care of our military bases here and our troops.

But this isn't about Hutchison.

It's about a real D**khead son of a bitch lying hypocritical rat-bastard phony-ass barely-governor who has HUMILIATED us again.

Don't blame us for him.  He got in with 38% of the stupid vote.  We hate him.  We can't wait to get rid of him.

AND NOBODY WANTS TO F**KING SECEDE.

Just this past week that lying hypocrite took stimulus money, not to mention whined and cried for National Guard troops on the border and I don't know what-all.

Be hard to do those things if we were a republic again.

God.

Ignore the d**khead and please don't judge the whole damn state because of him.

Or Bush for that matter.

Because right now the whole damn state is CHANGING.  Mark my words, it will be Blue within a four-year cycle, or at the very least, the next eight.  After a whole generation of Republican idiocy.  In fact, our statehouse is only very narrowly Red as we speak. 

We're goin' purple baby, and if I'm grateful of one damn thing Gov. D**khead has done, it is that he has only HASTENED THE PROCESS.

My biggest regret?

The man had to be an Aggie.

Crap.

 

 

 

I must say, I was totally prepared for disappointment. And my prepared disappointment was disappointed. Which doesn't disappoint me in the slightest.

Obama released the torture memos. Bravo for him. I know he was under a lot of pressure not to release them, especially from the Bush-school holdovers who still rank high in the CIA. And special kudos to the ACLU for pushing and winning an issue that's often maligned, forgotten, ridiculed. Without the ACLU, it would have been just right-wing sources imploring that Obana keep these fake "state secrets" secret. Well, there is no there there, except to say that conscious, approved torture is criminal and punishable. Or at least should be. I understand no one's going to jail this time, and while I could be outraged, I'll be for today cnotent with our latest victory. We won. Kudos for the Big O. Kudos for the ACLU. Kudos for the blogosphere that pushed and mattered (Glenn Greenwald, EmptyWheel/Marcie, Andrew Sullivan, Digby...). We won.

Well some of my friends think that I should write short stories or even a book. I think there wrong but agreed to try. This is my first attempt so be gentle  but please let me know if you think it is any good.

 

 

                                                     THE SPECIAL DAY

                                                        by john

Here I sit on what most people say is suppose to be one of the best days of the year for me. I have never agreed with that. It has always been one of the worst..

      The earliest I can remember on this special day something bad has always happened. The first one that comes to mind was when I was 7 and I waited expectantly for the party that never happened. It seems my family fogot it was suppose to be special and went out only to come home later and drunk started ordering me around and slapping me when I didnt do it quick enough.

   After that this day just started going down hill. I was always alone on this day never had the friends it takes to make it special. Aways filled with hope this year will be different always disappointed when it was not.

  It seems that on this day each year something bad happens. Dogs die, jobs lost, girlfriends break up and even a few of them spent in jail. It never fails that something bad will happen.

  I always think this is the year that it gets better. It never is. This year I had great hopes that things were going to change. I had met new friends and was really getting to feel better with there help. It shocked me that they really wanted to help me feel better becouse nobody had ever cared how I felt.

  But it was all for not. Sure enough the day is here and the worst has happened. I really hope its not my special day luck that has caused this tragedy.

  One of the people I consider to be a good friend has disappeared. Nobody knows where he has gone. Everybody is worried. Oh how i hope its not my special day luck. I hope he will reappear to make this day special for once.

 In case your still wondering the special day is my birthday. It has and probably never will be my special day

                                                                                                The End

 

Well I think I can do better but this is my first attempt. I sure hope dickday comes back and makes this day special for everyone.

 I hope everyone is having a nice day  Remember hug a vet today make his or her day special they need it

President Obama has released the Bush torture memos he promised, after one delay, after much hand-wringing by those who doubted he would--myself included.

I'm in the hospital, so I'm going to wait until the flotsam and jetsam of the blogosphere settles to see whether this is a judicious moment or not, and not because I have anything against President Obama. Because it's a very important issue to me. And it should be, to every American.

It's a good first step, and a campaign promise kept. But it's only the beginning, in my opinion.

The Economist had an interesting blog today about Sarkozy at the G20 summit and his recent rather indiscreet bragging. Apparently Mr. Sarkozy has become proud of his summit theatrics and has gotten awfully eager to show his fellow Frenchmen that they've elected someone who knows more about running government than Obama does.

The blog also contains a link to an article by French left wing columnist Bernard Guetta who is surprisingly uncritical of Sarkozy (a man most people on the left here have compared to a fascist at one time or other).  According to Guetta, French President Sarkozy now wants to distance himself from Obama in order to establish France as a rival center of economic power, a sort of "alternative" to failed American liberalism.

Now speaking as someone who has lived in Paris for several years, I have to say, this is hardly news: since De Gaulle pulled out of NATO, every French leader has wanted to establish France as a rival centre of power to the US--it's a prerequisite for getting elected. So Guetta's analysis is almost surreal, as if he were pointing out that Sarkozy lives in the Elysée palace and certainly has taste in his choice of homes. Of course, the French president wants to establish France as an alternative to American values: that's what French presidents do.

What I think this sudden love fest shows is that Obama's election has given the French a mild but persistent identity crisis. How can you be the moral and economic counterweight to a country that has just elected someone who embodies so many inherently "French" values? For Obama is a very smart man and intellectual (this is one of the French virtues) and he is African American (the French are very proud of their "egalitarian" values). Obama is also not a rampant free marketeer, all qualities a Frenchman might like to see in his or her own presdient.

My bet is that Sarkozy and the French left (as in the communist left) now find themselves on the same proverbial psychiatric couch wondering how to oppose someone they really should like very much but can't see a political future in it for them if they do. Sarkozy wants credit for anticipating the financial collapse (and for opposing US capitalism) and the French left here want to crow about the failure of the free market. How can you do this while embracing the president of the most capitalistic country in the world?

It'll be interesting to see how much psychology Clinton and Obama will need to get this ally off the couch and onto the negotiating table when more is needed of France in the economic crisis.

In Canada, it took the dogged determination of one province, Saskatchewan, and a visionary leader Tommy Douglas, to pave the path to a national health care system, which they call Medicare.

For all the detractors of the Canadian system in the studios of Fox News and the board rooms of rightwing think tanks, consider this one note: In 2004, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted a national poll to select the greatest Canadian of all time. The winner in a landslide -- Tommy Douglas. 

While the federal window remains open for reform, with two national single payer bills, John Conyers' HR 676 in the House and now Bernie Sanders'  S 703 in the Senate, many nurses, doctors, and health activists are turning to the states to lead as well.

It's worth recalling that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "the laboratories of democracy." As columnist Froma Harrop has suggested, "being closer to the people and more attuned to the local culture, states are better equipped than the federal government to introduce new social policies. Innovations are usually first tried in the places most receptive to them."

More than a half dozen U.S. states now are considering legislation to establish single payer systems, essentially an expanded and updated form of the U.S. Medicare system to cover everyone in their states.  Here's a roundup of some of the state bills:

California

The latest bill SB 810 passed its first legislative test Wednesday in the Senate Health Committee on a party line 7-4 vote before a room packed with nurses, doctors, medical students, California School Employees Association members, and healthcare activists.

In her lead testimony, Malinda Markowitz, RN, co-president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee noted that "nurses know insurance companies don't provide any value whatsoever in the delivery of medicine. Under SB 810, we would be free of their interference, their denial of care, their massive bureaucracy, and their waste of healthcare dollars."

UC Irvine medical student Parker Duncan said that he did not want to "be in a world not doing what I was trained to do," referring to the paperwork that is one of the expensive burdens that undermine the ability of the current system to deliver health care.

Twice this decade California's legislature passed earlier versions of SB 810 (SB 840 carried by now retired Sen. Sheila Kuehl), but the bills were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. State activists say they will continue to push single payer in California, even if they need to wait until the next governor, who won't be Schwarzenegger, is elected in 2010.

Colorado

House Bill 1273 by Fort Collins Democrat John Kefalas, passed its first vote in the state House April 6. The bill sets up a 23-member commission to design a universal health-insurance system.

"Our current health-care system is not well," Kefalas said. "Our current health-care system is unsustainable, with the cost of health care and the numbers of the uninsured rising dramatically."

Press reports note a state Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform two years ago studied single payer and found it was the only approach that saved money compared to what Coloradans now spent on healthcare.

Illinois

HB 311, the Healthcare for All Illinois Act, sponsored by Rep. Mary Flowers, had its first hearing in March. Though no votes have been taken yet, the new Gov. Pat Quinn is a long time supporter of single payer reform.

At an introductory press conference, Brenda Langford, Cook County RN, said that "Illinois can once again be a symbol of hope and progress for our nation. Nurses are tired of watching our patients suffer from denial of care and lack of access to coverage.  We see far too much of this at Cook County hospitals--and that's why we support guaranteed healthcare through a single-payer system."

Maine

LD 1365, sponsored by Brunswick Rep. Charles Priest, and co-sponsored from legislators from all over the state, had its first hearing April 13.

The hearing came just days after both houses of the Maine legislature passed resolutions calling on President Obama and Congress to enact federal single payer legislation. A poll this winter showed 52 percent of Maine physicians also favor single payer.

As Cathy Herlihy of the Maine State Nurses Association put it in a state forum featuring U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, a single-payer system is the "the only solution," she said. "We do not have time to wait. Our health should not be sacrificed for limited reforms.".

Pennsylvania

Two single payer bills are alive in the state, House Bill 1660, the "Family and Business Healthcare Security Act of 2009," and Senate Bill 300.

Gov. Ed Rendell has said that if a single payer bill were to make it to his desk, he will sign it, reports Chuck Pennachio of Health Care for All Pennsylvania.

The state Democratic House Caucus is holding a public forum on the bill Friday, April 17 at 10 a.m. at the University of Pennsylvania campus in Philadelphia, featuring speakers from Physicians for a National Health Program, the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, and other single payer supporters..

The hearing comes on the heels of a resolution passed by the Philadelphia City Council calling for both state and federal lawmakers to establish a single-payer health system. 

Other states

Single payer bills are also on the docket in Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington.

Governor Rick Perry, it seems, is getting votes anyway he can.  Some might back away from inciting a crowd of pro-gun tax protesters to turn against their own country, but not good ol' Rick. 

Rick Perry's message to his fellow teabaggers was crystal clear.  If you vote for me, I will consider seceding from the union in the future.  Of course, in reality,  Perry plans no such thing.

What Perry is doing is simply gathering votes. You see, Perry is going to run for a third term in 2010.  Of course, no Democrat is going to rival him, but if Senator Kay Baily Hutchison decides to run against him, she will likely be the favorite to win.  What is the best way for Perry to defeat a very popular US Senator? Separate himself from Washington. He wants Texans to view him as the small man against big government now so that later he can pin all of America's ills on Hutchison.

Also running for Texas Governor in 2010 is Larry Kilgore, who is an open secessionist.  Perry, with his remarks, can save votes from going to Kilgore by appearing to consider a future secession.

I just wish he'd think about the consequences of his words.  American lives could be lost in the result of a Texas secession. 

Now if Perry wins the election, what will he do next to stay in power? Perhaps then he really WOULD seriously consider secession, but for now, he is just pandering to the wing nuts.

On a side note, this whole TEA Party business seems a little ironic. There was a local TEA Party in our county, and I watched some of the footage on the news.  I got a good laugh at the signs saying "No More Taxes!" and "Secede Now!". The people holding the signs are the same ones with the little yellow ribbons on the back of their trucks that say "Support Our Troops".  You support our troops AND don't want to pay taxes? Interesting.  When I expressed my opposition to the war in Iraq years ago, I was made to feel unpatriotic and that I should support the "Best Nation on Earth!" Now, in just a few months, a lot of the same people are saying that we should secede? I have to laugh to keep from crying.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/04/15/atlanta-tea-party-trimmed-back-by-an-hour/

Atlanta tea party trimmed back by an hour

7:12 pm April 15, 2009, by Jim Galloway

We've picked up word that the tea party in Atlanta -- which started minutes ago -- has been trimmed from a three-hour event down to two hours, which means it will end at 9 p.m.

That's when Sean Hannity is set to go on air from the stage at the state Capitol for his Fox News program.

We're being told that Fox originally wanted the active crowd in the background, but have now decided against it.

The environment is very, very tight, with stages dedicated to the TV set and entertainment right on top of Washington Street. Giant TV screens have been erected at Mitchell and Martin Luther King streets, to give the crowd a reason to gather on those avenues.

And it's surprisingly cold and windy.

Hannity will still do the broadcast, but without the crowd behind him -- or trying to compete with tea party speakers in the confined area.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Irony -- "When lie detectors lie: The CIA and John Sullivan," is by Jeff Stein on Spy Talk at Congressional Quarterly- - Politics (4/13/09). His post is a fascinating expose' of how the CIA allegedly used a lie detector test, in this case to cause harm to Sullivan, an ex-employee who was himself' a lie detector operator. Will the information eventually emerge? Time will tell.

Lost for a while -- "The mysterious case of CIA interrogator Mark Swanner," was written by Jeff Stein in Spy Talk at CQ-Politics (4/8/09). This post is a feature follow-up story to the Mark Dannner NYT Review of Books revelation of the ICRC report on torture. Stein discussed the status of a homicide investigation of Swanner in the interrogation death of a detainee, revealed in a Jane Mayer New Yorker story in November of 2005. Where would we be without such journalists? And what would we do without the ACLU?

ACLU stays on the job -- "Red Cross report on treatment of CIA detainees published," includes a discussion of medical personnel involvement (4/7/09); and "Note to CIA: be kind, rewind" regarding its "Torture FOIA" suit against the CIA (4/10/09). Both posts are from the ACLU Blog of Rights. The courts can sometimes step into the vacuum, offering standing to where the truth lies.

Investigation -- "U.S. medical personnel and interrogations: What do we know? What don't we know?" These questions are asked by Sheri Fink from the nonprofit investigative journalism website, ProPublica (4/9/09). To quote from this important article: "To put the new information into perspective, ProPublica offers these answers to key questions about the roles of American medical personnel in detainee treatment in recent years." These are the questions: What is known about the involvement of health professionals in the interrogations? What other issues have been raised? What do standards of medical ethics have to say about health professionals participating in detainee questioning? What questions remain? Are there any investigations coming? These important questions demand answer, but the administration has yet to fully step up to the plate.

The President -- "Obama, the ICRC Report and ongoing suppression," is an important and unsettling post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/7/09). To quote from his outstanding - and very painful - post,

Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do: rather than "seek full accountability for past offenses," he has been working feverishly to block such accountability, by embracing the same radical Bush/Cheney views and rhetoric regarding presidential secrecy powers that caused so much controversy and anger for the last several years.

Caught? We do not know yet -- "What does Dusty Foggo know about the torture tapes?" is a post by emptywheel (4/2/09). This post raises questions about the extent of possible involvement of former CIA Director Porter Goss, given the report that Foggo will be interviewed before going to prison, by CIA torture tape Special Prosecutor, John Durham. Just like the courts Special Prosecutors must continue to find out the truth. Here is a chilling thought. What if Dick Cheney is still a real player?

A mole? "Cheney's stay-behind," is explored by emptywheel (4/1/09). Marcy Wheeler delves into the Sy Hersh report that Veep Cheney may have left a mole or moles at the NSA. Here's why, to quote,

. . . Hersh's report that such stay behind includes NSA is of particular concern.

Not only does this raise concerns about the warrantless wiretap program and its use (particularly given reports that the NSA was segregating contacts with journalists, like Hersh, who has lots of contacts in the Middle East). But it raises concerns about whether or not Cheney sustains the practice--publicized during the John Bolton confirmation hearings--of getting the US person end of NSA intercepts (I have no idea whether Cheney would do this through dead-enders, whether he's getting that much more directly, or whether he's getting help from Israelis involved in our wiretap programs). A number of people suspected that Bolton had used NSA intercepts to undermine North Korean diplomacy (among other things). Such a practice obviously fits Cheney's MO.

No accountability, so far -- "Cheney lies, obstruction of justice and torture tape destruction," was penned by "bmaz" at emptywheel (3/29/09). The author does a stinging follow-up to an earlier post by his cohort Marcy Wheeler on possible reasons why the torture tapes were destroyed because, "they demonstrated there was no credible/usable information produced as a result of that torture," and because members of the Bush National Security Council Principles Committee approved it all. Bmaz concludes, "I don't want the Obama Administration to be partisan and spiteful, I want them to do their damn job. Is that too much to ask?"

The CIA operating in the dark, destroyed videotapes of detainees being torture, shocking reports, state secrets excuses, is it a surprise that we are outraged?

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national security CIA torture investigative journalism

Related articles by Zemanta

• The U.S. Tortured. Now what? (dailykos.com)
• Appreciating the Foes of Torture (dailykos.com)
• Behind the Veil of a Terror War (firedoglake.com)
• Cheney Has Moles in Obama Administration, Reporter Says (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
• Feds Detail Ex-CIA Agent's Misconduct (cbsnews.com)
• In intelligence hierarchy, who really runs the show? (cnn.com)
• Panetta: Contractors Not Allowed to Interrogate (Anymore) (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• C.I.A. to Close Secret Prisons, Scenes of Harsh Interrogations (nytimes.com)

Although the simple-minded mainstream media have christened some recent legislation on the far frontier of our colonial empire as “the Afghanistan rape law,” it’s worth noting that the same law that legalizes marital rape (specifically among the Shia) also forbids women to leave the house without permission from a male relative.

Ask Uncle Abdul before you walk out the door!

Meanwhile in the United States, popular revulsion against legalization of marital rape may undermine support for President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan, since it isn’t exactly easy to sell the idea of sacrificing American lives and money to make the world safe for rape.

This problem has produced an expectable wave of crazy excuses from Obama’s koolaid-huffing partisans in the blogosphere, and one of the most bizarre is the egregious Jon Taplin’s column on Talking Points Memo, “Holier Than Thou.”

“We should remember that until 1993 marital rape was legal in North Carolina.”

So let’s not act “holier than thou” by protesting the legalization of marital rape in Afghanistan, because only 15 years ago, in the former Confederate state of North Carolina… and so on.

But if it were worth asking Mr. Taplin a question (and it isn’t), someone might ask…

When is the last time US law forbade women to leave the house without permission from a male relative? Is it supposed to be insignificant that the so-called “rape law” also turns every home into a prison for women?

House-arrest for life!

What a beautiful empire!

So Mr. Obama wants more war in Afghanistan, and 30,000 more American soldiers to fight it, after seven long years of fighting to create a narco-state where 50% of the gross domestic product is produced by heroin, and millions of women will be prisoners in their own homes forever.

Jacob Freeze

The "Tea Parties" were nationally promoted events, with Fox practically being a sponsor, with both magazines and bloggers hyping them.  They were the first chance for anti-Obama people to come together and shout their protests to the whole world.  They attracted all types of the non-religious conservatives, from Norquist to Paulistas as well as the mainstream.

 

Their supporters had been pushing them for months, and liberal blogs and commentators, puzzled by what these people were trying to say, helped get the word out.  This would really matter!

 

Estimates of attendance across the country has ranged from 25000 to 100000.

 

Class A Minor League baseball is the lowest level of professional baseball.  The players are young, usually unknown to fans who don't assiduously follow the game, or readers of local newspapers.  The games are played in small cities and usually don't get much publicity out of the area -- and none nationally.  A team located near a major league city gets it's games barely mentioned in two inch stories.  Wednesday was an average day, most of the 'home openers' were completed, schools are not yet out in the areas.

 

There were 36 games played in 29 parks on Wednesday -- one game was rained out, there were seven doubleheaders.  Total Attendance?

 

Totalling the figures given in the box scores:  58,722.

 

Comment by me is unneccesary.

So much of what has happened over the past couple of weeks has resulted in pundits and observers on both the Political Left and Right asking themselves whether or not the cultural wars, which have plagued American politics for decades, are finally over.

Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson was probably the first high profile leader of the social conservative movement to admit defeat publicly, when in an interview he said the cultural war which him and others, like the late Rev. Jerry Farwell, started in the 80s was over, and that their side lost.

However, Dobson's remarks, while alarming to most social conservatives and surprising to most progressives--as the Right are not the kind to accept defeat easily--is a fact that most of us have seemingly come to terms with a long time ago. On almost all social barometers the country has been undergoing a dynamic shift over the past decades. The majority of Americans are now in favor of a woman's right to choose. Same-sex marriage, which had been the Right's reliable trump card, has been loosing steam since the 2004 election. And probably the most alarming statistic: Americans are now more than ever a secular nation, where organized religion plays a decreasing role in their lives.

While it might be presumptive for (secular) progressives to celebrate just yet, the forecast is looking good. As more and more Americans become concerned on the pocketbook issues the typical wedge issues that have won social conservatives elections in the past do not carry the same weight as before. The question is whether or not when the economic crisis is all over we will go back to the divisive social issues or finally put them to rest before-hand.

The political left and social progressives can attribute various factors to their success over the years, the most profitable was likely George Bush, who represented both the ideological and religious Right and old fashion crusading Republicans in regards to his foreign policy. The results: an economic crisis which most of us have never seen in our lifetime, diminished respect and influence oversees, an overstretched military, two wars (and calls for another invasion by former UN Ambassador Bolten in Somalia), an education system in shambles, a health-care system about to collapse, broken infrastructure; and much more.

The social issues have all but disappeared from our political discourse. Leaving social religious conservatives without a seat at the table, and thus at a lost, because their entire movement rested on turning the country into a Christian theocracy. Despite predictions that Massachusetts would burn and or flood because of what happened in 2004, when the state Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality, the state has persevered, in fact the number of Massachusetts citizens in support of same-sex marriages has only grown. 

The social conservative movement as a result has been forced to scramble for issues to keep their political machine operational. Their few and ever dwindling political forts are on issues like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and gun rights, fringe issues which a growing number of Americans seem in favor of changing. The more extreme wing of the movement has pretty much succumb to paranoia and conspiracy, led by imbecile Glenn Beck, which is the final stage of a dying political movement.

The true test will be whether or not Republicans, who have opted to be the party of social conservativism, can reclaim power after being in power for so long and doing such a despicable job of running the country and instituting a "moral" majority.

Greetings from the Lone Star State.  Enjoy us while you can; we could decide to leave any day now.  Two Texas related items struck me on TPM today.  The first was Josh's post about Mexican drug cartel violence and whether or not concerns about spillover into the US were realistic or anti-immigration propaganda.  Like most choices of this nature my best guess is that both are true to some extent.  Anti-immigrant propagandists will use any information - factual or not - to further their cause.  However local media (I live in the Houston area) regularly reports stories about cross border kidnappings and murders especially in El Paso, which sits directly across the border from Ciudad Juarez, one of the most violence ridden of Mexico's border cities.  Below is a link to a NYTimes article on the subject.  This ariticle is based on incidents occurring in Arizona, but makes clear that local law enforcement - not just the feds and/or our crazy state government - see cross border violence as a real issue.  If the local cops who actually deal with street level crime have these concerns, I think that makes them a little more credible.

The second post of course deals with the borderline insane rantings of our beloved "Governor Good Hair" - credit Molly Ivins for the nickname.  What non-Texans probably don't know is the degree to which we natives are taught to fervently believe in the myth of Texas exceptionalism.  Part of the justification for that exceptionalism that we are all taught as children is that the treaty making Texas a state contains provisions allowing Texas to succeed and return to being an independent nation or to divide itself into 4 separate states.  Governor Perry was not really threatening succession but rather speaking the native's code language to remind us all of our exceptional greatness.  All Texans indulge in speculation about and periodic "threats" to support succession.  As a practical matter, even the fiercest Texan knows that succession would be foolish, but we like to indulge the fantasy for our own amusement.  In other words, "Don't Mess With Texas", we might just take our crazy Governor, ignorant legislature and exceptional American patriots and go home. 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23border.html

Yup, there goes that crazy LIBRUL media again! This is from NBC and made for headline Drudge crumbs today.

NBC & CNS are making hey with the fact that the WH asked for their own backdrop instead of the crucifix at Georgetown during Obama's speech.

This is the coverage today: did the WH cover up Jesus??

Good grief. Everyone wants to be Matt Drudge!

Whatever happened to actually covering DETAILED ANALYSIS of the actual CONTENT of the president's speech?

I am so sick of this inane coverage of useless gossip and TMZ-style reporting of teleprompters, GOP off-the-charts quotes and Drudge-style misrepresentations of facts. 

There was more in-depth research on Bo the new president's dog than the truth behind the stimulus, budget or Gitmo! It's all GOP talking points and lazy reporting EVERYWHERE!

Is print journalism about to go the way of the horse and buggy?
Were that so, I am among those to say we will be turning a dark page in human history.

With the demise of major dailies in Denver and Seattle and, according to AP, news Goliath such as the Tribune Company (L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times), the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia News and the Minneapolis Star Tribune all seeking bankruptcy protection, with dozens more right behind - the face of American journalism may not be recognizable soon.

Top reporters are being forced into retirement and even the mighty New York Times has bowed to the Internet Age with an online version.

This trend is accelerating as newspaper budgets shrink because of the exodus of advertising dollars. In turn, that will decrease readership as papers fall back on vapid distillations of wire service and cable network summaries in lieu of their own hard investigative reporting.

Much is due to the growing influence of blogalism (a term that I suspect could enter Webster's fairly soon) which I will define simply as the dissemination of news by people without any particular training to do so.

But will this new hybrid provide a superior product to what we now have?

Can we be certain that anyone with a Web site, some writing skill and lots of free time on his or her hands will give us accurate facts that have not been subjected first to adequate research and editorial oversight?

While the democratization of the media and the dilution of monopolistic control by a small number of wealthy newspaper barons with self-serving ideologies is something we can applaud, I am not inclined to believe that anyone with modest skill at wielding a knife is ready to be a surgeon or that one with a natural gift of oratory is necessarily prepared to argue a legal case in a court.
Perhaps the news industry, like the auto and S&L industries, has been operating on defective business models for some time with often poor management. It is also possible that some papers have signed overly-generous labor agreements that have driven up costs, although it is equally arguable this has promoted greater retention of high-quality personnel.

But if automobiles are inferior, other companies can emerge or be re-invented to build better ones and financial institutions can and should be reined in when their excesses menace the nation's economy.

Newspapers, however, cannot be as easily replaced, albeit many have been repeatedly retooled or have changed ownership with mixed results.

However, government subsi-dization or - perish the thought - takeover is not an option in a nation steeped in the concept that a free society remains freer and healthier when responsible journalism acts as a restraint on government's excesses.

The infusion of an alternative media in the form of the blogs serves part of this function, but they have no reason to conform to standards that define good journalism. Nor will society be benefitted if our principal source of news rests on the fulminations of amateur scribes posing increasingly as experts.

And - I don't know about you - but I still like the feel of - cup of coffee in hand - turning pages and putting aside my IJ or some other publication to finish reading it when time permits, rather than going bleary-eyed at my computer, which doesn't travel nearly as well and could crash at any moment.

It seems that the expected outcome to the TARP rescue plan
has not been as expected.  Which of course was expected.

Bank lending to consumers and businesses for many
types of loans fell in February despite the
billions of dollars in government support the banks
received.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday its latest
monthly survey of lending activities at the
nation's biggest banks showed nine reported
increases and 12 posted declines. The median, or
midpoint, for lending activity dipped 2.2% in
February.

While the median level of activity in mortgage
lending rose 35.4% and home equity lines of credit
grew 17.7%, lending to businesses for commercial
and industrial loans plunged 47%.

I find it hard to believe that Geithner and the others at the treasury
and FED could have been so naive, gullible or just plain stupid
enough to think that their plan would turn out any other way. That
the banks would not simply take the money and run.

Apparently these people have spent far too much time living in
in a "cave" or some isolated island and not enough time on the
street.


C

A question that comes to mind when considering this torture issue is the motivation.  What was the purpose of torturing these people?  On the one hand, we are told it was to obtain information.  On the other hand, it seems it was purely a sadistic pleasure being provided by chronicling the detail of torture and recording videos of the events for others to share.  So what do we learn from the "Torture Memos"?  What I am pondering is that the people involved were either thrilled with hearing and seeing what was being done to these people, or they met the definition of insanity in a fairly classic sense.

Dick Cheney told us the information obtained was critical to our defense, but no one has ever provided a shred of evidence whatsoever as to what that information was.  There is not a single instance of our learning something that changed our actions because of what a victim had revealed as a result of torture.  If anyone has an example, please provide same. 

What we do have are intricately detailed descriptions of what techniques were being used and the existence of videos for the viewing pleasure of others.  Many of these videos were destroyed.  I have no interest in seeing these videos.  They display a truly revolting human behavior that needs to be expunged from society, not perpetuated.  I am not intrigued by the gruesome written accounts of torture either.  But I do notice that in these memos there is more a focus on what was being done to these people then a focus on what "information" was being obtained.

This is the insane part to which I am directing my post, aside from the deplorable acts being committed, which I feel are maniacal in their own rite, the program seems to be a case of people repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different result.  This is even more disturbing because we have researched the matter sufficiently to know the "information" provided ias a result of torture s worthless.  But they did it anyway. 

For some reason, these tortureres were sure they were right and the studies were wrong.  So they tried body slams, nothing; stess positions, nothing;  exposing them naked to women, nothing;  insects inside a containment box, nothing, and even waterboading, nothing.  It begs the question, what else were they going to try to see if they could get information with torture?  That answer can only be left up to their imagination, which appears to be what this entire loathesome performance was really about, fantasies. 

One action was tried with no result, and then another, and another.  When does a person not say, these painful inquisitions are not working, we should try something else?  When that person is obtaining the results they wish, a sadistic pleasure, under the guise of seeking information, and national defense.  When the goal is simply to develop new and titillating ways to inflict pain and anxiety on another person and make videos of same.  If we have knowledge that the stated goals of obtaining information as a result of torture will not be obtained, that only leaves the proposition that this was done for enjoyment, in which case, that result was achieved.  Mission Accomplished! 

Dear Tea-baggers:

You don't get it.  You claim to be without representation.  But you've had representation for the last eight years.   Don't you remember?  It was a complete disaster for the country.  Don't you understand?  Your policies stink.  It would be far better for the country if you never had representation again.

            Please commit acts of civil disobedience.  Please don't pay your taxes.  Please break the law ... and please make it a felony.  We'd love to throw you in jail and see that you never vote again.  Your votes have wrecked the country.

            Where were you when the last administration turned the country's surpluses into deficits?  Where were you when they launched an unnecessary war?  Where were you when they suspended habeas corpus and wire-tapped America?   

            Are you nuts?  Are you stupid?  Are you tools of the rich and powerful? (the only ones to prosper under the last administration).

            What are you?  I'll tell you.  You are marshmallows left in the flames for eight years.  You are saccharine fluff burned to a crisp.  You are toast.  You are done.  Good-bye.  We're sorry, but it's time you were laughingly thrown in the trash.

by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger

The dialogue on immigration has, historically, been contentious and cyclical. There are times when hysteria peaks, and rational thought struggles to enter the national dialogue. There are also moments of truth. This week, independent media debunked many myths about the undocumented and made the case for the positive impact of immigrants in the US, including the positive effect of legalizing the undocumented on the economy and how citizens are holding elected representatives accountable for votes against pro-immigrant measures.

Wendy Norris, writing for the Colorado Independent, held the New York Times to task for using questionable sources in an article about President Obama's push for immigration reform. Norris exposes the background of quoted anti-immigration groups like NumbersUSA, CIS, and FAIR, who have ties to white supremacy groups and eugenics promoters and calls the New York Times out for quoting organizations "repeatedly discredited as hate groups."

When hate groups are quoted as legitimate sources, society suffers from the misrepresentation. Also in New America Media, Jacqueline Esposito and Jumana Musa explore the kinds of "enforcement" that groups like NumbersUSA and FAIR claim is the most important part of Immigration Reform. Esposito and Musa cite the case of Guido Newbrough, a detainee who made multiple requests for medical attention; there was a treatable bacterial infection in his heart. Newbrough was locked in an isolation cell and died of the ailment.

 

"As the country moves forward on comprehensive immigration reform," they write, "We must uphold American values by ensuring that all people, no matter where they come from, are afforded fundamental rights, including the right to a fair day in court before being deprived of liberty and the right to be free from inhumane conditions of confinement. As a nation, we cannot stand for anything less."

 

The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) would no doubt agree with that sentiment, as Beatriz Herrera reports for Wiretap. Apparently, the DCCC voted 20-1 against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to preserve Sanctuary ordinances for juvenile offenders. These ordinances ensure that offenders have a chance to prove their innocence instead of facing immediate deportation.

During the 2008 election season, voices calling for reason in the immigration debate were often drowned out by the near-hysteria that certain elements of the Right called forth. Another encouraging sign that we are, perhaps, at a new juncture: Today, even democratic state senators are being held accountable. Colorado Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora) was recently forced to defend her vote against SB 170, the tuition bill was one that would provide in-state tuition equity for undocumented Colorado high school graduates, on the air.

According to the Colorado Independent, Sen. Morgan appeared on progressive talk radio host Mario Solis-Marich's show on April 10--after "a week of being beat up in the press and on the blogs" for her opposition to the bill.

In Public News Service, Doug Ramsey has news about a report which focuses on the benefits of legalizing currently undocumented workers. Compiled by the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center, the report breaks down how legalizing the undocumented community would increase the amount of income that the immigrant community brings into the economy. Rather than immigrants costing us, "legalization would boost tax collections at all levels of government by $66 billion over the next few years."

Public News Service also explores the economic benefits to bringing the underground economy above ground. According to David Kallick, an economist with the Fiscal Institute, billions of dollars are simply "lining the pockets of employers who hire folks in the underground economy and avoid contributing to payroll and other taxes."

And OneWorld US reports that Hispanic rights advocates are eager to hear the president's plan for immigration reform and note that very reform is key to economic recovery. Janet Murguía, President and CEO of the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the US notes that "the path to a strong economic recovery includes strategies that lift wages, increase revenue, and create a level playing field--and immigration is a crucial element of that equation."

Even the American Prospect's Ezra Klein is writing about immigration in a more proactive light. Just last week, Klein wrote Why Immigration Reform Won't Happen. He is now making The Political Case for Immigration Reform.

So maybe we're figuring it out as we go. The costs of letting parts of our country fail and fall away are more than economic, they are moral and profound. We have time to act, but opposition voices are gathering in number. There are many anti-immigrant myths, and many oppose a truly progressive stance on immigration. But we have the will for the struggle and the payoff will come not only in a healthier economy, but in a sounder national soul.

Are you ready? Let's go.

 

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration.

Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

 

One million tea bags were bought to the Lafayette park across White House yesterday by the organizer of national tea party protests, but the plan of the protestors to dump the tea bags in the park was failed due to government officials' intervention. I wonder what happend to the tea bags... will Starbucks buy those tea bags?  

As today's front page at TPM makes clear, the executive branch of government cannot wield the sort of police state powers it has unlawfully and unconstitutionally claimed for itself without abusing those powers over and over again.  You can find the story of NSA wanting to bug a member of Congress without a warrant here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/report_nsa_tried_to_wiretap_member_of_congress.php?ref=fp1

This is why the Constitution puts unbounded power out of reach of the government unless it is at least checked by a warrant from a judge.  Since the Bush junta began to grab this power there have been a plethora of abuses reported over and over in the media and to Congress.  No matter what they say and no matter what excuses they provide, there is no way to avoid these sorts of abuses when the activity the government is engaged in is, itself, an abuse of power.  Anybody with a lick of sense understands this is the inevitable result of granting unchecked power to the government.  It must be put to an end. 

Now is the time for people to say enough is enough!  The claims of authority to spy on the people of this country without cause and without a warrant must be abandoned permanently because they are illegitimate and represent a threat to the liberty of the people of the United States.  The outrageous claim that citizens ought to have no means of redress when their Constitutional rights are violated must also be abandoned.  The right of the people to be secure in their private communications must be protected unless there is some reason to suspect illegal activity.  Spying fishing expedtitions where the government is trolling for possibilities is absolutely unacceptable and uncalled for and an invitation for abuse as today's news makes crystal clear. 

The Constitution must no longer be ignored.  It must be honored and the power of the government to spy domestically must be restrained as intended by due process of law and it must also be subject to redress through the courts.  The government cannot and should not be the arbiter of the law and final judge of it's own actions.  That is the power of a police state and it unacceptable in a free society.  Finally, the full weight of the law must be brought to bear on those who would violate it even if they violate it in what they personally believe to be a good cause.  The law must be respected and obeyed by those sworn to enforce it or else it is meaningless.  This is our country.  We need to demand it be run in accordance with our basic law no matter who controls the White House.

And Thom Hartmann explains this very well.

"Debt" is not money. Instead, it's a charge against
future money. But even though it's a charge against
future money, it can still be spent as if it was
today's money - except that it must be repaid with
interest. And therefore debt must have some sort of
a balanced relationship to the total size of the
economy - albeit the future economy - for it not to
be destabilizing.

In other words, if over the next twenty years (the
term of a typical and healthy mortgage) the economy
is expected to grow by X percent or X number of
dollars, then the total amount of twenty-year debts
that can be issued should be limited to X. But if
it's greater than X, then when the future arrives
there won't be enough circulating money to repay
the debt, because the economy (and the money
supply) won't have grown as great as the debt
repayment demand. The only two options are for debt
holders to default (bankruptcies, foreclosures,
etc. - Depression), or for the government to
suddenly increase the supply of money (inflation).

The same is true of one-year debt (credit cards),
four- or five-year debt (car loans, typically), and
all other forms of debt. In aggregate, if the
amount of debt is allowed to grow faster than the
economy will grow over the term of the debt, when
the debt is due there will be a problem, and if
it's grown hugely, a disaster.

This is what we're experiencing right now. Over the
past three decades - largely since Reagan - debt
(both private and public/government) has expanded
much more rapidly than the economy has grown. "Now"
was "the future" when the debt was issued, but the
economy hasn't grown to the point where there are
enough dollars (in reality, enough value - goods
and services) to repay that debt. Thus we are
experiencing a "wringing out" of that debt -
bankruptcies and foreclosures - relative to the
current wealth of the economy.

This is the most critical thing to see clearly -
without adhering to this simple concept, a
government or central bank will always either
create boom/bust cycles (depressions/recessions) or
inflation. Without regulating debt, a government
will be taken hostage and an economy destroyed by
for-profit institutions that are able to create
debt without regulation (banks).

Absolutely. If nothing else comes out of the current economic mess,
strict banking regulations that can be expanded to incorporate any
future shenanigans on the part of bankers need to be enacted and
the sooner the better. And with sever consequences...like hard jail
time.

C

A few weeks back, because of an interview with David Simon, former journalist and the creator of the HBO show The Wire, I pondered the future of the news business and specifically, how local news would be covered in the future.

Woke up this morning to the screaming Tea Party headline and picture of the crowd on the first page above the fold in my local right slanted newspaper.  Could not find one word in the article about number of people in attendance. I doubt if a reporter even attended because all the quotes sounded like they came right out of a Fox News squawk box.

 

So I started counting the number of people in the picture. The angle of the picture makes the crowd look formidable. However, knowing the size of the outdoor pavilion in which the rally was held, I liberally guesstimated and extrapolated that the size of the crowd was somewhere between 100 and 120. Not bad for a metropolitan/media area of about 50,000 people !!!

 

Seriously, I really thought with the constant brainwashing we get from the newspaper and local radio and TV that the number would be much higher.

As I have pointed out before anecdotally     http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wvbiker/2009/03/president-obama-whatever-you-a.php  Pres. Obama must be doing something right.

 

I think that some around here are adjusting their opinions about our new President and his agenda in a good way.   WV -Turning Blue in Two Zero One Two. 

It has come to my attention that your are seriously considering seceding from the Union. Dude, I have to admit I am impressed with your courage and thinking. You just may be onto something here. However, might I suggest before you move ahead with this audacious plan you take it out for a test drive first.

So here are a few suggestions, you know just to see how it all may work out.

1. The next time you get hit by a massive Hurricane or other natural disaster - no calling FEMA for assistance. They have been instructed not to take your call anyway. It will be passed along to the State Department to see if their is any foreign aid available.

2. Need some help with your inter-states, bridges, etc please take the US DOT off your speed dial.

3. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security these are now completely on you. You do have the option of doing away with them completely of course. I mean really they do kinda smack of socialism.

4. Good news. You do get to bring all the citizens of the great nation of Texas home who are presently in the Armed Forces of the United States no matter where they are presently stationed. Truth is you are going to need them which brings me to #5.

5. Need help along your border with Mexico because of the Mexican Drug Cartels. Deal with it.

6. We will also be shuttering all the US Military bases within your nation and taking all the associated equipment with us when we leave. You are free to make an offer to purchase.

6. Now as to your colleges and universities. A couple of things, no more Federal loans to Texas citizens attending colleges or universities, either inside your borders or out. Research grants from the Federal Government, yes those are gone. Oh I almost forgot they are out of the NCAA too.

7. Since we are trying out this whole sovereign nation thing, please remember you are not party to the current NAFTA agreement. So while we negotiate one that may include The Nation of Texas  anything you produce and export to the US will be subject to the appropriate tariffs.

8. Your citizens by  the way will need passports and will suffer the same indignities and hassles all foreign nationals receive when entering the US. In fact we will probably have too temporarily put every Texan on a watch list, just to be on the safe side.

I know I  have forgotten a number of things, but we'll add to the list as they present themselves.

I'll give you a call in six months jut to see how it's going. This assumes you haven't been tarred, feathered and run out of your country on a rail.

Cheers and Good luck!

Steve

Malkin and other righties were 'outraged' yesterday at the DHS report on domestic and rightwing extremists. Never mind that it was a year in the making (75% of that would presumably have been under Bush, a Republican last time I checked).

But what's interesting here are the ironic parallels to the debate over Islamic extremists a few years ago:

• Post-911, conservatives castigated 'moderate Muslims' for not loudly denouncing the radicals preaching hate in their midst, and said that their silence encouraged the extremists implicitly.
• Conservative bloggers who, a few years ago, were trolling around MEMRI for examples of Islamist "hate speech", now claim that their YouTube snippets are "taken out of context".
  
• Today (as well as in the past, such as the 1990s militia movement), we have conservatives who do not loudly denounce the copkillers, the mass shooters, the racist hate groups, the anti-government militia types, in their own midst and among their listeners.
• Instead, we get something like what we heard from Palestinians and other Arab Muslims after 9/11: "Of course it's too bad that all those people were killed. But they do have a point!"
• And we have the same dynamic of radical speech leading to radical actions, with plausable deniability: Glenn Beck can claim that he wasn't advocating the shooting of police when he told listeners about 'FEMA concentration camps' and other conspiracies, like that 'Obama is coming for your guns'. ("Because he will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax you gun or take your gun away one way or another. ")
  
• Michelle Bachmann can claim that "armed and dangerous" was figurative. Just like radical clerics preaching hate didn't actually blow up anything.When that Saudi cleric, or better yet, Ahmadinejad, says that Israel should be "wiped off the map", I guess that's a figure of speech as well.
  
• So my question to these domestic terrorist sympathizers -- Beck, Bachmann, Malkin, Savage, Hannity -- is exactly which part of the Pittsburg shooter or church killer's views do you disagree with?  These domestic terrorists claim to be followers and fans of your views. So where do you part ways? Do you just disagree with their means, or are they correct in advocating "killing liberals" and the "government taking their guns" and so forth?

I think we need to ask this question of the people who seem to mostly agree with the views of domestic terrorists. Their views of the government seem not that far apart from a Jim Adkisson or a Timothy McVeigh. Are we hearing the same old excuses? "Of course I am against violence, BUT ...." (There's always the "but") And then they proceed to blame the government for causing the killers to have to kill.

So rightwing pundits, do you think that the domestic terrorists who agree with your views "have a point"? What's the difference between rightwing pundits and their radicalized followers, and fundmentalist Islamist preachers and their radicalized followers? 

This is intended to be a somewhat continuing series in honor of National Poetry Month. I intend to post this series two or three times a week throughout the month of April with various themes.

The theme for this offering is, "Woman as Muse/ Man as Dog."

In this and each of the offerings, I will present some poetry of note and a few of my own. I would hope that in the comments, a poem that follows the theme, original or one dear to the heart, might be shared.

 

With that, let's continue the series with...

 

 

Woman as Muse/ Man as Dog

 

 She tells her love while half asleep,
In the dark hours,
With half-words whispered low:
As Earth stirs in her winter sleep
And put out grass and flowers
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.

-- Robert Graves
She Tells Her Love

 

 

First, her tippet made of tulle,
easily lifted off her shoulders and laid
on the back of a wooden chair.

And her bonnet,
the bow undone with a light forward pull.

Then the long white dress, a more
complicated matter with mother-of-pearl
buttons down the back,
so tiny and numerous that it takes forever
before my hands can part the fabric,
like a swimmer's dividing water,
and slip inside.

You will want to know
that she was standing
by an open window in an upstairs bedroom,
motionless, a little wide-eyed,
looking out at the orchard below,
the white dress puddled at her feet
on the wide-board, hardwood floor.

The complexity of women's undergarments
in nineteenth-century America
is not to be waved off,
and I proceeded like a polar explorer
through clips, clasps, and moorings,
catches, straps, and whalebone stays,
sailing toward the iceberg of her nakedness.

Later, I wrote in a notebook
it was like riding a swan into the night,
but, of course, I cannot tell you everything -
the way she closed her eyes to the orchard,
how her hair tumbled free of its pins,
how there were sudden dashes
whenever we spoke.

What I can tell you is
it was terribly quiet in Amherst
that Sabbath afternoon,
nothing but a carriage passing the house,
a fly buzzing in a windowpane.

So I could plainly hear her inhale
when I undid the very top
hook-and-eye fastener of her corset

and I could hear her sigh when finally it was unloosed,
the way some readers sigh when they realize
that Hope has feathers,
that reason is a plank,
that life is a loaded gun
that looks right at you with a yellow eye.

-- Billy Collins
Taking Off Emily Dickinson's Clothes

 

 

Dear Colette,
I want to write to you
about being a woman
for that is what you write to me.

I want to tell you how your face
enduring after thirty, forty, fifty. . .
hangs above my desk
like my own muse.

I want to tell you how your hands
reach out from your books
& seize my heart.

I want to tell you how your hair
electrifies my thoughts
like my own halo.

I want to tell you how your eyes
penetrate my fear
& make it melt.

I want to tell you
simply that I love you--
though you are "dead"
& I am still "alive."

Suicides & spinsters--
all our kind!

Even decorous Jane Austen
never marrying,
& Sappho leaping,
& Sylvia in the oven,
& Anna Wickham, Tsvetaeva, Sara Teasdale,
& pale Virginia floating like Ophelia,
& Emily alone, alone, alone. . . .

But you endure & marry,
go on writing,
lose a husband, gain a husband,
go on writing,
sing & tap dance
& you go on writing,
have a child & still
you go on writing,
love a woman, love a man
& go on writing.
You endure your writing
& your life.

Dear Colette,
I only want to thank you:

for your eyes ringed
with bluest paint like bruises,
for your hair gathering sparks
like brush fire,
for your hands which never willingly
let go,
for your years, your child, your lovers,
all your books. . . .

Dear Colette,
you hold me
to this life.

-- Erica Jong
Dear Colette

 

 

The last time I saw richard was detroit in '68,
And he told me all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe
You laugh, he said you think you're immune, go look at your eyes
They're full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies, pretty lies
When you gonna realise they're only pretty lies
Only pretty lies, just pretty lies

He put a quarter in the wurlitzer, and he pushed
Three buttons and the thing began to whirr
And a bar maid came by in fishnet stockings and a bow tie
And she said drink up now its gettin' on time to close.
Richard, you haven't really changed, I said
It's just that now you're romanticizing some pain that's in your head
You got tombs in your eyes, but the songs
You punched are dreaming
Listen, they sing of love so sweet, love so sweet
When you gonna get yourself back on your feet?
Oh and love can be so sweet, love so sweet

Richard got married to a figure skater
And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolator
And he drinks at home now most nights with the tv on
And all the house lights left up bright
I'm gonna blow this damn candle out
I don't want nobody comin' over to my table
I got nothing to talk to anybody about
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin' behind bottles in dark cafes
Dark cafes
Only a dark cocoon before I get my gorgeous wings
And fly away
Only a phase, these dark cafe days

-- Joni Mitchell
The Last Time I Saw Richard

 

 

 

Volition

by

Justice Putnam

 

In a sanctuary
Of her own making
Waits the gilded
Monarch brightly robed

Who serves whom?

A castle wall
Can be breached
But her heart
Can never be
Conquered

After all

This is
The land
Of choice.

(Astoria, Oregon 2000)

 

Enough is Enough

by

Justice Putnam

 

ya ever get tired
of someone whining
that their big ass
had nothing to do
with the hurt?

do ya?

and do ya ever get tired
of someone moaning
that they've never
been this hurt and
it's worse than
all that came before?

do ya?

well
i for one am

i'm tired of it

because
how many times
does the same line

get used
for each perceived

conquest
that flew out the door?

and how can this
special one be more
special than
the previous
special one?

or the one after?

answer me that.

it's like a guy
i knew in L.A.

he told me once

he always picked up
the intellectual chicks

(his words, mind you)

at the art museum.

he asked if i
wanted to also

well
i begged off

because
if that was
the best it got

i figured
i'd curl up
with an ancient
author instead.

(San Francisco, California 1998)

 

 

The Lone Dog

by

Justice Putnam

 

It is said
That if you
Throw a rock
Into a pack of dogs

The one that is hit
Barks the loudest.

But I have to tell you
I am a loud dog

But not of the Pack

I am the individual
Surviving
By my wits
By my ability

To adapt to
The situation and
Accept that the
Given

May not be enough

I don't act out of impulse
I knew the rock
Would be thrown

But my survival
Depends on
My abilities
By my experience
And analytical prowess

Does the Moon
I howl to at night
Have power over me?

I suppose
It pulls at the
Oceans.

Does the
Hunger
I constantly
Feel have
Control?

The answer is obvious.

Is the two-legged animal
With the whip and leash
God?

No

God
Is much
More mysterious
Much more Powerful

Much more the
Provider
Much more the

Taking Away

God does
Speak to me

Yes
God speaks
To a loud
Lone dog

God doesn't
Speak through the
Pack

But to me
Personally

You could say
I have a
Personal
Conversation with

God

But not of
Words

God is
Much more
Mysterious
Than that

So I pray alone

For what
God and I have is
Personal.

I figure
It's the same with
Everything that has

Soul.

(Los Angeles, California 2001)**

 

Arctic Dream

by

Justice Putnam

 

Come across the desert
Up over the sea
Through the Bering Strait
Where the seas freeze

(Come on, baby
Have an arctic dream
With me.)

Put down the palm fronds
In the Polynese
Tack into a
Northern westerly breeze

(Come on, baby
Have an arctic dream
With me.)

The frozen tundra
Aurora's eerie glow
An igloo house
Where we can go

(Come on, baby
Have an arctic dream
With me.)

(Kodiak, Alaska 1980)

 

She Looks Familiar To Me

by

Justice Putnam

 

I've seen her serve tea
In Hawaii

Pour an oil slow massage
In Denver

Her henna painted foot
On a Moroccan
Mosaic floor.

A walk through
The Tenderloin
In latex

A North Beach
Dance behind glass

A motel neon
Fading on a
Red door.

(The streets of Portland
The booths of Amsterdam

The canopies of tapestry
In Bangalore)

She hides tears
Of memory

With a touch
And a fragile
Invincibility

Yet
She looks
Familiar to me.

(It's not because
Of fantasy
That I see her
In the places
That I go

But something more
Recognizant
As family

A survivor-sadness
And a strength
On the road.)

She hides tears
Of memory

With a touch
And a fragile
Invincibility

Yet
She looks
Familiar to me.

(Dijon, France 1996)

 

She Leaves The Gypsies
(Howling at the Moon)

by

Justice Putnam

 

My baby's got
Such a sweet disposition
She'll stop traffic
In Paris at noon
She might take
A little Basque vacation

She'll leave the gypsies
Howling at the moon.

My love is like
Some sweet libation
The kind you drink
At some Left Bank Rue
She'll take you
Way past intoxication

One glance at her  
And you begin to swoon.

My baby's not
Afraid of Tradition
Just watch the seditious
Way that she moves
It's not that
She waits for consummation

She wants love
And a whole lot of truth.

My baby's got
Such a sweet disposition
She'll stop traffic
In Paris at noon
She might take
A little Basque vacation

She'll leave the gypsies
Howling at the moon.

(Montmorancy, France 1994)

 

So Very Late

by

Justice Putnam

 

Pardon moi
Monsiour
S'il vous plait
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

Pardon moi
Monsiour
S'il vous plait

Je ne suis quand Americain
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

The night is cold
The winds blow late
The train pulls loud
The Bells toll late
   
The roses
Are still blooming
In a broken vase

(And she comes
To see me
So very late.)

Pardon moi
Madame
S'il vous plait
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

Pardon moi
Madame
S'il vous plait

Je ne suis quand Americain
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

The moon may
Be shining bright
But it is sinking late

The waves are
White thorns
Roaring late

The lights
Of the city
Stab the night
So late

(And she comes
To see me
So very late.)

Pardon moi
Madamoiselle
S'il vous plait
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

Pardon moi
Madamoiselle
S'il vous plait

Je ne suis quand Americain
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

Je ne suis quand Americain  
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien joue

Je ne suis quand Americain
Je ne sais pas
Tre bien parle

(Alameda, California, 1999)

 

Rendered Speechless

by

Justice Putnam

 

I was asked
To describe
Her

And as I
Began to
Speak

A cascade
Of images stifled
My attempt
At speech.

Perplexed
My questioner
Stared at me

And in
My reverie

I stood silent
In a universe
Of her.

I thought
Of her stature
And I thought
Of her grace

I thought
Of her directness
And I thought
Of her face.

I thought
Of her hands
As she held
A delicate plant

I thought
Of her smile
As she whirled
In a summer dance.

I thought
Of her kiss
And I thought
Of her embrace

I thought
Of her bearing
And her slow
Majestic pace.

As I thought
Of all these things
And so many more

I struggled
To speak
About
The woman
I adore

And how in
My heart
She is
A woman
Beyond compare.

When I was
Finally able
To speak

My description was
Ever so
Succinct

I summed it up
Completely
When I stated simply,

"She has red hair."

(Point Reyes, California 2004)

 

I'm Way Gone

by

Justice Putnam

 

I'm sometimes monastic
But I'm not a priest
I just feed the birds
At the towers of ivory

(I'm gone  
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man
I'm way gone)

I got a gift
Of roses
The thorns were removed
But that fragrance
Without that pain
Is just not the truth

(I'm gone
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man
I'm way gone)

I kissed a girl from Kyoto
I kissed a girl from France
We all played
Wet at the
Industrial dance

(I'm gone
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man
I'm way gone)

I've slept with some
Older women
Some young ones too
But talk of loving me
Or me loving you and

(I'm gone
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man
I'm way gone)

I got my sin
I got my poetry
I got my transcontinental
Blasphemy  

(I'm gone
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man
I'm way gone)

Mama sang some Beatnik
Daddy drove real fast
But Grandma
Always took me
To the Early Mass

I'm sometimes monastic
But I'm not a priest
I just feed the birds
At the towers of ivory

(I'm gone
yeah man
I'm way gone

I am so gone
Yeah man

I'm way gone)

(Valley of the Moon, California 2003)

 

A Simple Kiss

by

Justice Putnam

 

If it were to rain
And the streets become
Streams a'flowing

A simple kiss
Upon your cheek
Would light a thousand suns.

If the wind were to blow
Up slanted avenues
Around crowded corners
Down city hillsides

Across even
The plaza
Of the Musée d'Orsay

A simple kiss

Would just
For a moment

Calm
The tempest

Of the
World.

(Montmorancy, France 1994)

 

 

Josephine

by

Justice Putnam

 

Josephine
Josephine
I'm pleading
With Josephine

Taking the steps
Down to the sea
Somewhere along
The coast of Normandy

Where the white
Fossil sands
Churned turbulently

Where men rushed
Into battle
And died violently

Whose last
Dying breath
Was to plead with

Josephine
Josephine
I'm pleading
With Josephine

Could be
The grasslands
Of the Sioux

No matter
Which side
They were on
They were all
Thinking of you

Could be in
In the South Pacific
Or the Persian Gulf
An Indonesian jungle
Or an Arctic hut

Could be in a
Manhattan penthouse
Or a cold water den

We'll all grasp
At that last
Bit of hope
In the end with

Josephine
Josephine
I'm pleading
With Josephine

Josephine
Take me
Home

(Cherbourg, France 1997)

 

** (From: "The God Debate- a dialogue between Tom Paine and the Carthaginians" © 2001 Justice Putnam and Mechanisches Strophe-Verlagswesen; and also appeared on verse 3, "The World is Mine" from my son's fourth CD, Judgement Time by 50 Tramp Dawg and World Wreckards Productions 2002)

 

© 2009 Justice Putnam
Fleur du Sel Musique
and Mechanisches Strophe-Verlagswesen

So, Josh Marshall comes back from his holiday and is so obssed with "porn" and "teabaggin" I think the guy needs to wake up and have a serious and honest conversation with his wife about his unfulfilled sexual needs.

I understand the need to ridicule the opposition, but Josh - how about you check your moral compass occasionally, just to make sure you're not turning into someone you despise.

 

We are a melting pot; the heat just got turned up.  Love God who made us all and do unto others as you would have others do unto you . Be a good Samaritan.

All you waspish types out there--where would you be if your forefathers/mothers had not been allowed in at Ellis island? 

People across the world have been drawn to America's plenitude of freedom and opportunity. To cut off their access now is to deny our heritage as a great nation and leader of the free world.  Let them in; we're all in this together. Build bridges, not fences. 

Folks' desire to partake of the greatest freedom experiment in the history of mankind cannot be denied.  You cannot stem the tide of liberty that rushes through the hearts and minds of all people.


Carey Rowland, author of  Glass half-Full

I can't help but have noticed all the sign wielding folks, banners and FOX News hammering on taxes from the tea party. Taxes was at the head of all those signs and banners and the first comment from the lips of every FOX commenter.

So if Obama is absolutely cutting taxes for 95% of the pouplation what is all the hoopla headlining taxes about?

This makes me think that the Tea Party was thrown by the 5% who aren't having their taxes reduced and who were huge beneficiaries of the one sided Bush tax cuts and who are now pissed that they'll be asked to give some of it back.

I'll call this The Law of the Pendulum. I'm especially relieved because I was beginning to think all our laws were just whimsical memories of a time long past.

 

 

(Please print this out and mail it to your Senators and Representatives. Feel free to put your name on it and edit it to make it your own. Also feel free to use this in any manner you feel would help with the health care debate).

Sorry in advance, this is going to be a "ramble on". But literally MILLIONS like me need your help in making this case.

Just one quick example of American healthcare that could save billions overnight if just one policy was changed. I call it The Pain Tax or the tax on those that suffer with chronic pain. This is kind of selfish on my part because I have a chronic pain problem myself, but here it goes.

Every month I AM REQUIRED to go to the doctor because it is forbidden for the doctor to put refills on the prescription for one of the drugs I take to manage the pain. Granted it is a pretty potent narcotic but just because a government agency (read D E A) chooses to practice law enforcement over the shoulders of BOTH doctors and patients I HAVE to go to the doctor 12 times a year rather than 4. Imagine the savings to Medicare, Medicaid and just plain folks in general, if doctors were allowed to put refills on ALL medications they prescribe, JUST IN THE COST OF OFFICE VISITS ALONE. It would save me about $2,000 a year.

But wait there's more.

As I mentioned above It seems that certain state and federal agencies find it much more convenient to REGULATE DOCTORS than track down actual drug dealers. Try this experiment get your phone book and start calling General Practitioners and ask them if they do "pain management", you will find they don't because they are scared to death of being targeted by these government agencies. Seems these agencies send people in with counterfeit medical records and if a doctor treats the person 2 or more times by relieving the pain with pills, the doctor is open to seizure of their property up to and including their home. So those of us in rural areas end up driving an average of 90 miles to a doc that will actually treat us.

So now we add the cost of gas every month, to the monthly doctor's fees and the cost of PAIN goes even higher.

But wait there's more.

Because I have to go to the doc every month and it is a all day exercise, I miss 12 unpaid days of work a year. The cost of PAIN climbs more.

But wait....there's still more.

Because I take PAIN MEDS I also have to pee in a cup about every 8 months at a cost averaging about $750.00 to make sure I don't have to much or to LITTLE medication in my system. The cost of PAIN climbs higher still.

Now I understand the drug tests I have to take are to make sure O¿O isn't starting to like these pills too much (sorry about the 3rd person reference, won't do it again). What really bothers me about these drug tests is the "too little" column. Who would be informed if someone had too little in their system.

By the way I have NEVER failed any of the 16 or so drug tests I have been forced to take and doctors are forced to administer. See, if doctors don't keep watch on their patients then they become targets themselves. Then there are the pill counts. Pill counts are when you are called and have to drop whatever you are doing and either go to a pharmacy with your pills or take them into your doctors office and have them counted. Again missed work and more is added to THE PAIN TAX.

Anyways that's my story over the last 10 years. I need your help to make our elected officials take note. Please call your elected representatives and tell them to take a look at eliminating The Pain Tax that MILLIONS of AMERICANS pay every day.

Of course, I'm not a progressive, I'm a liberal. I also believe that drugs should just be made legal and sold at your friendly neighborhood state store, just like liquor, and that car insurance should be paid for with a gas tax, the more you drive the more you pay.

OK, I admit it wasn't that quick of an example but I hope you made it through and understand HOW MANY MILLIONS of AMERICANS are ran through this kind ringer EVERY SINGLE DAY and WE NEED YOUR HELP making this really easy to understand point with our elected officials.

Many of you have read this before, but I feel that this story needs the attention, because if you know anyone that deals with chronic pain then you know someone that goes through this wringer, PLEASE help them out and send this story along to your STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Those of "U.S." that suffer and pay would appreciate it.