In case you're interested, Politico's Michael Calderone recently put out a 3-page article about TPM.

I've been listening through Bill Moyer's archives all day while cleaning the house...  This clip of his interview with Benjamin Barber really caught my attention.  I said to myself, "Oh yeah, he's talking about Privatized Gains (ie, Greenwich, CT) and Socialized Risk (ie, the Cross-Bronx Expressway in the South Bronx) -- very true, of course, as we've all learned with AIG, Bear Stearns, etc..."  Then I noticed the date of the interview:

December 21, 2007.

After the Credit Collapse in August 2007, but before even some of the most pessimistic economists...  But he's not an oracle or a prophet -- he's "just" a social scientist/theorist!  :)  And a good citizen because he's paying attention, and asking the right questions.  (Man, I appreciate insights like this...)

BILL MOYERS: But isn't all of this [Rampant Consumerism/Debt] part of what keeps the hamster running? I mean, it--

BENJAMIN BARBER: -- It is. But part of the problem here is that the capitalist companies have figured out that the best way to do their job is to privatize profit, but socialize risk. That is to say--

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

BENJAMIN BARBER: --ask the taxpayer to pay for it--

BILL MOYERS: Yes.

BENJAMIN BARBER: --when things go down. The banks now that have just screwed up so big, not one of those banks is going to go under because they'll be bailed out by the feds. 'Cause the feds, the federal government will say we can't afford this gigantic multi billion dollar bank to go under. Happened with Chrysler 20, 30 years ago.  [Barack put an end to this last week, as long as the Chapter 11 process goes quickly, that is...]

BILL MOYERS: Got to keep the wheel going.

BENJAMIN BARBER: And, therefore, it's impossible to fail if you're a business. You never get punished. Now the whole point of profit is to reward risk. But what we've done today is socialize risk. You and I, and all of your listeners out there, pay when companies like sub-prime market mortgage companies and the banks go bad. We pay for it. They don't.

Almost everyone who practices law, and particularly those who spend a fair amount of time doing appellate work, flinches a bit when the first thing discussed when a vacancy arises on the Supreme Court is some perceived need for the President to fill some geographical, ethnic, or sexual criteria or to try to predict how a particular appointee might "vote." Even the idea that cases are decided by a "vote" and that justices opinions are based on their political beliefs seems so wrong and does not always comport with what happens when cases reach the Court.

But this is what always happens. Listening to and reading all that is dispensed on the subject makes a person think that the Supreme Court is not that much different than the Congress and that Justice Stevens, say, is sort of the Minority Leader in a "house" whose "Speaker" is the Chief Justice.

Read more »

This is for all my new friends at www.nurse.com.

Here's our favorite snaggle-toothed blowhard acting like a tough guy on his Web site:

HATEFUL CONGRESSMAN REFUSES TO DEBATE SAVAGE

FROM STEVE ISRAEL'S OFFICE:

"IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INVITATION TO DEBATE: REP. ISRAEL WON'T GO ON MICHAEL SAVAGE'S SHOW ...

LINDSAY HAMILTON, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR"

FROM MICHAEL SAVAGE:

"REP ISRAEL IS A DISGRACE. TELL THE FRAUD I HAVE AN EARNED PHD IN EPIDEMIOLOGY. WHILE HE WAS GOING TO NASSAU COMMUNITY COLLEGE I WAS DOING MAJOR FIELD RESEARCH. HE'S A COWARD."

Well, I don't know if Steve Israel is a coward, but I do know that Michael Savage is a flat-out liar.

Savage, who before he was a Savage was just a Weiner named Michael, did not earn a Ph.D. in epidemiology. (And just how does having a Ph.D. in anything show you're not a coward? Can someone 'splain that to me?)

Savage earned his degree in a custom-made program called "nutritional ethnomedicine" from the University of California at Berkeley. See, he had to do something to justify prancing around the Pacific Islands, looking for plants, while his friends were serving in Vietnam.

I say custom made because as much as I've tried, I cannot find anyone else who has a degree, advanced or otherwise, in that discipline.

This isn't the first time Savage has misrepresented his degree. Which, to ne, underlines its insignificance.

Then there's the part of Israel's spokesperson's response that Savage left out. That's another favorite Savage tactic, cherry picking information to help prove his point. Who knows what Israel said? Maybe he said, I won't be on your show, but I will debate you in an open forum?

And what caused Israel to be labeled "hateful?" He had the temerity in a statement to say that Savage's comments about the Swine Flu -- that illegal aliens are bringing Swine Flu into this country -- are " ... nothing more than fear-mongering and race-baiting in search of ratings."

Savage apparently has a low threshold when judging other peoples' speech.

And can you blame Israel for refusing to appear on the show? There is no such thing as "debate" on Savage's program. Savage is famous for controlling the mic. If callers get the best of him, he cuts them off, turns their sound down, or just hangs up on them.

Here's a challenge I'll make to Savage: I'll take you on in a real debate, in a neutral forum. I'm a "nobody" by your definition; all I have is a measly B.A.

So come on Savage, what do you say? Or are you just too scared to meet someone when you can't cut off his mic?

Keep the faith.

_________________________________

Looking for a good read? Try my book, "Savage Lies: The Distortions, Half-Truths and Outright Lies of a Right-Wing Blowhard." The book -- which Savage fans have called "craptastic" and "a waste of trees" -- deconstructs the "facts" presented by radio talk show host Michael Savage in his first three books, and is available at Amazon.com.

He's perfect.

Crooks and Liars has a recurring bit called Mike's Blog Roundup, with quick links to various blogs in which Mike was interested, presumably. That itself has an occasionally recurring bit called HOLY CRAP, an even quicker list of links to various things about religion or by religious people, generally with the point of showing how fucked up they are. I am always fascinated by this and usually wind up with 20+ tabs in my browser when it's over, following the long and winding branches of the astonishing human ability to happily hold entirely opposite views in its head and passionately defend each of them, in the same sentence if necessary.

It was through today's Holy Crap that I came to read Beware of copying the Left by Bruce W. Green, founding dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In style, it reads like it's written by a pastor. In content, it reads like it's written by a drunk bully on a corner yelling at "the fags", but with a better proofreader. Shorter Green: We can't torture, because torturing would only play into the hands of liberals. So torture is evil and wrong -- but torture anyway.

That burnt hair smell you're getting is because of the sparks my brain is throwing off trying to understand that summary enough to make my point. Seriously, I can feel the mental resistance in typing it. Due to some internal hangups I have about looking foolish in public, I constantly re-evaluate any logic statements I make for correctness, lest someone point out some obvious flaw in my argument. Part of my brain refuses to sign off on my summary of his article, as it simply seems impossible to me that someone can put that forth as a logical argument. But it's really what he's saying.

It is in discovering this article in which I have decided I shall Fisk! Or write a fisk or enfisk the article or engage my fisk on the information superhighway, whatever the kids' slang might by these days. I didn't have the strength to do the whole article, though. Accept that he basically starts with the premise that being on the Left is not a political philosophy, so much as a cluster of malformed nerve cells at the top of the spinal column firing wildly in self-preservation in predictable reaction to certain stimuli.

Ah, actually, let me do some of that anyway. This first part just fires me up too much not to show it to you.

---

The Left--modern liberalism or socialism--is not a philosophy. It is merely the action implicit in the philosophy of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the view that the rightness of an act is determined by its results--and, liberalism/socialism slowly emerges from a pragmatic utilitarian philosophy of life. ... So, the Left, in adopting liberal and socialistic policies, does nothing more than act consistently with its foundational worldview--the rightness of action is determined by whether the results desired are in fact achieved by the action.

They're the filthiest sort of mindless baboons for whom the ends justify the means. Obviously they're just the kind of pricks who would torture. So torturing plays right into their hands. [zzt fzzt]

But, if liberalism is merely the action implicit in the philosophy of utilitarianism, how then do we explain the Left's apparent opposition to torture techniques? The answer may likely rest in their redefinition of the term and political motives, but, whatever the reason, rest assured that in this matter a liberal is simply a torturer without sufficient motivation and opportunity.

Hell, I don't know what liberals think. Who can? Might as well try to figure out the motivations of a redwood or a block of cheese. But I mean just look at 'em, they just want to torture things, you can tell.

Just rest assured. Ressssst asssurrrrred. There. Logic done! Man, I've totally kicked ass on this writing assignment. There's nearly no reason to continue further with my unassailable argument, but to be fair, they're paying me for a full column, so I might as well pad a bit. But really, I mean...that "rest assured" pretty much locked it up.

A Hollywood liberal, pontificating on the red carpet, or a quasi-socialist, elitist politician on the Washington, DC, cocktail circuit, easily rails against the evils of "torture". But, convince either of them that their own neighborhood will be annihilated in an hour by a nuclear blast unless the government acquires intelligence from a captured terrorist, and they will push each other aside getting in line to torture the poor soul into mindless mush. Why? Because deep in the recesses of their hearts and minds they believe the rightness of their actions is determined by the results of their acts.

In inventing a zero-dimensional character of the pontificating Hollywood liberal, I shall emply the full power of the Hollywood writer creating the zero-dimensional character. My omniscient awareness of the reactions of these flat sterotypes I just now made up is in no way intended to be a reflection of anything I would ever think, because the Left is Bad.

Hey, did you catch the neat trick I pulled here were there's going to be a nuclear attack, but it's the Hollywood Liberal who's the bad guy in this paragraph? He's lining up to "torture the poor soul into mindless mush"? Just wait until two paragraphs from now where the "poor soul" becomes the "murderer" who we have to "harshly interrogate" for America. I got a Klein bottle full of this shit in my head and I am not afraid to use it.

The modern conservative who believes and champions the idea that the rightness of an act depends upon its desired results has already abandoned principle and truth, and become a member of the Left, by another name--whether he or she is aware of it or not. To act and think like a member of the Left is to be already a member of the Left, even if one is under the impression they oppose it.

If you disagree with me, are you really conservative, or are you really on the Left? THOUGHTCRIME!

I do not profess to know all the interrogation tactics employed by the American government, nor do I know which, if any, of those tactics constitute torture.

Oh, by the way, I have no idea what I'm talking about. That omniscience potion I took this morning before I wrote this told me the secret truth in the heart of all liberals, but I guess it forgot to pick up any national newspaper in the last six months. But in the omniscience potion's defense, there are only two types of liberals, Hollywood Red Carpet Guy and Elitist Cocktail Circuit Politician Guy, so I suppose that first one was an easy get.

And, I am aware that the events of September 11, 2001, and subsequent events, have required a reassessment of the tactics of modern warfare.

looks thoughtfully back to the Torture selection on the Today's Specials menu...mmmm...

Nonetheless, there remains the reality that certain acts against human beings are by their very nature objectively evil, and if we adopt those acts as means to an end -- even a good end --- we have already lost our souls, and we have contributed to triumph of the utilitarian Left.

No! Shouldn't have the Torture...too many calories and you'll just be working it off forever. Don't want to be like those liberals at the next table, God they just love Torture, look at them just digging into big heaping plates full of Torture and waving it around under my nose and trying to cram it down my throat. I shouldn't come to this restaurant any more, I keep running into these filthy, craven liberal animals that spring forth, fully formed, from my imagination.

And, let's not kid ourselves. The more humane and moral our American history has been in the past, the more likely we are to unintentionally succumb to the belief that we do not err by treating cruelly those known to have taken innocent life.

[Did I save the right file here? This seemed to make sense for a minute --spinn]

Because, after all, "torture" is what evil terrorists do, and what evil countries do. It is not what America does. What America does is to protect the innocent. If, in order to protect the innocent, we must "harshly interrogate" a murderer, then so be it. Because, after all, people who are tortured are "victims", and everyone knows that a murderer is not a victim.

I'm glad I finally got an opportunity to put in a public forum my point of view that, because someone is guilty of one crime, we are free and clear to commit any of our own crimes against him. Hell, you can really tell I'm a lawyer, huh? I got this shit down. It also means I can finally share the secret joy in my hobby of sticking my switchblade in the tires of any car that's parked at an expired meter.

Good thing this omniscience potion also tells me who the "murderers" are and who the "victims" are. And being able to "torture" some people and "harshly interrogate" other people is a pleasantly unexpected side-effect. This thing was a steal! Glad I traded the cow for the omniscience potion instead of the five beans like that other loser. That other loser who was likely a liberal. Or a conservative who is really subconsciously secretly a liberal...I mean really either way, he's probably a murderer.

I am concerned for America these days, and not just because we face threats from external forces bent on our destruction. I am most concerned that we --- the Left and the Right -- have drifted from the path of principle and truth and lost our way in the resulting fog.

Whew! Almost forgot that faint whiff of balance at the end there. I think it looks properly like I'm saying the Right could be at fault, but not really, but just enough to protect myself from criticism. Um...I hope it's not too much? People won't start thinking I'm secretly on the Left even though I don't know it?

Eh, nah, their omniscience potions will kick in and clear it up.

            This post is designed to address the source of Republican decline.  It focuses on the narrative of personal responsibility as the center of the Republican story.  Then, it examines the inconsistencies and unsoundness of personal responsibility--the concept--as represented by Republican politicians and supporters.  Lastly, it traces the roots of the breakdown--the lack of access to intersubjective thinking--and suggests a path towards rebuilding.

The Narrative of Personal Responsibility

            The Republican Party's meta-platform is personal responsibility.  All other positions are derived from that concept.  Tax cuts are good because they put power into the hands of the productive.  The productive are necessarily responsible people.  Social programs like universal health care are bad because they reward those people who produce nothing.  Those who produce nothing are not responsible people.  When the government lends them a hand, the government encourages them to produce nothing.  Rewarding those who produce nothing gives incentive to produce nothing.  The more people produce nothing, the worse off the country.  Therefore, personal responsibility is the new golden rule: do unto others as they produce.

            But is that the end of the story?  Is that all we have to say about personal responsibility?  I mean, if personal responsibility is about doing things for yourself, then wouldn't that include thinking for yourself?  In other words: doesn't critical thought play a role in personal responsibility?  I can't imagine anyone denying that.  Yet, not relying on the government--which is the Republican definition of personal responsibility--does not entail critical thought.  A robot produced by a private company does not rely on the government, but we don't want to say that the robot is personally responsible until its batteries die.  So I find it awkward for Republicans to suggest that not relying on government assistance is the only presupposition for personal responsibility. 

Republican Responsibility

            What, then, is personal responsibility without critical thought?  Let's back up.  As people, our values determine our preferences.  Our preferences determine our actions.  So in order to act freely, we are forced to scrutinize our values.  We must insure that they are all internally consistent with one another.  We must insure that they correspond to reality.  And we must insure that it would be cool for everyone else to have the same values.  Once we've gone through that process, we can be somewhat--though never entirely--confident in our actions.  Our actions will most likely be rational and as free as we can hope. 

            But what do we say about actions undertaken by individuals who have not examined their values closely, or at all?  In these cases, actions are not free, but instead determined by a system of belief.  That does not mean that the actors are not people.  They most certainly are people.  But it does mean that they are programmed as if they were robots.  And this brings us back to our original question: what is personal responsibility without critical thought?  Answer: strict obedience to an already formed set of values--even if those values are entirely inconsistent, self-defeating, dehumanizing, or simply nonsensical. 

            So how, exactly, has a major party in the United States come this far without coherence?  Let's back up again.  A Democratic Republic is run by lawmakers who represent the majority of voters.  The majority of voters are not always enlightened.  So if a prevailing attitude--the most common way of being in the world--is senseless, then the party which best represents senselessness will run the show.  And the party which can package the senselessness into a heroic quality--whether it actually is or isn't--will run the show for a long time.  Hence, we were, and still are to some extent, preached the doctrine of personal responsibility (without critical thought). 

The Party of (Covert) Non-Intersubjective Thinking

            Until now, non-intersubjective thinking has been overwhelmingly dominant amongst Americans.  We have believed that thinking is something that happens in our head--in a private theater to which no one else has access.  Or, we move to the opposite extreme, and believe that thinking is only what happens in a completely free, open, and unrestrained marketplace.  Non-intersubjective thought is the germ for all disconnection from reality.  The inability to think in this way is a misperception which permeates our lives and our culture.  In a story of amazing irony, even the great conservative--the founder of so-called Objectivism--fell prey to purely subjectivist thought.  According to the Library of Congress, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book in America, aside from the bible.  And yet even the Objectivist attempt to push a philosophy of critical thinking has proven to be a failure. 

            But this, I would suggest, is the starting point for understanding today's Republican incoherence.  Ayn Rand's characters--Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, John Galt, etc.--were individually perfect portraits of personal responsibility.  These are men and women who are proud to live for themselves and only for themselves.  Few corporate executives have not read Rand, and few don't fantasize about their inner John Galt.  Yet Rand's theory of knowledge turns man into an "alien-explorer": an entity which cannot gather trust-worthy knowledge through interpersonal interaction: the intersubjective.  (Perhaps this is why many Republicans would not consider waterboarding to be torture: the sense of dying would be welcomed in such a lonely alien world.  From another angle, this may be why torture is thought to be the only worth-while interrogation technique, since interpersonal interaction cannot yield trust-worthy knowledge.)

A Suggested Path to Reconstruction

            These problems are not superficial.  First, non-intersubjective thinking is blinding to reality--especially in the form of non-objective thinking which is masked as 'Objectivism'.  Second, personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought--especially when it forms the axiom of a Party's storyline.  Until the incoherence is reconciled, the Republican Party will be a collection of hungry ghosts.  If any Republican has followed the argument to this point, I would like to make a couple of suggestions.  First, be honest amongst each other.  Admit you don't have it all figured out.  Your ideas aren't what needs to change.  Your way of thinking is what needs to change.  Some insights are worth keeping.  We will eventually need to repay the debt.  You can trumpet that cause when the time comes, but accept the reality of our current situation.  

Understand that personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought.  No party has a monopoly on critical thought.  So be assured that if you move past non-intersubjective thinking, critical thinking is present everywhere.  It is available to the right as it is to the left.  It just takes effort and the humility to accept error.  The longer you put it off, the more you will consume yourself.  Do what is best for you and your country.  Aim to touch reality: the intersubjective kind.  

Addendum    

I recognize that the Republican Party is a coalition.  It is composed of different groups with different belief systems.  Ayn Rand's philosophy/economics are championed by only a few of the groups within that coalition.  However, some beliefs must be universal--held constant by all groups within the coalition.  Some of those beliefs are as a simple as: (a) 'the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party' or (b) 'Our group has reason to be in the Republican Party'.  Some beliefs are more substantive: (c) 'smaller government is better than larger government' or (d) 'tax cuts are better than tax increases'.

Every group which composes the Republican Party holds these four beliefs (except, on the one hand, the "cock-tail conservatives" who would accept the first two beliefs, but would consider the second two conditionally true, and, on the other hand, neo-conservatives who like large government as long as its run by them--so it can be used as a tool to leverage power towards the private companies of their choice).  I think then it's fair to say that all groups hold belief (b) because either (1) 'the Republican Party has the most faith in markets', (2) 'the Republican Party represents my social values', (3) 'I hate all the other options', and/or (4) 'my immediate family tells me I'm a loser if I'm not a Republican'.

It is clear that (b) is universal among all groups within the Republican coalition.  It is hardly debatable that (b) equals (1), (2), (3), (4), and/or (5) at least something along those lines.  So, if one accepts that all of (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) entail non-intersubjective thinking, then my thesis holds.

This past Wednesday, I walked into my local video store--local means locally owned and operated--to rent a movie. I try to go on Tuesday or Wednesday because those days are two-fers. Rent two for the price of one. I was also there to settle my debts with this establishment because I strongly believe in supporting neighborhood businesses; I have also been a customer for the past 15 or so years.

I love this video store because the have a large and looming selection of dvds. I have seen some of the best foreign films ever but on video tape--they still have it-and dvd. It has been like my own private film festival. If I miss a film at one of the several film festivals or one of the several local boutique theatres like Landmark Theatres I can usually go find it at this establishment. I try to keep up on which foreign movies and those that usually don't play at the megaplex are coming out and if I miss them I can walk into the store and ask them to please order it. They are really cool when it comes to this aspect of service and they have my continue patronage because of it.

Again, I went to the store on Wednesday for two reasons. I went to pay my nominal debt and rent one movie to get the second one free. I rented Slumdog Millionare and A Jihad for Love. Interestingly enough, Slumdog , as I understand it was out on dvd before it went to the megaplex and made it back to dvd. A Jihad for Love appeared in the San Francisco International Film Festival a couple of years ago. The SFIFF always has some interesting films. I always pick up the program even if I don't attend just to get the names of films. Sometimes it difficult get tickets to any film festival here because they are popular in the City by the Bay.

A Jihad for Love was--I believe--one of the most interesting films in the SFIFF during 2007. I think I remember reading about it in one of several of the local rags. I know that I at least saw it on the front page of the San Francisco Weekly. I guess it was a big deal because it dealt with gay and lesbian Muslims at very moment our country was heavily involved militarily in the Mideast and the first salvos in the gay marriage issue were fired in California. I also think this was near---not exact--the time that the issue of the 50 or so men were sent to prison in Egypt because they were gay. It was a very hot topic to say the least but I just could not make it to see what all fuss was about.

So a few months after the SFIFF hosted this film a different festival in San Francisco hosted A Jihad for Love . San Francisco holds so many film festivals at once that it is difficult to know which one to attend. I think the SFIFF overlaps the Jewish Film Festival or the Asian Film Festival? One of those two film  festivals overlaps the African American film festival; and the African American film festival overlaps the San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Festival. It isn't humanly possible to see every film so my local video is the next best bet.  So many choices so little time.

Anywho, I rented A Jihad for Love this past Wednesday and I was blown away. There was one story that really gave me a new perspective on the gay and lesbian marriage issue brewing the United States. It involves a religious/historic figure in Pakistan. According to this documentary, the Pakistanis didn't seem to have a problem with one of its Imans having a male lover. If I am not mistaken, they were married. It was only a problem after the British colonized Pakistan. I believe the Pakistanis actually celebrated this religious/historic figure. I think I was paying enough attention to hear that they still celebrate this individual. Maybe I need to see it again to believe my ears and eyes.

Wouldn't be something if throughout the annals of time there were always gay and lesbian marriages? It wound burn a big hole in the argument by the people who think it is their business to tell others who they can and cannot marry?

Who'll Stop The Reign  
    
A magical day, almost dreamlike,tears and smiles,faces beaming with hope for the first time in a long time.On August 28, 2008, before 84,000 people at Mile High Stadium, in Denver, CO. Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for president. From time to time when we get weary pushing forward to recovery,justice, and hope, lets remember the journey. Save this link and when you have time(43min) watch and remember. Nomination

Jerry: No, I'm not gonna tell her about your shrinkage. Besides, I think women know about shrinkage.
George: How do women know about shrinkage? (They see Elaine walking down the hall) Elaine! Get! (She enters) Do women know about shrinkage?
Elaine: What do you mean, like laundry?
George: No.
Jerry: Like when a man goes swimming... afterwards...
Elaine: It shrinks?
Jerry: Like a frightened turtle!
Elaine: Why does it shrink?
George: It just does.
Elaine: I don't know how you guys walk around with those things.

Recent polls show  that 21% of U.S. voters identify with the Republican Party, the lowest number since 1985. 

...the GOP is becoming an increasingly monochromatic party, dominated by the most conservative voters and regions. This process enormously accelerated under Bush and , who built their governing strategy on energizing the Republican base rather than on expanding it by courting swing voters.  (Coalition Or Club?)

A bigger problem has arisen, President Barack Obama.  With a job approval rating at 65% and a likability rating of 81% he is more then a fordable opponent.

How fordable? If Barack Obama was a pro basketball player he would be averaging 50 points a game; baseball, he'd be on track to hit 80 home runs, win 30 games, he is that good.

You can't fault the Republicans for not trying to reinvent themselves, today, in a pizzeria, in a mall in Arlington Virginia three prominent Republicans, Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush kicked off a campaign reshape their party's image (for the 103rd time in a 103 days). 

Lead off batter was Cantor, he came with the same old bluster:

"Certainly our party has taken its licks the last few cycles, but that's why we're here," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said Saturday. "The reality is, the prescriptions coming out of Washington right now are not reflective of the mainstream of this country."

One out.  The second batter was Jeb Bush, his candor was refreshing:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said it's time for Republicans "to listen a little bit, learn a little bit." He advised Republicans to work on the party's message and "not be so nostalgic."

"I would say you can't beat something with nothing. The other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it," said Bush, who praised President Obama's tactical approach to politics and commended his 2008 campaign as "forward-looking."

Bunt single.  It's up to Mitt to bring him home.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney compared the GOP to Americans fighting the British during the Revolutionary War. "We are the party of the revolutionaries, they [Democrats] are the party of the monarchists," he told the overwhelmingly Republican crowd, saying the Republicans needed to "once again lead the American Revolution."

Romney blamed Washington for setting in motion policies that led to the collapse of the housing market, and painted his party's minority status as a boon.

 "We have an advantage," said the former Republican presidential candidate. "When a party has the White House, communication comes [from the] top down, and there's a strategy that everyone has to march behind." Instead, he said, the GOP had the option of drawing its strategy from the grassroots.

"We don't have to come up with all the answers today. Thank goodness, we have a little time," he said. "Certainly by 2010, we better."

The sharp crack of the bat, Romney hits a hard liner ... right at the first baseman.  He easily doubles up Bush.  Three outs.  Inning over.

The biggest tell of the day was in the mall parking lot, even with the heavily Republican crowd inside, it was dotted with Obama bumper stickers. And, there were protesters, conservatives brandishing signs criticizing the leaders inside as "RINOs," Republicans in Name Only.  To what they believe, they had a point, inside the pizzeria there was no mention of abortion, same-sex marriage, or any of myriad social conservatives hot-button, hot blooded, rage inspiring issues.

Republican strategist, Bill Bennett, summed it up best on CNN.

"[Obama's] a huge political figure. I don't agree with him, but the guy blocks the sun. He won the election. He commands everything in sight.  (CNN - Republicans kick off campaign to shine party image)

The more the GOP shrinks the more powerful their base becomes.  The lunatics are truly running the asylum.  It's how they lost Specter, and it is how they will lose elections, and party members for a long time to come.   Gotta' love em'

I felt puny and absurd, a ludicrous midget. Easy enough to talk of soul and spirit and existential worth, but not when you're three feet tall. I loathed myself, our home, the caricature my life with Lou had become. I had to get out. I had to get away. - The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)

Here's the latest from play for change

I'm glad the federal government is being aggressive in trying to stop swine flu from turning into a pandemic, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Will I actually do anything differently? Doubtful.  Can't let the terrorists win.

Join Dave and I on Democracy's Edge Talk Radio as we cough up fur balls of truth and round up the stray news and ideas that drifted away from the Fat Cat News, the Corpulent Corporate Press and Bloviators of Blather.

In hour #1, we'll riff on Matt Taibbi's wonderment and why there is so much "peasant mentality" going on.  Also who is your nominees for weasels of the week?  Which real or fake person is the most annoying person of the week?  Matt Taibbi has his favorite. Who should Obama name to the Supreme Court.  Anita Hill?  Why do hedge funds get to decide stuff and did you hear what Dick Durbin said about who runs Washington?  The coup is complete.  And there is a fungus amongus.

In hour #2 our Democracy 101 section, we welcome Phillip Cafaro, Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State.  We talk about how we can survive with a growing population and a penchant for profit over people.  What has Thoreau got to say about it? 

In hour #3, one of our favorite guests will be on, Stephen Kinzer, the former NY Times foreign correspondent whose latest book "Overthrown" is a must read and a chilling eye opener.  Why was the invasion of Iraq a really bad idea, but our invasion of Grenada maybe not so bad, if there is such a thing as a good invasion?  Why in the world did we invade Panama?   Is it time to get out of the empire business? 

Here they are.  All 12 of the below-listed Democrats took bailout funds (by way of Bank Lobbyist "legalized bribes", that is) and voted against Foreclosure Relief this week:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT) 

Bill Moyer's reported last night about President Obama's good buddy Dick Durbin's losing effort at desperately needed reform:

"On Monday an exasperated Senator Durbin told an interviewer that although, quote, "We're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created, the banks are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, and they frankly own the place." Let me repeat that: one of the Senate's own leaders says the banks own the place. And just yesterday, as if to prove Durbin's point, bankers killed the Senate's latest effort to staunch that wave of foreclosures, squashing a measure Durbin says would help one million seven hundred thousand [1,700,000] Americans save their homes."

But I agree with Dave Ramsey (a huge Republican, that I love despite his anti-Obama hints) when he says we can't wait for Washington to fix our problems.  These "12 Democrats" show us this week that they're going to protect the banks, despite the disruptive and stultifying upheaval that foreclosure will cause to 1,700,000 Americans and their children.  Bill Moyers goes on to profile Steve Meacham of City Life/Vida Urbana of Dorchester, MA.  The profile of Meacham is one of the best profiles I've ever seen.  I'm not kidding.  Please do watch it if you get a chance.  This guy is for real, and he's been doing it for years.  He knows the true effects of the Bank's financial "innovation" in the past 30 years.

As Moyer's website says, Meacham:

...is fighting on the frontlines of the foreclosure crisis. Meacham and his colleagues at City Life employ a community organizing strategy they call the The "shield" is a strategy of legal defense: teaching City Life members about their rights under the law, plus providing access to volunteer legal assistance. The "sword" is a public relations strategy, where City Life organizes protests in front of banks, and eviction blockades in front of people's homes.

Let's face it, Washington Democrats are not going to help us or our neighbors.  Spiking the Anti-Foreclosure Amendment this week proves it once and for all.  The rarest thing in American politics is a Republican or other entrenched power (the Banks) admitting to a mistake.  It's just never going to happen.  Funny how "Moral Hazards" only apply to the public, and not to their actions or governance decisions.

So let's stop paying into the banker's system, and resist their strong-arm evictions in the name of "market forces."  We can all start by cutting up our credit cards.  But if you know of someone about to be foreclosed on, help them RESIST and STAY in their home.  As Mecaham's group does on a daily basis, let's help them "create the moral space for people to feel like they have the right to resist, because they're told by almost everybody that they don't. You know, their first reaction is, "There's nothing I can do because the bank owns the building now." And that is part of a disempowerment that goes far beyond that situation.  And part of the reason that people love to come here I think is that not only are we giving them solidarity and support in fighting the bank, but in so doing, it's like a, kind of upsetting this whole apple cart of disempowerment that they've been fed for years and years and years."

My point:  We have to help create the moral space to fight banks:  "IT IS OK TO STAY IN YOUR HOME AND OK TO DEMAND LEGAL PROTECTION FROM PREDATORY LENDING."  Until the public gets that legal protection, we must help our neighbors fight.

 

每个人的心里，都有一座花园。我的，也不例外。

这一生，也曾撒下不少种子，开了败，败了开。从来没有一朵永远不凋谢的玫瑰。到最后，只剩下一片荒芜，杂草丛生。

不知道那颗种子是怎么来到我的花园，无声无息，生根发芽。我站在园子边观望它，期盼它会是一朵美好的玫瑰。我的心对它完全敞开，毫无防备。

它长出第一根枝条，那是一根刺，轻轻地刺痛我。爱玫瑰者，兼爱其刺。我不在意那些细小的伤口，没有什么特别，心上多了一条浅浅的伤痕而已。若要面对没有它的空白，我却宁愿被它伤害。

守护它，浇灌它，等待它。我如此紧张、惶恐、不安、苦闷。害怕失去它。

它节奏缓慢的四处蔓延，我忍耐、感受那些疼痛，它却并不停止生长。它倔强的绕着我的心，交缠纠葛，一圈一圈，密密匝匝，越勒越紧，不留缝隙，无数的刺狠狠的扎进我的心里。我听见鲜血滴答的声音，我看见血肉模糊的样子。

现在我已经知道晚了。

不论我怎么对待它，不论我好与坏，不论我温柔还是任性，它只是它，它不为我而生，不为我而灭。它不过是，偶然经过我的花园，停下脚步，在时间的缝隙里留下一段记忆，无关爱情。

从前我远远的注视它，以为会是朵玫瑰。走近了才知道，没有玫瑰只有刺。

没有玫瑰的刺，只是荆棘。

因为起初的一根刺，便满心荆棘。

这是一座充满荆棘的花园。

My dream is to get enough senators in the next election so that we can ignore that jackass Nelson.

Excerpted from report by Gillian Tett of The Financial Times:

As the financial crisis virus has swept around the globe in recent months, Kazakhstan's banking sector has been engulfed in turmoil. This is not just creating a headache for the Kazakh government and Western creditors, but also highlighting issues about the credit derivatives market that extend well beyond those far-flung steppes.

Take the case of Morgan Stanley's dealings with BTA, Kazakhstan's largest bank. A few years ago, BTA - like many of its Eastern brethren - was an up-and-coming darling of the capital markets world, with investment bankers furiously competing to float its bonds, provide loans, and much else.

But earlier this year, when funding dried up for Kazakh banks, BTA fell under the control of the government. Initially BTA wanted to keep servicing its loans, and its creditors, such as Morgan Stanley, appeared happy to play along.

But last week Morgan Stanley and another bank suddenly demanded repayment. BTA was unable to comply, and thus tipped into partial default. That sparked fury among some other creditors, and shocked some Kazakhs, who wondered why Morgan Stanley would have taken an action that seemed likely to create losses.

One clue to the US bank's motives, though, can be seen on the official website of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. One page reveals that just after calling in the loan, Morgan Stanley also asked ISDA to start formal proceedings to settle credit default swaps contracts written on BTA.

For it transpires that while the US bank has a loan to BTA it also has a big CDS position on BTA, that pays out if - and only if - the Kazakh bank goes into default. Indeed, some of Morgan Stanley's rivals suspect that notwithstanding its loan, Morgan Stanley is actually net short the Kazakh bank.

As a result speculation is rife that Morgan might have deliberately provoked the default of BTA to profit on its CDS, since a default makes the US bank a net winner, not a loser as logic might suggest.

Morgan Stanley, for its part, refuses to comment on this speculation (although its officials note that the bank does not generally take active "short" positions in its clients.) And I personally have no way of knowing whether Morgan is short or long, since Morgan refuses to disclose details of its CDS holding.

What is crystal clear is that somebody has been placing big bets on whether or not the banking equivalent of Borat will blow up.

 

There is more so please read the whole report.  Also, Willem Buiter comments on some wider implications  of the "nasty case of moral hazard" created when CDSs can be written without any insurable interest and provides a bit of information on the attempts of foreign  creditors to get the Kazakh  government to guarantee their unsecured loans with oil and gas revenues.

Open questions are who is on the hook for those CDS that Morgan wants settled and whether or not BAT is free of the defaulted debt or just has a new creditor -- maybe US through AIG.  What are the foreign policy implications of that?

 

 

The London Times reports through their Washington correspondent Tim Reid that:

The bad apples ruse was being used by w's administration for years. Oh, rummy says, those pictures just demonstrate that there were a few bad apples who perpetrated "these pranks". I knew it was a lie from the getgo just like the rest of the 'left'.

I mean first the acts were colored as youthful hijinks; the type of behavior you might see at a party sponsored by Skull and Crossbones.

Then the 'bad apples' defense was perpetrated.

Then these kids were sent to prison.

Imagine that you were designated to defend these soldiers. How best to proceed when a picture is worth a thousand words.

There is a story about John Adams who defended British Soldiers for the deaths of Americans at the Boston Massacre. He and Quincy, his partner defended eight of the soldiers.

Who gave the orders to fire? When were the orders issued? What type of orders were issued when the soldiers were sent to the scene.

Adams was rather victorious in his defense. I mean one or two soldiers were sent to the hooscow for a short period of time.

Of course, 'patriots' showed up and threw rocks at his law office and he was forced to hide out for awhile.

But the soldiers in this modern farce? Suppose you are their attorney. You had no access to the memos outlining every damn thing that were depicted in the pictures.

As an attorney, every one of your inquiries concerning governmental conduct would be denied. No documents would be made available because of 'National Security'.

You would be given no right to cross examine rummy or cheney.

The entire trial would be a farce. 

And now we are to expect hundreds of pictures of similar activity at other prisons will be issued any day now. 

What was rummy and cheney and scores of other governmental officials thinking? That no one would 'get caught'.

You know, if I was charged with a crime, I would have certain basic rights.

I could confront my accusers.  I could cross examine them.

I would be entitled to access to certain documents.

The prosecution would have a duty to supply me with all the evidence it had against me. And the prosecution would have a duty to supply me with evidence that buttressed my case.

If the prosecutor was found to have violated these safeguards, he or she could be prosecuted for misconduct. The charges against me or even my conviction could be dismissed.

Oh rummy would say. BUT WE WERE AT WAR.

Ok. So if we are at war, our soldiers, our citizens can simply be indescriminately rounded up and thrown in the hooscow. After all, Lincoln and Wilson did it.

But we now have it on record that rummy lied about the bad apples.  cheney lied about the few bad apples. w lied about the few bad apples.

So what is new?

I hope these attorneys have a field day.

I think our president should commute everybody's sentence today and review the matter for a full pardon later on.

I know. Nuremberg supposedly tells us that "I was just following orders," is not a sure fire defense. Just let the kids go.

THIS WAS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AT ITS WORST.

And I think rummy and cheney and w should be prosecuted for perpetrating a lie that led to abuse, torture and unjust prosecutions.

You can find this article at the Times or through Daily Beast or HuffPo.

For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

"...a few bad apples..."

-Ex-Pres. George W. Bush, forgetting to mention these were mostly the rotten apples at the top of the barrel

"What they essentially have said is, 'If we have policy disagreements with our predecessors, what we are going to do is turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin America country... and systematically prosecute the previous administration on policy differences.'"

-Karl Rove, claiming that drowning people, slamming their heads up against the wall and locking their children into bug infested boxes are merely "policy differences."

(Obama's stand on prosecuting torture...) "...has turned into a 'murky maybe.'"

-Bill Press, getting it right

 

    Anyone who would ever accuse me of being a Bush supporter either has never read a damn thing I've written, or their reading comprehension is less than zero.

    And as many regular and former regular readers know, I don't always quite qualify as an "Obama supporter." Brief history: I started with Kucinich, who the media made damn sure would never get any traction. Then I marginally picked Hillary over Obama... only because I felt, between the two, only a Clinton would hit back enough to win. And maybe, just maybe, the Clintons knew enough about what happened last time that they wouldn't put up with another Right Wing Hell storm. It certainly wasn't because I'm some googly eyed Hillary-ite, any more than I'm what the Right Wing likes to refer to as "Messiah worshiping" Obama-nite.

    I'm very glad I was wrong regarding Barack's ability to win.

   I'm one of those voters that always winds up voting for the least undesirable option, not that I thought Obama himself was that "undesirable." Just not my first pick by any means... any more than Hillary was.

    Why?

    Because I had a sneaking suspicion that he was more platitudes than substance. I guess you might say that I get suspicious when any candidate's main source of rhetoric is mouthing catch phrases over and over, like different slight variations on the theme of "change." I don't ever do well when it comes to selling candidates with "new and improved"-type labels. Reminds me of all the products that really weren't.

    Hillary? I already knew she had the same problem to a certain extent, only less "catch phrase"-y.

    I have been pleasantly surprised in many ways. For example: pleasantly surprised that there has been a change in how we speak to other nations, and talk about things... especially the BS bluster.

    Thanks, Barack.

    I also have recently seen another possible pleasant surprise recently: a possible change in whether we will legally pursue those who approved torture.... and those who did all they could to legally excuse torture. But as to whether he's sincere? I agree with Bill Press: "murky."

    Not that I think Hillary would have been doing any better at this point. Frankly, I never thought at the core they would be all that different. My marginal choice was based on winning.

    I'm glad so glad I was wrong about that. But I also think without Hillary and Barack trading the rhetorical ball back and forth the outcome could have been quite different. Two moving targets; sometimes pitted against each other in media-convenient ways, are always harder than one.

    Intentional tactic?

    Part of the plan?

    Those those who were angered by Barack offering a post to Hillary would understandable speculate so, but maybe not. Yet if it was a bit of a fake like in football: damn good plan. With most of the talking head shills, and a whole network, serving as propaganda slaves for the other side, more than a few fake passes would always get a big thumbs up from me.

    The shills and the Goebbels for the Right network can go suck on their pens and computer mice as far as I'm concerned. May they be arsenic-laced.

    But as to the torture issue, I'm not happy regarding how it has been handled, to type the least vile descriptive I can. Though it was about all I would have expected of a weak knee; Democratic administration, run by either Hillary or Barack. You know: the kind more interested in "getting along" and "going forward" than actual justice or precedents set?

    May the Cambodian skulls and concentration camp half dead be damned: just crunch your way towards a... better? ...future. That's "the past:" just shove those tormented souls off to the side.

    As of this typing Barack is now varying somewhere between, "Yes we will," "Maybe we will" and, "No, we won't." I suppose that's marginally better than, "No, we won't."

    Some very bad precedents will been set here unless we prosecute; at least one precedent (#2) that Hillary and her husband unintentionally helped to create. Precedents that might include, but are not limited to...

1. Under a Republican administration Republicans can do anything no matter how vile, how much of a lie. Personal responsibility is for everyone else. The President has more information than you, so shut the hell up.

2. Under a Democratic administration any accusation aimed against a Democrat; especially a president, is fair game and proof of guilt in itself. Everything is a plot: even when your friend with depression issues commits suicide. If your cat named Socks gets fan mail it's obviously some socialistic plot.

3. "Unequal protection" applies to George Bush and Dick Cheney and highly placed Republicans, but never Democrats or Lynddie England. Grunts have to take the fall for what the leadership will still claim was the right thing to do many years later.

    Anyone claiming any of the above is fair, well Karl-bot, go ^%$#@! yourself with live wires attached to your genitals. After all, it's not really "torture..." right?

   Right???

    And as far as I'm concerned not only should the Bybees and the Gonzos out there be on trial and some headed to the gallows both metaphorical and, perhaps, real, but Democratic enablers like Harry Reid too. One of my talk show habits is Mike Malloy. Mike says, "Barack did the appropriate thing handing it over. It's up to Eric Holder now." With all respect, Mike, I'm sure Eric knows what his boss wants done here; so if they don't prosecute, in my opinion, it bounces right back to Barack.

   Now here is my stand: plain and simple...

1. It doesn't matter one bit whether torture "works" or not. Prince Vlad certainly saw less crime and perhaps even "terrorism" when he shoved big sharp poles up through his victims. "Works" is not the point, nor should it be. If we are to claim that it is right to use "whatever works," then we might as well admit we are terrorists too.

2. Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning." If you were to continue the process your victim would die. It is drowning people, and reviving them to drown them again... and therefore qualifies as "torture."

3. If "enhanced interrogation" works so damn well, well then... where is bin Laden eight years later? Where is those massive amounts of invisible WMDs six years later? Not under here? Not under here? HA, HA, Ha, ha, haaaa... funny: not.

4. 9/11 provides no more an "excuse" for those wrongfully imprisoned than if any country; or movement, with an overwhelming number of these wrongfully imprisoned people decided that outrage would excuse torturing U.S. soldiers. Please remember: bin Laden and company had their excuses too. Doesn't make it right, or anything but but horrific, sadistic, and a large number of rather nasty descriptive terms I'd rather not type.

    So, if we "must" give a pass to Bush, Cheney and their cronies... whom do I blame now? Not just Bush and Cheney. I blame both Hillary and Barack.

    Otherwise I have been somewhat pleased...

    When Barack offered Hillary an appointment the Hillary hating portion of the Left howled. They spewed the old Right talking point that she would battleax her way into dominating policy. Not feeling they were all that different, I waited. These days I wonder what these Lefties think now? Nary a peep from the "I hate Hillary crowd."

    How has Hillary done over all?

    Other than my obvious problem with both... not bad.

    Not bad at all.

    And I feel the same about Barack.

    So much for the dominating "bitch" label both the radical Left and obscenely radical Right have slapped her with as if she were some unsubmissive wife who dares to ask, "Please don't beat me again."

    But when it comes to not prosecuting those guilty of torture I get off both boats: though Hillary has been mostly: and quite appropriately, quiet on this issue... given her position as serving at the pleasure of the president.

   (Let's not go there... OK?)

    Hillary, I'm sure, knows better than most what's in store for President Obama... no matter how nice, forgiving or "let's move on" he tries to be. That goes back to the Iran Contra crimes of Father Bush that Bill decided needed to be passed on. People made the mistake thinking that only if Hillary had ascended to the White House we would have had a Hell-storm created by the Right. Of course they're right about "Hell-storm..." except the qualifier "only." As the teabaggers and gun lobby have proven, we probably would have had that either way.

    And to quote the Carpenters, "It's only just begun..." My, how "romantic."

    This was never a Hillary, or even specifically a Bill, problem... though he didn't help by any means. It's always been a loud, obnoxious, hateful, group of extremists problem who have been mentally only a half a step behind Timothy McVeigh: at best.

    As of now, we are better off under an Obama administration; with Hillary on board, than we were before. But unless we bring those to justice who have been doing these criminal acts... and been forgiven for them since before Nixon; since at least the days of House Committee on Un-American Activities, we will continue on this more than half a century slide to Right Wing dictatorship. As I have argued many times: they won't stop unless it's made obvious there are consequences for their outrageous misbehavior.

    For those allowed to rule the day through such means will rule: no matter who holds the "pretend" reins of power. Obama taking back those reins and demanding justice is, simply put, acting presidential... and one hopes he has at least one appointee's voice whispering in his ear, "Do it."

    Do I think either likely?

    No.

                                                  -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

© Copyright 2009
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

You may have seen the post yesterday entitled "Rebranding Fox "News" Network - Responding To Propoganda, by Synchronicity. In it she began a campaign to educate people about Fox "News" and is asking for our help. She asked me to do a follow-up post to give additional people the opportunity to see what is going on and get in on the effort.

By way of background, There are many areas of the country where Fox News is the only "cable" news channel available.  And in many more, CNN and MSNBC are are available, but cost extra.

Miguelito (Piggy) let us know in his comments that Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) also owns Direct T.V. one of the two satellite companies (he purchased it in 2003.) This is an alartming situation, in that many people across the country are getting a very slanted view of events in the country and the world, with little opportunity to hear an opposing view. Worse yet, many of those people  do not realize that Fox "News" is really entertainment, not "news."

Let's start a 'rebranding Fox News' effort as a sort of truth in advertising movement.

T-Shirts & Bumper Stickers, etc. with slogans pointing out to the public that they are being used. 

We have some brilliant minds here on TPM.  I think we could actually come up with a slogan or two that could actually be useful to support the general public that does not understand that Fox News is not a 'real' or 'fair and balanced' news channel but is instead a propaganda channel creating stories and suggesting how people should see and think about them, manipulating them.  

I would like to come up with a slogan that might make someone think, create some question or doubt in their mind... just create the possibility of a little opening in there that maybe, just maybe they are giving too much power to FNN.  My thinking is that while we could express our outrage and disgust via a slogan (go ahead and vent if you like), a more useful slogan would be simple (like 'Yes We Can') and thought provoking.  While I am not suggesting that we could sway all FNN viewers, I am thinking that there is a target audience of people who just don't realize that what they are hearing is very tainted...

I ask that you contribute both your ideas and your feedback on others ideas.  I also ask that you suggest, list, recommend all of the places and ways that this could be disseminated i.e. t-shirts, bumper stickers etc. (would you wear a shirt or have your dog wear one with your slogan on it or put it on your website,etc.?)  How could we spread the movement so that other groups picked it up?

If you are interested in helping, please contact Synchronicity at:  synchronicity@yeswecan.com  

61 years on and what has been achieved .. an underground store of nuclear weapons that will one day wipe out the world ... that's what WMD are designed for ... killing and contamination on a global scale ... but that is not what Zionism was ... only what it has become ... a byword for kreplach and killing ... tanks and missiles ... matzah and mayhem ... strutting arrogant soldiers who have no conception of the sanctity of life or the terrible stupidity of oppression and torture. That is not Zionism. Zionism was freedom and life and love and children ... not this darkness that wakes one in the night with the screaming silent images of the dead and dying. This is not Zionism.

You know what has always driven me nuts?  It's those people that have their 'things'.  It doesn't matter what it is, from a sports team, to Diet Coke, to Coach brand handbags.  They take a product, person, place, whatever, and blindly make it their whole identity.  It is not until later in life, when many these people get together, under the roof of a religion, does the problem become serious.

It starts out innocently enough.  Maybe it's that kid in your class that loved Mickey Mouse.  The kid had a Mickey lunch box, T-shirt, book-bag, etc.  He couldn't tell you why he liked Mickey, or even any one thing in particular that he liked about him, just the he liked him.  It was his 'thing'.  At some point his mom probably decided that it was cute if she made little Timmy into a 'Mickey Kid'.  That way, if one of her friends at bible study were going to Disneyland she could say, 'Oh my little Timmy, he just LOVES his Mickey!  I don't know what I am going to do with that little bugger!', and feel like she had some sort of ownership over all things Disney.  

As for little Timmy, the 'thing' problem was still pretty harmless but Timmy was going to grow up into an adult.

In my late teens/early twenties this problem not only continued, it got more prevalent.  It seemed more and more people, took hold of more and more 'things'.  They became far more serious about their ownership of said, 'thing'.  I had this guy at work that just loved the Mariners and all things related.  He would make it known, pretty much upon introduction, that man, oh man, did he ever LOVE those Mariners!  There was that chick that LOVED Orlando Bloom.  Her e-mail address was something like iloveorlando@.  She would sit in chat rooms all day telling everyone how SHE was his biggest fan.  Or there was the lady who loved all things M&M.  We once went on a team building trip to Vegas and she would do nothing but hang out at the M&M factory.  I don't think she even enjoyed the factory after the first hour but that didn't matter.  It was her 'thing' and she had to show us all how much it was hers.   Even if that meant wasting her entire trip there, bored to tears.

Although these people annoyed the shit out of me, it was still a harmless practice.

Here is where the problem comes in; these people are now adults.  They have joined, or become more active in, their church.  They have let go of their individual 'things' to take hold of the churches 'things'.  There is a switch from having a 'thing' that they love, to having a 'thing' that they hate.  Do you know what they hate?  Abortion, gay marriage and liberals.  Simple as that.  Miss iloveorlando@ has now become chselife4bby@.  Mariner games have gave way to Promise Keepers.  Like little Timmy, they can't tell you why they hate it, or really anything in particular about it all.  Just that they hate it.

How can an entire group of people all have the exact same hateful passion?  How in the hell does believing in Jesus, who taught about love and acceptance, have one fucking thing to do with being a republican?  I do not see the correlation between Jesus and any of these issues.  Yet they are an entire HUGE group of people acting as though the first lines in the bible read, "Jesus says, 'No abortion.  Marriage is between a man and a woman only.  Vote Republican.  You may pick and choose at will through the remainder of this Book".

Don't get me wrong, I am not even trying to insinuate that I have a clue as to how Jesus would weigh in on these issues.  I am just saying that they don't either.

I didn't have many questions for M&M girl or Mariner guy.  Their 'things' weren't important, they didn't effect me.  These new ones are, and do.  They effect us all.  Even if they could not produce an answer, I would love for them to at least consider the following -

Regarding Abortion (and their burning desire to ban it under all circumstances) - 

Foremost, why is this even a concern for you?  Do you need it banned because God needs a mere mortals help in deciding life and death issues?  Does He not have this one covered?   Does He not possess this power to decide if a life is to be born (or extinguished)?  Is it that you lack faith in His power or is it arrogance in your own?

When people die, don't you say, 'They are in a better place, God needed them more than we do and God has called them home?'  If you believe this, why would you even want/force anyone to come here instead of that, 'better place'?  That seems cruel.  Cruel that you would want to take away their chance to walk with Lord in the Kingdom of Heaven, without ever having to endure the sufferings of Earth.  And crueler, since their sufferings here on Earth, on average, will far surpass the norm.  Possibly born to a mother that is not ready emotionally or financially to be a mom?  Born with birth defects, possibly severe?  Many reasons.  If and until, you and Sarah Pallin are ready to insure these kids do not have to suffer the consequences of your will, it does not seem very Christian of you to try to enforce it.  Second, what happened to the 'God needed them and called them home' part?  Is it again that God needs your help?  If I were Him, you guys would really be starting to tick me off.

I had two extremely close (of the BFF variety), childhood friends became 'born again' a few years back.  We are no longer friends.  Not because I rejected them for changing so drastically, but because I would not change with them (the fact that they kept telling me my grandparents are in hell was an added bonus).  Getting back to my question - both of these friends had abortions in their teens, and both immediately upon becoming Christian many years later, became vocal opponents of it.  You become born again - you hate abortion and think being gay is a choice.  No ifs and or buts.  Anywho, according to them, thanks in part to their decisions to have abortions, did these woman find their way to the Lord.  I have to assume their story is not an unusual one.  Here is my question (finally) - why would you want to take this same path to finding Him away from another woman?  Again, why do you think God needs your help?  He couldn't help change a woman's mind if He so chose?  He couldn't have a chat with her?  You are always bragging about how he talks to you...

You say that you are so pro-life right?  Every life is just so fucking precious to you right?  These fetus's are innocent so they need your protection right?  Well then how can you be PRO WAR?  Where is your 'every life is precious' in that case?  Innocent children get killed in war too you morons.  It doesn't make any sense. 

I am not even going to get into the other two 'things'.  Being against gay marriage is so asinine in my book that it doesn't even merit argument.  Loving Jesus equating to being a Republican is also such a ridiculous notion that it too, is without argument.

Socrates said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living'.  Is it is fair to say that the unexamined blind following of anything, be it an idea/notion/religion/'THING', is not worth following?

These people with their 'things' used to annoy me.  Now I feel sorry for them.  It is truly embarrassing that they mindlessly adhere to manufactured notions, so obviously unexamined.  Embarrassing that they then shout out their ignorance to the world.

I am not bitter though.  Nope, not at all.

Can somebody please explain to me what happens to Arlen Specter's seniority on committees now that he has switched over to the Democratic side?

THE LAST ATTEMPT

How can an economic problem in one country bring a worldwide financial crisis that decimates the financial stability of major industrialized nations, and causes even more cataclysmic conditions in developing or underdeveloped cultures?  It is said to have begun on Wall Street and then spread all over the globe in a matter of weeks. 

"Globalism" - the blurring of national borders and the erasure of national sovereignty - is the precursor of world totalitarianism.  The economic infrastructure is being established as we speak, while the secular superstructure of a "counterfeit animism" is being fashioned to lure the irreligious masses into the newly crafted "trap of the collective." 

That "counterfeit animism" crept into our lexicon via the pagan pronouncement that "trees have spirits" from the "tree hugging" extreme environmentalists.  Then, it progressed to "New Agers" promoting a brand new "spirituality" whereby Shirley McLane vociferated "I am god."  Today this "trap of the collective" has donned a "new garb," once again.  It masquerades back and forth as "global warming" and then as "climate change."

What tactics or strategies will "the son of perdition," "the man of lawlessness," exploit to bring about "this new world order?" Generally known, he will attempt to machinate a one-world "religion," a one-world "economy," and a one-world "government."

 It appears that our Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, has already been approached with such a temptation, on Friday, May 1, 2009.  A "request" was made by a man in the audience at a "town hall gathering," or "press conference," to the effect," if" the Obama Administration would consider "global governance" in his approach to policy-making.  Is that the camel's nose sniffling its way under the "tent of meeting," or "tabernacle?"

Why did Moses chastise and punish the 23,000 Israelites in the Desert?  While Moses was being given the Ten Commandments by Almighty God on Mount Sinai, the Israelites were carousing and drinking at the foot of the Mount as they forged themselves "a golden calf."  Many had forgotten the goodness of God and the miracle that had just taken place - the parting of the Red Sea so that they could make their way to freedom.  The sin of idolatry, moral adultery and spiritual desertion, the first manifestation of "the mark of the beast" as prophesied in Revelation - they were worshipping "Baal" rather than their Creator who had already foreordained a plan for their prophesied prosperity.  Today, many Americans are worshipping dinosaur bones and skull bones of dead apes in museums and libraries while they foolhardily deny their Creator and all His blessings.

What will happen to the nation or nations that succumb to the newly crafted "trap of the collective?" Babylon, that "great harlot," will fall from its height of "counterfeit star."

In Biblical history, we learn that there were blessings and curses, rain and drought, abundance and famine, prosperity and destitution.  "Curses" are there for a purpose - to serve as a "warning" to the "fool" who says in his heart there is no God.

My fellow Americans, REMEMBER, the true, original and genuine basis and foundation for our Union.  Know the Founders' deepest sentiments regarding "the causes that impel them to the separation."

You are blessed with free will.  Be careful how you "invest" your inner-being individual energies.  Be careful how you "invest" our "national energies."   By now, historically, we have a good understanding of the reasons why we fought in World War II.  Do you have such certainty in the "causes" for which you "fight?"

Our elected public officials are accountable to us, WE, THE PEOPLE.  As we face Eternity, they are ultimately responsible and accountable to Almighty God for how they utilize our common electoral will.

Be careful to watch over America's sovereignty as a free republic, as a representative democracy and as a light of liberty that has been so brightly shining on the earth for more than two centuries.  Be cautious with" the principle of total immersion" into "global causes" which make us lose sense of the federal principle so carefully and meticulously protected by America's constitutional Framers - the federal principle is based on the blessings of self-government.

We will recover from the current crisis because we still have a certain amount of "control" over "financial instrumentation operations."  We are already "engaged" in the world.  We participate in "international relations" and legislate treaties as needed, in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Here, we have no "Caesar" in the Capital, no "Herod" in the local town - just "neighbors" elected to serve in our stead; "neighbors" who can be recalled or voted out of office.  We don't have to re-invent the "wheel of government."  To reach one of these "neighbors," you don't need the "international operator."  REMEMBER THIS.

 For, the blessings of liberty have already been secured to ourselves and our posterity.  We just have to remain faithful to keeping them.

God bless you in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior.           Sincerely,         LEO

 

Update, May 1 --  I had thought to continue adding links and excerpts to this blog but TPM now has a front page list of articles under the header:

          

plus a handy new muckraker thread, and there are just toooo many funny/strange things to post here.  Will the Swine Flu Meme achieve Self-Awareness, or go Conscious even??  As Mexico is ramping down toward reality, some Americans are ramping up their fears and overloading hospitals with trivialities.  This leads me to wonder:

Is this just an object lesson in political terrorism of the collective consciousness?


Original blog:

From TPM links --

Joe Biden (on TV and linkable but I won't) portrays the nuanced but reactionary conservative today, telling people to avoid strangers in confined spaces.  Well, maybe taxis and other hired limos are okay - you can leave a window open or put up the barrier between you and the chauffeur.  So Just Plain Joe is portraying the wealthy conservative, too.  That's what politics and a promotion will do to ya!  But see ** below for a serious idea

OTOH, as New Zealand plays games with the numbers:

New Zealand Health Minister Tony Ryall said one traveler who a day earlier was assessed as having swine flu had been removed from the list after further checks showed that person had not been exposed to a high-risk area or to people likely infected with the virus.

Maybe Biden is right:

Ryall said the government was counting 13 other people as "confirmed cases," though laboratory tests had confirmed the virus in just three people. All of those cases, including 12 students and teachers in a high school group, were aboard a flight from Los Angeles to Auckland last weekend.

Some countries are closing borders.  One death so far in the USA -- a Mexican baby.  Let's go Dutch with another jet-setting young child who is recovering nicely:

... a 3-year-old child who recently returned from Mexico is the country's first confirmed case of swine flu.

So no US deaths except for an ill-legal immigrant?  Why aren't we experiencing Mexico's morbidity and mortality, doesn't NAFTA require free flow of commerce or sumthin? 

What happened to stories of 149 deaths and about 2000 cases in Mexico?  Well:

GENEVA, Switzerland (CNN) -- The World Heath Organization has confirmed 236 cases of swine flu infection worldwide, the agency said Thursday, a jump from 148 cases reported the previous day.  The largest increase was from Mexico, which has 97 confirmed cases of the virus, compared with 26 cases Wednesday

Cases or new cases? C'mon folks. 

Oops, somebody is slacking:  "Peru and Switzerland reported their first cases late Wednesday and early Thursday, respectively -- but they were not among the WHO's official tally." -- CNN

The appearance of a fast spreading epidemic may be "optics", fast spreading information and detection coupled with widespread reporting and/or disinformation.  Google Releases Flu Trend Tracker Tailored For Mexico but it's not a map of confirmed or suspected cases or deaths.  Instead it's a search engine feature which instead of tracking the flu tracks the 'flu' (presumably in Spanish)!  Of course, what was I thinking!?

Oh, I was thinking something like this which does have a partial map which is only one day old.  I want my MTV Hourly Updates!!  314 confirmed cases, 27 deaths.  Hmmm, officially that's just under 9% mortality.  So, again,  "What happened to stories of 149 deaths and about 2000 cases in Mexico?"  How about:  Officials say this virus probably is only as dangerous as or less dangerous than the so-called ordinary seasonal flu: "may not even do as much damage as the run-of-the-mill flu" -- 9%??


Enuf already?
  

An island of modest sanity (same CNN article as above):

"When you think pandemic, people tend to reflect on the pandemics from years past," said Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent. "Lots have changed. We are better taking care of people in hospitals, we have anti-viral medications. It doesn't mean everyone's going to die."

** And as hinted above we present a technical factor built around Biden's remarks:

That's the problem with flu pandemics. They're dependent on collective action. An individual who takes non-essential plane flights -- even to Mexico, cause tickets are now cheap, and really, what are the chances? -- is making a rational decision based on individual probabilities. But if everyone does that, then we're hurtling towards a full-blown pandemic.

Which is why the absolute best case is that Joe Biden did something that's so effective that he looks really stupid.

Does this tell us anything about market behavior in general?

Is the Sun dimming...?

Well not exactly, but yeah. 

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

So what does it all mean?  No one is really sure but it appears that the Sun has broader cycles that last hundreds of years.  The last time the sun was so quiet was back in the late 1600's called the Maunder Minimum and is thought to be the cause of a mini-ice age.

The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851-1928) who studied changes of sunspots latitudes in different times and also during second part of 17th Century.

During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots in modern times.

Could the sun's dimming come to our rescue and keep us safe from global warming?  Probably not:

According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

Don't worry, George Will will probably cite it as evidence that global warming is not real anyway.

(here's a good article from NASA as to how the sun's cycles are measured)

Stay Tuned...

Video via Heather at Crooks and Liars' Video Cafe:

Just note what Sanders says near the end about the fact that it is Democratic party members that want to make it a 60 vote healthcare debate virtually guaranteeing to keep the most conservative Democratic party members in conjunction with the near extinct gopasaurs in the right wing in the drivers seat on the healthcare debate.

Via PNHP:

Important coverage of PNHP co-founder Dr. David Himmelstein's single-payer testimony on Capitol Hill on April 23, including in the Congressional Quarterly, Kaiser, and the San Diego Union Tribune, among other places.

Single payer action items below...

Let's Shut Down the Fax Machines Again

Clark Newhall

Our last weekend was a great success. We shut down fax machines in the offices of Sen. Baucus, Rep. Pelosi (Washington and DC offices) and the White House. We sent over 7000 faxes in those three days.

it's time to do this again, because single payer is still being ignored at this critical time. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Baucus, is holding 'roundtable hearings' in the next week to hear about health reform. Guess what. Not only is there no single payer advocate invited to testify -- there has not even been an invitation to a doctor!!! Donna Smith tells me that the only medical person testifying is a nurse from AARP; we know what she is shilling for -- more overpriced insurance policies AARP can sell to rip off seniors with. Unbelievable!!

At the request of Katie Robbins from HealthCareNow, we have created a new fax that you can send to any member of the Senate Finance Committee. A copy will also go to the usual suspects at the White House. Because the fax was written by Katie, the language is much less inflammatory than my typical rhetoric, but that's ok. I don't think anyone reads these anyway after the first 500 or so, they just count them.

So let's give them a pile of faxes to count. Send yours today. It's Free. It's Easy. That makes it Free and Easy. Just put your name, your email, where you are from and any comment you like, then hit the SEND YOUR FAX NOW button. If you like, you can send one to each of the Senators on the list. Have fun and let's see how many fax machines crash this weekend.

Take a moment to donate too. The time is NOW to make the most of our overwhelming show of support for single payer Medicare For All. We can do that by adding the Mike Farrell videos to nationwide TV but we need your donation.

The ads are scheduled to go on Larry King Live and on Hardball beginning this weekend, but every ad costs money. Help increase the number of ads we can show. So far we have enough to show the ads to 3 million people in the next week. We need your donation to raise that to ten million. Let's get those ads pushed out as far as we can. Help us now.

For more information on other healthcare news here is a diary at ePluribus Media chalk full of info.

Another reason why the Democrats are only marginally
better than the Republicans and need to be shown the
door as well.

President Obama's first budget, unveiled with
great fanfare two months ago, started out like a
plan that Robin Hood would love: He proposed
taxing the wealthy to ease the burden on the
middle class.

But so far, Congress has not rushed to follow his
lead.

The House and Senate approved a $3.5-trillion
federal budget outline Wednesday that embraces, in
general terms, Obama's top priorities in
healthcare, energy and education. But lawmakers
have turned a cold shoulder to many of the
president's proposals to shift wealth and federal
subsidies from the rich to the less affluent.

Congress has called for ending Obama's signature
campaign promise to the middle class -- tax
credits of as much as $800 for many families --
after two years. And lawmakers did not endorse his
proposal to curb tax deductions for the upper
class to help pay for healthcare reform, but did
keep in place billions of dollars in subsidies to
agriculture.

Yes sir. The best damn government money can buy....
or is it.

C

Following the Tea-Party secessionists brouhaha and Texas governor Perry's inane proclamations, almost half the Republicans in Georgia also want to secede from the United States of America according to a poll released today (May 1, 2009).

When asked if Georgia would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States, 43 percent of Republicans in the state selected independent nation, according to...a Research 2000 poll commissioned by DailyKos.

Additionally:

The General Assembly of Georgia recently passed Senate Resolution 632 in support of the state sovereignty movement, by a vote of 43-1; an act Atlanta writer Jay Bookman characterized as accidentally threatening the state's ties to the United States.

"In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country," he wrote. "It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.

"'Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes ... are altogether void, and of no force,' the Georgia Senate declared."

Georgians are starting to make Texans look sane!

How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.

 

How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.

 

Last night in MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann reported -- in what he called the "number-one story" of his program -- that it's been revealed that Miss California, who became famous for stating her opposition her gay marriage in the recent Miss USA contest, has fake boobs. K.O. went on to call her, as a person, a boob as well:

How big a progressive is KeithO: To give you a rough idea: As of this morning, only one newspaper in the whole country has stooped to mention Prejean's implants, or Moakler's ridiculous conduct. (Unless Nexis is somehow deceived.) In other words, that Countdown segment wasn't about same-sex marriage. That segment concerned a very strange man's relentless desire to mock women's bodies and brains. This conduct has persisted for years--on our "progressive" TV show.

I just happened on this 4/21 blog and apologize if it has referenced before.

Fox News, Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano has blogged on the Fox Forum; Five Things You Should Know About the 'Torture' Memos. 

The Judge doesn't pull any punches:  (emphasis mine)

1.  The memos describe in vivid, gut-wrenching detail the procedures that the CIA apparently inquired about. The memos then proceed to authorize every procedure asked about, and to commend the CIA for taking the time to ask.

2.  The bias in favor of permitting torture may easily be concluded from a footnote in one of the memos. In that footnote, the author, now-federal judge Jay Bybee, declines to characterize such notorious medieval torture techniques as the thumbscrew and the rack as "torture." With that incredible mindset, he proceeds to do his Orwellian best to define away such terms as "pain," "suffering," and "inhumane" in such a way as to require that the interrogators produce near death experiences in order to have their behavior come under the proscriptions of the federal statute prohibiting torture, and the Convention (treaty) Against Torture, which was negotiated by and signed in behalf of the U.S. by President George H.W. Bush.

3.  The logic in the memos is simple: The government may utilize the ten procedures inquired about (all of which were publicly known except confinement on a coffin, bound and gagged, and in the presence of insects), so long as no one dies or comes close to death.

4.  The memos also fail to account for the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled govern American treatment of all foreign detainees, lawful or unlawful.

5.  The memos place Attorney General Holder, who argued for their release, in an untenable situation. He has stated under oath, at his confirmation hearings, that waterboarding is torture and torture is prohibited by numerous federal laws. He has also taken an oath to uphold all federal laws, not just those that are politically expedient from time to time.

Point 5. is most interesting, to me, he seems to infer that Holder, has to, by law, prosecute.

This is not rocket science and it is not art. Everyone knows torture when they see it; and no amount of twisted logic can detract from its illegal horror, its moral antipathy, and its attack at core American values.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, who describes himself as a pro-life libertarian, is no stranger to criticizing the government.  His books include; Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws, and The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.

I think we can all agree that this issue is not going away.  One could also assume that the DOJ and President Obama know that they will have to directly deal with the it, at some point. 

What is good news, to me, re the Judge's blog, is a Republican is bringing the issue to the forefront.  Which begs the question, will Rupert make him walk the plank?  Arrr...

(In the interest of journalistic integrity I must disclose that my wife is considering hand embroidering GW and Dick's names, and prisoner id numbers on bright orange jumpsuits.  Murry has let me know, in no uncertain terms that he plans on peeing on, Dick's leg.)

New job duties -- There are a lot of changes in Washington these days. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa), will have a different position on the opposite side of the aisle. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius attended her first cabinet meeting this morning. Key positions in her department are still vacant, along with several in the Justice Department. Supreme Court Justice David Souter (surprise liberal) is retiring in June. Speculation about his replacement is already ramping up, along with the Republicans' potential opposition tactics.

New challenges --With personnel changes come opportunities for their majority party Democratic bosses. But there is no question who is leading the nation. President Obama has both influence and authority in generous proportions*. And he is staffing his administration with personnel who are very smart and competent. And, no doubt, the next Supreme Court Justice will be chosen with the same kind of principled skill as the President had exhibited since taking office.

New people will be taking over Senator Specter's former Republican committee jobs. Many Republicans are not willing to deal with their new national party chairman, Michael Steele. A new Republican body is getting into gear for finding the new direction for the future. And a myriad of unofficial Republican leaders change power-up or power-down positions weekly.

New pressures -- Majority Leader Harry Reid will have a huge challenge, in my opinion, if he insists on putting Senator Specter in a key chairmanship in the front of a line of long-serving Democrats. The morning after being sworn in, Secretary Sebelius was forced in front of the cameras with Secretary Nanapolitano by her boss, to guide the nation through a threatened flu pandemic. Attorney General Eric Holder will probably be tasked by his boss to "vett" the possible Supreme Court appointees. And when the new justice comes on the court Chief Justice Roberts will be in charge of a completely "new" court, in terms of its dynamics.

New shifts -- With the steep losses suffered by Republicans, their leaders are faced with very different challenges. There are too few leaders and too many would-be leaders from among those who have no business there. Too many Republicans aspire to lead by influence rather than the authority of an actual position. Those left in authority who are not good leaders will be swept aside in the scrambles, losing the loyalty of those who should be following them. Divided and demoralized, their bosses must inspire their followers to unite around common goals, learning in the process to become the "loyal opposition."

New organization -- The cohort continues to shrink. And those losses are a reality is risking our country's well-being. So I am glad the old heads are gathering together to offer leadership to "The National Council for a New America," and fractious House Minority Whip Eric Cantor should be recognized for starting the process.

New personnel always challenge their bosses, not on purpose but because they are new. Once they have been hired and go through orientation, they need to feel welcomed and accepted in the organization. It is up to the President/CEO and the community representatives/board of directors to set the tone for taking in new people. It is yet another leadership capacity that the Democrats seem to have, and the Republicans seem to have lost. In a way I feel for them.

*Bonus feature from The Huffington Post: "300 Photos From Obama's First 100 Days: Behind The Scenes"

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject. Making Good Mondays is about ancient imagery today. Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics change government leadership

The recent Jeppesen ruling (via Raw) sheds light on what may be still secret or "missing" DOJ OLC memos.

The Jeppeson opinion does not begin to close the door to the DOJ OLC legal problems. Rather, the question becomes which other legal counsel -- other than those disclosed -- wrote memos which they knew or should have known (improperly) "authorized" unlawful conduct against American civilians.

This scope of "DOJ OLC-acceptable conduct" is related to our previous discussion about what appears to have been within the scope of "acceptable (still secret) abuses" against American civilians.

Read more »

Hard to believe that some pundits are spinning the SCOTUS opening as good news for the GOP.  Even our beloved cable talking heads aren't this dumb, and they shouldn't assume we are either.

Obama is going to choose a respectable center-left jurist for the seat - he will be sure to pick someone who rankles some progressives, and his media team will insure that pushback from the left gets some play.  It's a good bet that he will choose someone whose name is already out there, so some positive public & journalist opinion is already formed on them.

The Republicans are going to make this a cause celebre just as they did the stimulus - every elected Republican must vote to filibuster the nominee or face expulsion.  It's just not conceivable that they will approach this in any other way (at least unless David Addington is the nominee).

The filibuster will fail, and the Republicans will end up with an even more angry and energized radical base, fewer moderates and an even more marginalized position with the mainstream electorate.  And then the whole media cycle on their future will start over again.   

This is a quick post.  I have to get ready to leave for the weekend, but I heard Ed Shultz on Air America talking about Chris Matthews' show on Hardball's last night.  I had watched Hardball last night and missed something very important.  I did not hear what the former Congressman Chris Schayes said in a back and forther with Chris Matthews.  Schayes was refuting a point by saying "that was a Democrat Committee." 

NO! NO! NO!  That was a committee of the United States of America.  A body of duly elected representatives.  There is no such thing as a democratic committee, Congressman.  That is not a valid reason to be dismissive or disrespectful of the outcomes of that committee.  That was a governmental body and whether there was a majority of one party or another is of no consequence.  The proceedings are not irrelevant.  Of course, as a former Congressman, perhaps you are now getting familiar with irrelevant.  With your attitude toward a democratic government, you do not belong in its Congress anyway.  Oh, speaking of respect, it's Democratic anyway.  The United States Congress has a Democratic majority.

Caesar and Alejandro arrived at the Avius Hostel with their two servants at dusk. It was the minimum in accommodations providing one room with a view of the ocean. The wind was coming off the sea and made a place to sleep more than palatable. That freshness cleared the room of odors better than Glade or lighted candles. After paying the Keep, they waltzed into the bar on the main floor.

 

BARKEEP. DRINKS ALL AROUND FOR I AM THE CAESAR!!!

 

Oh great, another one thought Furious, the Barkeep.  Who the frick frack is Caesar and who gives a....

 

There were only four patrons in the bar. Spread across two tables.

 

Alejandro whispered: Julio, we have not much money to live on and your bravado is surely an omen. I am your only counsel here and we must keep a low profile.  Save money and keep it down!!!!

 

CAESAR SUM. I am Caesar, and Caesar hides from no one. Not even on the lam. Ha.  BARKEEP WHERE ARE THOSE ALES?

 

Furious spread out the drinks at the bar and our quatrain took their seats at a table by the hearth.

 

Well thank you kindly for the refreshments Kisser. It is sorely needed by the lowest of  the low, cried the toothless Wondrous.

 

THAT'S CAESAR you toothless wonder. Ha

 

How did you know my name? Have we met before?

 

No. And for that I am most grateful.

 

Ha!!! A comedian if I ever heard one. Very good. But thanks just the same, replied Wondrous. Who are your friends, if I may inquire?

 

This is the great Alejandro. And these are my servants Fracus and BC.

 

Well this is my friend Amicus Briefo, pointing to his buddy. And those other two over there are barnacles taken off of our finest ship. We are not of the patrician class so we find our friends the old fashioned way! We hose em, hahahahahaha!

 

Any friends of Sulla here Wondrous?   Inquired Alejandro.

 

We stay out of politics Alleyoop. It brings us no joy and interferes with commerce. Why, is someone looking for ya?

 

No. We are on vacation and intend to drink up and leave well enough alone.

What treasures art thou looking for Wondrous? Alejandro asked,  ignoring the patent slam.

 

We come off the ship Jonas Bee. Captain Seegrus and us just unloaded fine perfumes and oils from Alexandria. We are picking up some wine here and will be on our way to Northern Africa. Two days we have for funning. Drinkin and ladies. That's vacation enough for us. HEEEYOOO.

 

Say amici, I understand Kisser and Alleyoop. But what the hell is BC?

Butticus  Clennicus at your soivace as they say. ARRGGGGHHH. BC grunted.

 

Shut the frick up BC, Alejandro commanded.

 

Butticus Clennicus. What the hell is that? Spat Wondrous. You actually clean the arses of your patricians? What the hell is that?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

It is a most honorable post you dog. I will bet you spend your days smelling like ass all the time. ARGGGGHHH replied BC.

 

Did not I tell you to hold your tongue BC. NOW SHUT IT. Commanded Alejandro.

 

BC, sullen and hurt, worked on his ale.

 

Well the hours dragged on and following the tenth round, the boys became rather irrational. I mean, unless you were among the intellegentia in Rome or Alexandria or Athens, you would always be among the irrational. I mean it was like most saloons in Detroit, NYC or any local sports bar today. Beer and men never made a good mix, as it were, but beer and sailors was even worse.

 

Well, the booze had been pourin', and those who were not already snorin' became more and more verbose and vehement in their demeanor.

 

As the 'discussions' became more irate in tone, Furious thought that maybe he could make a talent or two off of all of this. I mean a talent will get your expenses paid for a year in those days. Unlike Hollywood today where talent is rarely recognized.  Furious summoned to his dwarf DeVitus and said as an aside:

 

DeVito, run around back and see if Marcellus is about. But keep it down and low, ok bro?

 

Marcellus the Lesser was the magistrate for this county and harbor and was always attempting to ingratiate himself with whoever was in power. Kind of like a smaller brained Alcibides or the cartoon character Joe Lieberman.  How can I get ahead? What are they doing for me? That was the mantra of Marcellus.

 

Meanwhile, our quatrain was becoming more and more in contra viri and at first, the vessels were flying. Then the chairs. And then the tables. A riot had ensued with only eight imbibers.

 

The local gendarme arrived well before the guard of Marcellus had been notified.

 

Furious was furious. I better not lose my reward gods damnit all.

 

THE NEXT MORNING, at the local gaol, our heroes along with four toothless sailors awoke in a common cell strewn with puke and urine.

 

What's all this then Caesar complained. How in Hades did we arrive here?  Caesar of course, never had any hangovers. He simply had his Caesar seizure and had awoken refreshed. Or relatively. Julio never enjoyed the company of braggarts except on the battle field and odors of the commoners were not his cup of tea.

 

Amicus Briefo was crying, sobbing about his fate. He was younger and this had been the first time he had been to sea with his uncle Wondrous.  Somehow he composed himself, found his lyre and began to sing:

 

We come off the ship John Bee

My granduncle and me

On harbor leave we did roam

Drinkin all night

Got into a fight

Well I feel so broke up

I wanna go home

 

So hoist up the John Bee's sail

See how the main sail sets

Call for the captain ashore

Let me go home, Let me go home. I wanna go home yeah yeah

Well I feel so broke up

I gotta get home

 

Well Wondrous he got drunk

Fought with this Caesar's skunks

The gendarmes had to come and take us away
Now I'm sitten in jail
Without any bail
Why don't they let us just sail, yeah yeah
Well I feel so broke up I wanna go home

 

So hoist up the J Bee's sail
See how the mainsail sets
Call for the captain ashore
Let me go home, let me go home
I wanna go home, let me go home
Why dont you let me go home
(hoist up the J Bee's sail)
Hoist up the J Bee's
I feel so broke up I wanna go home
Let me go home

Well this Caesar had  the fits
After actin' like a prick
And then his men  took and threw out all of this scorn
Let me go home
Why don't they let me go home
This is the worst trip I've ever been on

 

Not bad for a scummus Romanus. Ha. Declared Julio. The rest of the men promptly awoke to their fate.

 

Marcellus the Lesser sauntered in. The Great Caesar I presume. We shall escort you and your retinue to our ships. Our great leader Sulla is looking for you!!!!

 

 

The quatrain was led to one of Sulla's ships waiting for them in the harbor.

 

But this was just the beginning of the journey as the ship took up anchor and set its sails.

Brent Budowsky's take on the situation.

It is outrageous that banks take trillions of
dollars of taxpayer money for the purpose of
lending to Americans while they raise credit card
rates, turn fixed rates to variable rates that
guarantee huge additional rate increases when the
Fed resumes raising its rates, while they raise
banks fees, cut customer lines, and increase
foreclosures when trillions of dollars were spent
for them to do exactly the opposite.

On Black Thursday the Democratic House (many of
whose members take enormous sums of money from
banks, as do Republicans) passed a bill to
allegedly protect consumers that will not take
effect for at least a year. This means the House
supports continuing every abusive action the bill
claims to oppose for one full year, at least, in a
stunning triumph for the banking lobby.

It is time to break ranks with an almost universal
Washington consensus about how business is done in
this town, a consensus that is leading our country
to financial disaster.

My "epiphany" came when I glanced at the
recent campaign finance report of Sen. Chris Dodd
(D-Conn.), which shows a stunning lack of support
from home-state donors and a deluge of donations
from companies doing business with his Senate
Banking Committee.

That about sums it up. And on another note,
 Elizabeth Warren isn't happy about the bank situation either.

"If we don't see the details of the stress test, if
we don't see the complete details of the stress
test, there's a real possibility no one buys any of
the outcomes," said Warren, who chairs the
Congressional Oversight Panel, monitoring the
Troubled Asset Relief Program. "And [if no one buys
the results] then we are where we are today. We are
in the same place that we are without the
information from the stress tests."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the
Harvard Law School Professor laid down four markers
for a stable and sufficient recovery, offered
support for the prosecution of individuals proven
to have committed crimes that contributed to the
economic downturn, and criticized bank executives
for their rising compensation levels. She also
insisted that if Goldman Sachs wanted to pay back
the bailout funds it received to get out from under
government restrictions, it should have to return
all funds, including guarantees and money it
receives as a counterparty to AIG.

Hey...works for me. Especially since we own AIG right now.


C

My college-aged niece in PA, Jennie, has been a liberal for quite some time now, which is pretty amazing considering her parents are both Republicans.  She recently started up her own blog and I'm pleased to share it with you here.  I'm very proud of her and I think she's doing a great job with her site. 

 

I hope you'll enjoy her site and I encourage you to go back and visit frequently.  Thanks.  Oh, and, uh...remember, guys, she's my college-aged niece, so behave.  "K??  Cuz Aunt Lissie's watching you...

;)

 

 

Well, that didn't take long. Ben Smith of Politico.com has a post up regarding a memo that is now circulating among conservatives identifying the problems they have with the three women who will most likely be atop the shortlist of Obama's eventual nominee to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer and Diane Wood.

On Elena Kagan:

"Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream...It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama's unprecedented centralization of power in the White House."

Am I the only one who finds this last line to be ridiculously hypocritical?

On Sonia Sotomayer:

"(Q)uestions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor's temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a "bully" who "does not have a very good temperament" and who "abuses lawyers" with "inappropriate outbursts."

Are we supposed to read this as "She's a woman, so she's irrational"?

On Diane Wood:

"Judge Wood's judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views...Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests."

Yes, Diane Wood is pro-choice, so I guess that means she's a religion-hating liberal.

So the Republicans are going to attack these women as irrational, religion-hating, liberals. Oh, and did we mention that they aren't white men? After a careful reading of the entire memo, their argument boils down to this: Kagan has no experience as a judge. Sotomayer stands up for the rights of women and minorities. Wood is a champion of the separation of church and state.

One confusing line of argument in regards to Kagan:

-For example, driven by her view that the "don't ask; don't tell" policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order," she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.

Am I to understand that they oppose Kagan because she opposed "Don't ask, don't tell"? I thought that conservatives shared this opinion. Oh well, rational thought was never part of their argument anyway. Here we go! 

 

A telling sentence in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's report (of sources' claims) that the government finally has killed off the moribund espionage case against two AIPAC staffers:

Among these (reasons to abandon the case) was an... order that prosecutors make the case that the defendants harmed the United States and not merely benefited Israel.

It always has been the key defense argument for Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman that the two men, meeting with a high Pentagon official and spy-tainted Israeli diplomatic drones, were helping negotiate a leak. That's done all the time in Washington. Nothing to see here. We can all move on.

Except, of course, in this case, the leak wasn't to journalists, or bloggers, or even corporate interests seeking lists of contract competitors and their bid documents. That last one would be unethical and illegal, probably drawing considerable jail time, but it wouldn't involve espionage, and certainly not treason. No. Treason, betraying the country, would entail turning secret government information over to a foreign power. And that's what was done in this case.

Read more »

Huffington Post has a good article up on possible Supreme Court nomineees. In looking at various lists, I keep seeing the same names. Here's a few of them:

Sonia Sotomayor: An Hispanic with 16 years of court experience who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Sotomayor is a graduate of Yale Law and considered a legal liberal. She also shares a biographical footnote with Souter: they both were appointed by George H. W. Bush -- Sotomayor to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

*****

Elena Kagan: The first woman to serve in the post of Solicitor General, she arrived at the Department of Justice from her post as Dean of the Harvard Law School. She served as Associate Counsel to President Bill Clintonand as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Should Obama choose her, it would mean his White House would have to fill another vacancy. But her academic and judicial pedigree seem almost better suited for the Court than as a lawyer arguing before it. Plus, she's already been through the confirmation process.

Seth Waxman: The 41st Solicitor General of the United States, Waxmnan is 58-years old and a graduate of Yale Law School. Perhaps his greatest claim to legal fame was arguing Boumediene v. Bush before the Supreme Court, which upheld habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Diane Wood: Wood, a 58-year-old Chicagoan, has served for 14 years on the city's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She has made a reputation as a strong liberal voice on an otherwise conservative bench and her name was decidedly in the mix when speculation first arose that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire due to medical issues. The one downside: her position on abortion rights has already sparked the ire of conservatives and pro-life groups, portending a potentially contentious confirmation process.

Harold Koh: The Dean of Yale Law School, Koh is perhaps the highest-profile Asian-American legal mind in the country. He clerked for Associate Justice Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and worked for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan Justice Department. But if Obama wants a smooth confirmation battle, Koh might not be the pick. Nominated to be the State Department's legal adviser, he has attacked by conservatives who claimed that he values foreign law over the U.S. Constitution.

The article also includes a list of "dark horse" candidates:

Teresa Wynn Roseborough: A legal scholar, in an email to the Huffington Post, described the Clinton-era Deputy Assistant Attorney General as such: "She's late 40s, super smart and kind, decent, moderate; and was Editor in Chief of UNC law review. She clerked on the 4th Circuit and for Justice Stevens; worked in Department of Justice, was a partner at a private Atlanta firm; and now at a private counsel for MetLife. And, she's African-American. A perfect choice. Unimpeachable and perfect."

Leah Ward Sears: Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Kathleen Sullivan: Former Dean of Stanford Law and a protege of Harvard's famed professor, Laurence Tribe.

William Fletcher: A U.S. federal appeals court judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the same circuit as one Jay Bybee, who will definitely not be an Obama Supreme Court nominee).

An interesting issue that will emerge, as mentioned in another post here, is whether Arlen Specter will support Obama's nominee. I'm hoping he doesn't, so we can run a true progressive Democrat in 2010 instead of getting stuck with Specter for another term. 

May 1, 2029

Canadians suffered a fifteenth day without computer access as the the Canadian government negotiated with a malicious software virus for release of its nation's computers. The virus, known by its nom de guerre, Evil LOLcat, has demanded ¥10 billion, freedom for 25 quarantined viruses, and a "cheezburger."

Read more »

Yesterday the Senate Banking Committee, with Democratic Senators joining a unified Republican base, killed a provision to allow bankruptcy judges re-negotiate home mortgages to stave off foreclosures. Yesterday Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois made an interesting a little reported charge on the Ed Shultz Show (MSNBC) stated:

"[Facing] 8 million mortgage foreclosures in America, that means 1 out of every 6 home mortgages will go into foreclosure, and that is not my estimate that is Moody's,..., sitting down and negotiating for months to find a reasonable way for people to keep their homes, to renegotiate the mortgage or have a bankruptcy judge make one last attempt----THE BANKS HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THE TABLE, only CitiGroup is willing to work with us."

Ed Shultz quoting Durbin from another radio interview: "So after taking billions (if not trillions) of tax payer dollars, the banks are now so obstinate to refuse to negotiate and then qouted Durbin saying "THE BANKS OWN THE SENATE". 

Shultz repeating the question: "Do you believe the BANKS OWN THE SENATE?"

Durbin: "It is an uphill battle right now, and I cannot get 60 votes in the Senate."

Shultz: "So the lobbying power is that strong?"

Durbin: "It is hard to believe that they bring us this crisis, the crisis that has brought us this recession [err DEPRESSION], when they receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money, for mistakes they have made, billions of dollars, that they refuse to sit down and work out a reasonable compromise....the next thing we are moving on is credit cards..."

Now you have that, then you have the failed Chrysler negotiations where Obama stated that a few [Wall Street] creditors [again] walked away from the table and refused to participate.

Here is the deal folks. Wall Street pirates have created an illusion that they are essential to capitalism, that they are capitalism and they must be served WITHOUT hair cuts, compromises or changes. This of course is unsustainable and irresponsible, as well as, how mobsters, gangsters, and pirates would react with total obstantance and arrogance. In short it is class a developing class war. Just look how the Somali pirates reacted when they were cornered, they still thought they had leverage. Of course they aren't that stupid as the pirates on the Strait of Hormuz so they want out of the TARP money so they can't be fired or take pay cuts. Fire them---fire them all.

We as a society need to take them out---period. We don't serve Wall Street, no differently than towns folk and farmers served the ranch barons in the old West. Wall Street needs to be taken down into small pieces, reorganized to serve society, most of us have some pension, 401k or other investment---we own it. Unveil the illusion, pull back the curtain and force government to bring this to an end.

Froomkin on Krauthammer.  If I were running the WaPo, he would be the guy that replaced Hiatt.  (Then again, if pigs could fly, we'd be scared of the bird flu.).  It is time to drum these people out of polite society.  

According to an email released by the FBI, its personnel refused to participate in the prisoner abuse that went on at Abu Grahib because it was not part of their protocol, despite the fact that it was authorized by Executive Order.

This could be the issue which decides if Specter is a quisling or if he has seen the error of his ways.

LINK TO FULL STORY

NEW YORK CITY-If Albany fails to reach a workable solution to close the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's budget gap over the next few days, the daily commutes for eight million New Yorkers will become more expensive, and the time it takes to get from point A to B, will increase markedly. In addition to decreased rail service, several bus routes will disappear on weekends and evenings while others disappear entirely. In fact, if a new funding mechanism does not see consensus at the state capital, the city that never sleeps may eventually see a complete shutdown of the transit system during late evening hours, under a "beyond doomsday" scenario MTA outlined on Wednesday after revealing that its deficit is even wider thanoriginally forecast.

Fallout from what the MTA calls its "doomsday" plan has begun to spur outrage among city residents. On Tuesday afternoon, transit advocates came together with concerned citizens in Manhattan's Union Square, raising their voices against the proposed cuts. One speaker, 76-year-old resident Carl Van Putten of Hunts Point, shouted "where I live, we're not talking about inconvenience, we're talking about survival." Speakers at the event, largely organized on social networking site Facebook, sought to persuade attendees that New York City's economic backbone is its transit system and without it, the entire city suffers unimaginable trauma.

"I think it's a big myth that's been around for around 50 years that New York is somehow not a mass transit town," Wiley Norvell, communications director for the group Transportation Alternatives, told GlobeSt.com as trains rumbled underneath during another rush hour at the Union Square subway hub.

According to the MTA, a plethora of service cuts will be phased in over the next few weeks and months. The cuts began Thursday, as the traditional seasonal Long Island Rail Road service to Belmont Park was eliminated. But perhaps the true reality of the crisis will begin to settle in on May 31--when fare hikes of up to 29% are set to start on the subways and buses, with LIRR and Metro-North following suit the next day.

Then, June 28, train service cuts begin on a set of subway lines that reads like an elementary school chalkboard. The A, D, E F G N, Q and R lines will all see significant service reductions that day. Meanwhile, a list over two pages long details bus routes that will be either sharply reduced or eliminated entirely cutting off entire neighborhoods from the transit network.

Obama has been widely cheered for his excoriation of the Chrysler bondholders who forced Chapter 11. At face value this was purely political, Obama riding an obvious populist wave, as Stu Rothenberg suggests here.

But really, was that it? And if it was, did it make sense?

Let's start by looking at the world through the eyes of the bondholders who he lashed out at. As best I can tell, this was a group of firms that would probably be bracketed as hedge funds - my guess is that they were all "special situation" funds, funds which specialize in investing in (deeply impaired) assets of companies going through a restructure.

Now whatever the populist impulse is, it is the case that such funds are a dime-a-dozen. Every money managing firm has a special situation fund, they are hardly a novel breed and their role in the market-place is no secret. And here is the rub - whilst you can ask the question whether this lot operate in a moral vacuum, it is definitely not the case that they operate in a legal vacuum. They have investors to answer to; which means that if they were presented with a deal regarding Chrysler, and this deal appeared inferior to what they reasonably believed they could get through the courts, they could be sued by their investors for agreeing to it.

Now we don't know who these firms are, only 2 or 3 of the 20 have been identified, and we sure as heck don't know how their bondholdings fit in within their broader trading strategy. But this much is almost certain - they thought, indeed they had probably been independently advised, that it was in their investors' interests not to accept the deal on the table.

That's where we arrived at yesterday.

Now contrary to the desparate lamentations of people like Ken Lewis that you do deals when the government tells you to - because it is in the national interest - the world of finance isn't supposed to work like that. No should any industry for that matter (cf, Telecoms apologists have been known to argue that the firms had to co-operate with the NSA on warrantless wiretapping because the government demanded it).

So what was up with Obama then, taking a swing at hedge funds?

Was this intended to be a warning shot to other creditors bearing in mind there are a bunch more similar negotiations on the horizon? If so, what exactly was the message? I, Barack Obama, will resort to another legal measure - Chapter 11 - if you do not agree to the terms of a deal I support?

Maybe this was just pure populism, and I am trying to read to much into the statement. But I take Obama to be a bit more of a chess-player than that, and I don't know really what he has achieved. He's surely mistaken if he thinks hedge funds, amongst others, are in future going to be more inclined to accede to deals hammered out by his government.

So I'm all up for suggestions... what was the Big Guy thinking? Or was he just letting off a bit of steam?

I can see the apprehension in your eyes, but it really is safe to read this. Not only are you protected by my swine flu mask, but I've armed myself with the H1N1 Computer Goggles and the accompanying No-Sow Keyboard Gloves. You don't have to breathe a word of it.

The pandemic pajamas? Oh, I'm just wearing them in case I should start daydreaming of pigs in a blanket. And, they do go pretty well with this big flu-shielding sombrero.

I also figured that the Mexican lid would give things a little Alamo flavor should it become necessary to take refuge at Fort Murtha. They say that this flu thing is traveling faster than Stuart Levine & Arlen Specter became Democrats. But, if Colgan Air can get Atta to Boston on time, then I guess they can beat the flu to Johnstown. I just wonder if I'll need to buy one of those mile-high Blago seats.

But, at least it's swine flu and not Mad Cow. It saves me the trouble of flying all the way to the Daniel Hopsicker storied, and ponzi-schemer Art Nadel owned, Venice Jet Center. And, come to think of it, where Atta supposedly took flying lession under it's old banner of Huffman Aviation.

And, where else but in the land of Jeb Bush can you watch live, Governor endorsed, terrorist training, be defrauded by the guy that owns the place and the companies based there, and, get ponzi-fleeced by new owner Nadel? It kind of makes you wonder what your survival chances are at Fort Jeb without the flu.

Accordingly, Florida Flu Doctor Hopsicker reaches into his medical journal and relates the tale of the Florida Nursing Corp. A case involving Nadel, Howard Sturman, and the Genovese Crime Family.

WHO apparently didn't track that flu, because it spread north to Cooper Optical & the Cooper Companies in New Jersey. Once there, it found a company board monopolized by the Sturman & Singer families. The name Singer is usually associated with the name Abbrezzese. Abbrezzese like in Joe Bruno, Evident Tech, Motient Corp, TerreStar, WSNet, AVIBioPharma.....you got the flu picture.

So, blow your nose on this. Also found at Cooper was one William Goolsbie. Sick William owned a company called ImmunoTherapy which was sold to AVIBioPharma in 1998. He became an AVI board member in 2007.

Stop the pandemic? Which one? And, how do I reject the Sinatra record with all of this crap on?

"Souter, 69, hails from the court's relatively liberal branch, so his retirement is unlikely to represent a deep shift in the balance of power on the court, but rather a renewal of the left end of the bench."

Oh yes, I see a committed leftist replacing him, like Larry Summers or Phil...sorry, Arlen Specter, or Caroline Kennedy or Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or maybe Colin Powell.

We'll see how well Republicans do on blocking Dawn Johnsen, who had the temerity to be "too critical of the Bush Administration" (which at one point back in 2003 simply meant not singing along to Fidelis et Amores Commandus-in-Chiefum" while fully prostrated, now it's a little more forgiving - if you're a Republican).

My guess is we'll still get our 60% hurdle [Specter voting against], and it will be another thrilling we're-not-partisan moment. Blue Dogs will be appeased, Progressives will have their pee-pees or wee-wees whacked, and Washington will sing praises of the 2nd hundred days.

[Our noble leaders' not noticing a problem with giving Specter high seniority rights for his defection is a troubling case in point. They don't seem to have any core values in their concept of "Democrat".]

[Also thinking of the irony that Obama will now campaign for Specter, but he wouldn't campaign for Georgia's Jim Martin in the special runoff - too partisan it seems.]

I wrote the following in response to a blog on the topic of Fox News Network you can view here :

One issue of concern. I travel quite a bit for my work. I stay in hotels all over the place and find myself looking at various sources for news and entertainment which are consistenly local cable offerings. What I have noticed is that most include Fox News as an option. Some include CNN. But MSNBC as an option is rare.  TheraP also points out in a comment below that her husband has noticed that it is played in medical and auto repair centers etc.

My point is that this propaganda is widely disseminated and believed to be news by many unaware americans.

I had to explain to my own mother last year that FOX was not a 'news' channel. Seriously, she did not know and it never occurred to me that she would watch FNN. Fox is like a 24 hour a day commercial for propaganda, fear mongering, etc. AND many americans don't know that this is not news.  Many americans watch a lot of television and sit through commercials trusting and believing information as it is presented... not understanding that they are being 'marked' or 'marketed'.

My father used to spout Bill O Reilly to me until he found himself friends with a gay couple (which was a miracle because my father was like Archie Bunker, prejudiced) and they were able to open his eyes.

Let's start a 'rebranding Fox News' effort as a sort of truth in advertising movement.

T-Shirts & Bumper Stickers, etc. with slogans pointing out to the public that they are being used. 

We have some brilliant minds here on TPM.  I think we could actually come up with a slogan or two that could actually be useful to support the general public that does not understand that Fox News is not a 'real' or 'fair and balanced' news channel but is instead a propaganda channel creating stories and suggesting how people should see and think about them, manipulating them.  

I would like to come up with a slogan that might make someone think, create some question or doubt in their mind... just create the possibility of a little opening in there that maybe, just maybe they are giving too much power to FNN.  My thinking is that while we could express our outrage and disgust via a slogan (go ahead and vent if you like), a more useful slogan would be simple (like 'Yes We Can') and thought provoking.  While I am not suggesting that we could sway all FNN viewers, I am thinking that there is a target audience of people who just don't realize that what they are hearing is very tainted...

I ask that you contribute both your ideas and your feedback on others ideas.  I also ask that you suggest, list, recommend all of the places and ways that this could be disseminated i.e. t-shirts, bumper stickers etc. (would you wear a shirt or have your dog wear one with your slogan on it or put it on your website,etc.?)  How could we spread the movement so that other groups picked it up?

I'll start with this.  Fox (Not) News (circle with slash through it over the word news)

                          Brainwashing America for $$ 

 

If you would like to contribute to the backstage efforts of actually manifesting this movement please contact me at:  synchronicity@yeswecan.com

 

Dinosaurs not wiped out by an asteroid...? 

It has become common wisdom that the impact creater off of the Yucutan Penninsula wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.  But that theory has been under challenge for some time now.

There's growing evidence that the dinosaurs and most their contemporaries were not wiped out by the famed Chicxulub meteor impact, according to a paleontologist who says multiple meteor impacts, massive volcanism in India, and climate changes culminated in the end of the Cretaceous Period.

More recently, research into the sediment layers which have long been considered the evidence for the asteriod impact theory, is now being used to disprove the theory.

From El Penon and other localities in Mexico, says Keller, "we know that between four and nine meters of sediments were deposited at about two to three centimeters per thousand years after the impact. The mass extinction level can be seen in the sediments above this interval."

The study found that the sediments separating the two events were characteristic of normal sedimentation, with burrows formed by creatures colonizing the ocean floor, erosion and transportation of sediments, and no evidence of structural disturbance.

The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have the dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.

Keller suggests that the massive volcanic eruptions at the Deccan Traps in India may be responsible for the extinction, releasing huge amounts of dust and gases that could have blocked out sunlight and brought about a significant greenhouse effect.

Or maybe Gary Larson was right all those years ago.

Stay Tuned...

Looks like Obama will be making a Supreme Court pick. NPR is reporting:

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and to return to his native New Hampshire.

Now, according to reliable sources he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Any guesses on who will be on the short list? The article surmises:

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

The court currently has one female justice -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBLOG has this list:

The three obvious candidates are Elena Kagan (SG), Sonia Sotomayor (CA2), and Diane Wood (CA7). The sleeper candidate is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

All four were born between 1950 and 1960. Diane Wood is the most respected as a judge. But she is the oldest (born 1950), and as a consequence a seat this summer would likely be her one shot. Kagan and Granholm have the advantage of being the youngest (born in 1960 and 1959, respectively). Granholm has experience dealing with legislatures and actually representing people, as well as law enforcement experience as the state's attorney general. Sonia Sotomayor has the advantage that she would be the first Hispanic nominee to the Court; she also served as a trial judge. She and Judge Wood have the longest written track record, but not one that would present any obstacle to confirmation with this Senate.

The whole post is pretty in-depth and is a good read. By the way, am I the only one breathing a huge sigh of relief that John McCain isn't making the choice?

A little bit of background info on David Souter from wikipedia:

David Hackett Souter (pronounced /ˈsuːtər/; born September 17, 1939) has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1990. He filled the seat vacated by William J. Brennan.

Appointed to the Court by Republican President George H. W. Bush, he usually votes with the more liberal wing on the Roberts court. He currently ranks fourth in seniority among the Associate Justices.

*****

At the time of Souter's appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatism.^[5] In his testimony before the Senate, Souter espoused the concepts of originalism (as Bork had) and was thus thought by conservatives to be a strict constructionist on Constitutional matters.^[5] However, as a state's attorney and state Supreme Court judge, he had never been tested on matters of federal law.^[3]

Initially, from 1990 to 1993, Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice, although not as conservative as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or William Rehnquist.^{[original research?]} In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey,^[5] in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade, and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Anthony Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.

*****

In 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because it would be "a surrender to political pressure... So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

*****

Bush v. Gore

In 2000, Souter voted and dissented along with the three other justices in Bush vs. Gore to allow the presidential election recount to continue while the majority voted to end the recount based on the rule of law, making Bush the president.

Jeffrey Toobin wrote of Souter's reaction to Bush v. Gore in his 2007 book The Nine:

"Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn't. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues' actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."

Thank you for your service Justice Souter!

 

But what caused this acceleration of swine flu  evolution? Virologists have long believed that the intensive agricultural system of southern China is the principal engine of influenza mutation: both seasonal "drift" and episodic genomic "shift". But the corporate industrialisation of livestock production has broken China's natural monopoly on influenza evolution. Animal husbandry in recent decades has been transformed into something that more closely resembles the petrochemical industry than the happy family farm depicted in school readers.

Today, my representative rendered Nancy Pelosi speechless. 

 

 

The other day, on our regular Michelle Bachmann Freakshow Thread, I said, with complete, yet not necessarily evident, sincerity that I didn't understand why everyone thought she was such a freak.  I said that Bachmann was, in fact, the perfect modern Republican, a woman who had so fully internalized the GOP's post-modern anti-intellectualism and anti-objectivism, that she had become one of the party's leading orators. 

I really meant it.  One of the reasons I meant it was that I am "represented" by Virginia Foxx.

Last summer, I wrote a fundraising plea for her opponent, Roy Carter. 

Coach Carter is running against Rep. Virginia Foxx here in North Carolina's Fifth District. Most of you have probably never heard of Foxx before because, by and large, she stays out of the national limelight and this District is supposedly so gerrymandered that she's deemed unshakable by the party bigwigs. Foxx succeeded the comparatively benign Richard Burr when he took over John Edwards' Senate seat in '04.

The Fifth District being what it is, the whole '04 race essentially boiled down to a runoff in the Republican primary between her and Vernon Robinson--who some of you may have heard of. Essentially, it was a race to see which of them was the worst, knuckle-dragging, rabble-rousing, hatemongering, acid-spewing, xenophobic, homophobic, Cristofascistic, Bushloving, warmongering monster. Foxx won that competition hands down, which was no mean feat against Vernon Robinson.

Since then, she has proven it wasn't just campaign rhetoric. She has distinguished herself by her 100% support for each and every little thing George W. Bush wants, other than immigration reform, for being one of the worst abusers of the Congressional franking privilege, and for amassing a ridiculously bloated warchest of contributions from the vilest people and PACs in the nation, which she uses to support and buy influence with other Republican members of Congress. She is a steadfast supporter of endless war in Iraq. She was one of eleven to vote against Katrina relief in September, '05 and one of 31 to vote against extension of the Voting Rights Act. She never saw an pro-environment bill she was for or an environmental atrocity she would not actively advocate. In April, 2006, she conducted a "field hearing" here in the district called Gangs, Fraud and Sexual Predators: Struggling with the Consequences of Illegal Immigration. No,really, that's what she called it.

Yeah, our Ginny's a real peach. And, worse, she's quiet and unsplashy and she's accumulating favors, all of which makes her twice as dangerous as some of the cartoonish buffoons who are being targeted by the DCCC and the DNC.

Whenever I make fun of the Republican Party's more high-profile assclowns like Bachmann, DeMint or, hell, practically anybody Oklahoma sends to Congress, I do it knowing that my own district has been sending this evil old battleaxe who's as bad as any of them and worse than most of them, Bachmann included, to Congress since 2004.

Coach Carter got beaten pretty handily.  Foxx has won all of her races pretty handily.  It's that kind of District, is NC-05.  But here's the thing.  Given that she always has a ginormous money  advantage, that there's never a really well-known Democrat running against her, that  the DCCC does bupkis here, and that most people consider whoever is running against her to be a sacrificial lamb, she never seems to do quite as well as she's supposed to. 

It was 59%-41% in 2004, a big year for Republicans here, certainly.  Her opponent was Jim Harrell, a dentist from ruralish Surry County (where Andy Griffith came from) and scion of a local political family active in Surry County politics but, frankly, little known outside that county.  In 2006, her opponent was Roger Sharpe. I'll let you check out his Wikipedia profile yourself.  She won that one 57-43. In 2008, she beat Roy Carter 58%-42%.  In every case, she had millions and her opponents had spare change they found under seat cushions. 

The Democrats have our General Assembly under pretty good control.  I'd like to think the Fifth's boundaries might show a little judicious adjustment in 2010, though possibly this will one where they'll try to pack as many Republicans as possible to minimize the number of seats they can get. 

Regardless, my gut says she's vulnerable.  If we can get a candidate with some recognition, existing organization and a little clout and fund him or her adequately, I really think we can send her back to whatever cave ceiling she used to hang from before she went to DC. 

Please, folks, take this opportunity, this moment when she has emerged from her usual abode in the shadows and gotten her fifeen minuts this year, and make a little note to keep an eye on her.  If she gets a serious challenger next year, please consider digging into your pockets for whoever runs against her.  You'll do a service to your country and, not that it means much, allow me to contemplate writing a letter to my representative without a derisive snort.  The normally unobtrusive ones like her are, in many ways, a lot more dangerous than the camera-whore twits like Bachmann. 

Read more »

For the last 8 years, even the best newspapers in the United States have mostly “reported” a rehash of whatever official sources announced or leaked to them, but at least the New York Times still apparently understood what it was reporting.

And now the Times has published this bizarro fable from Helmand Province in Afghanistan…

In a five-day battle, the British killed 120 Taliban fighters and wounded 150. Only one British soldier was wounded.

But if 270 “Taliban fighters” had actually shot at British troops, you have to wonder how 269 of them missed everything they shot at, because…

“Taliban fighters” somehow conquered Afghanistan in 1996, and drove out exactly the same warlords whom the United States re-installed in 2001…

And if 270 “Taliban fighters” could only hit one British soldier, before British soldiers killed all 270 of those same “Taliban fighters”…

Then you would have to wonder how “Taliban fighters” ever conquered anything, much less a country like Afghanistan, which is notoriously hard to conquer.

So unless you believe that the “Taliban fighters” were shooting rubber bullets out of toy guns…

The only reasonable explanation is that there were no “Taliban fighters” shooting at anybody, and the British have committed yet another massacre in Afghanistan, and killed 270 civilians.

Most obvious clue big-wigs, hotshots, high-rollers or tycoons-of-the-moment have swerved a fateful detour, barreled themselves into the smudgy outskirts that run all 'round Poopy Town?

They hire flacks. 

Read more »

First posted at RACblog.

When most Americans think about environmentally progressive parts of our country, coastal states like California, New York, and Oregon are probably the first that come to mind. Yet, the movement for clean energy and environmental protection is growing across the country, especially in the Midwest. Iowa was in the news again last week (after its Supreme Court successfully upheld marriage equality earlier in the month) when President Obama celebrated Earth Day at the Trinity Structural Towers plant in Newton, a small town struggling through the economic downturn.

Trinity is helping revive Newton by putting Iowans to work building parts for wind turbines. President Obama highlighted Trinity, and the work going on all across the state of Iowa, as a model for clean energy economies built by green jobs, the key to both solving the climate crisis and revitalizing the economy.

Read more »

I noted on the GOP website today (http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=e619d8ab-cbcc-454f-ad99-6f410307b4fb) that Barack Obama has broken one of his campaign promises:

Obama Promises Not To Raise Any Taxes On Anyone Making Under $250,000 Per Year:

Obama: "If you are a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Taxes, Kaukauna, WI, 6/12/08)

But Obama Raised The Tobacco Tax, A Tax That Disproportionately Affects The Poor:

"This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." "This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

It's nice to see that the Republicans are still so caring and loving for the least fortunate among us that they are able to distort reality in such an unambiguous way.

They love the downtrodden so very much.

Backed by dark, ominous, foreboding music worthy of a Batman movie, the film asks the fear instilling question, "What are Democrats doing to keep us safe?"  

Images include; the Pentagon in flames on 9/11, flag burning protesters, terrorist training videos, news clips about CIA interrogations, and violent footage from the Middle East, all interspersed with Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, and showing respect the Saudi King.

I have a question for the GOP; is this all you got, because you look to me as very cowardly, and afraid.

Alan Greenspan saying that illegal immigration aids the US economy, because he's wrong about everything:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that illegal immigration makes a "significant" contribution to U.S. economic growth by providing a flexible workforce.

Greenspan, appearing before a Senate subcommittee today, said illegal immigrants provide a "safety valve" as demand for workers rises and falls.

On a more serious note, look at what he is saying when you tease out the meaning, he is saying that illegal immigration is good because it drives down wages.....That's what "flexible workforce" and "safety valve," mean.

Alan Greenspan has always been a big fan of cheap labor.

There is no doubt that illegal immigration adds to GDP. The question is whether it contributes to per capita GDP, or the slightly more nebulous and hard to measure concept of the well being of our society.

½ of Europe's population died during the heyday of the Black Death, and it is indisputable that the GDP of Europe was lower in the years following the Bubonic Plague outbreak than before.

What is also indisputable is that the standard of living of those remaining rose at the time, as can be seen through records of increased wages, and the frantic passage of (largely ineffective) laws intended to reign in wages and reduce worker mobility.

The end question is not what our immigration policy should be, but rather what should our society look like, and how to we create an immigration policy most consistent with our professed values that creates this society.

To my mind, this is best addressed by extremely aggressive laws targeting employers who deliberately or negligently hire illegals, and not by harsh measures taken against desperate economic refugees.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

Warning:  Though true, some may find this article offense...actually most will.

Here is Part II of the Neal Horsley story.  Mr. Horsley is 'The Creator's Rights Party' candidate for Governor of Georgia:

Secessionist ready to kill own son to dissolve Union

 

Article snippet:

Neal Horsley may have had sex with a mule before Jesus set him on the straight and narrow, but he is now all devotion to the Lord's work. Lest you doubt his commitment, his wife has divorced him and his children (except for a daughter) want nothing to do with him. He's an outcast in Georgia, too extreme, even for the Pro-Life groups, but he has hundreds of admirers across the country...

As part of an ongoing quest to keep myself intellectually honest, I make a point to stay abreast of what is going on in the conservative media.  I regularly consult Hot Air, Michelle Malkin's blog, and Rush Limbaugh's website.  One thing I notice about each of these three websites is that they spend a significant amount of time attacking ideas or entities that don't actually exist. 

 

For example, on March 27, Rush Limbaugh explained to his listeners that:

 

"This is nothing more than a giant, global redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Man-made global warming, the hoax that it is, has always been nothing but that -- with the accompanying gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation occurring at the same time -- and the loss of individual liberty and freedom.  Tell the people in Denver! Tell the people in Fargo! I woke up the other day looked at the weather, and it was 35 degrees in New York!" 

 

In a mere five sentences, Limbaugh manages to explain that: (1) global warming does not exist because, sometimes, it gets cold outside - clearly a false argument since no theory surrounding global warming states unequivocally that it will never get cold again; (2) global warming is not only nonexistent, but an actual "hoax," implying that those who believe in global warming are actively trying to deceive; (3) people who claim that global warming exists have a nefarious scheme to "redistribute wealth" - I'm not sure what the link is here; (4) people who claim global warming exists want "gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation," which is a highly undocumented claim at best; and (5) acknowledging the existence of global warming is equivalent to the loss of individual liberty and freedom. 

 

Essentially, Limbaugh creates a series of false enemies and false arguments to scare people into thinking that documented scientific fact is the equivalent of having your personal liberties taken away by people who scheme to redistribute your wealth around the world.

 

The same kind of deconstruction could be done at Hot Air or on Michelle Malkin's blog, where the active use of fallacies and the caricaturization and demonization of the political left create an illogical environment in which readers develop the idea that Democrats actually are out to kill babies, worship Obama as the second coming of Christ, and increase taxes to extents not seen since the U.S.S.R. was a major world superpower. 

 

I would argue, however, that rightwing blogs, however ill informed and silly they may be, are part of the strange and beautiful American fabric of free speech.  Let people rant, whatever their convictions are.  People can choose to read or not read and they can choose to believe or not believe.  So, as much as these websites fluster and offend my academic sensibilities, I don't find them particularly dangerous. 

 

I was disturbed, however, by an RNC ad profiled on my beloved Huffington Post.  (Despite previous criticisms, it really is one of my favorite news sources.)  In it, a false Barack Obama reads his famed teleprompter (because no other politician has ever read a prepared speech) and voices his support for a number of questionable policies that, in point of fact, do not actually exist.

 

For example, contrary to what this ad claims:

(1) Barack Obama does not advocate that the U.S. Census be run by ACORN.  (Additionally, despite what this ad says, there remains no documented connection between ACORN and election fraud.  This is a famous conservative fallacy; voter registration fraud is not the same as Mickey Mouse showing up to the polls to vote.);

(2) Barack Obama has never equated members of the U.S. military with terrorists;

(3) Barack Obama hardly introduced the financing of American debt by China or the Middle East.  China has been the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury bonds since 2008, and before that it was Japan, but I suppose Japan doesn't appeal to the imagination quite as much;

(4) Barack Obama doesn't keep his thermostat as 80 while recommending that the rest of the country keep its thermostats at 65; and

(5) Countless other things.

 

Essentially, the RNC has created an ad in which a series of false policies are presented as things Obama actually supports.  This goes beyond normal political distortion and into the realm of outright lies.  This is far more dangerous than anything Michelle Malkin's blog could produce, because this commercial was created by the Republican National Committee, a far more official and respected entity than a known far right blogger.  This is dangerous propaganda and I worry that, should this ad become a point of discussion, it will place Obama on the defensive against arguments that are completely and utterly false. 

 

(I should point out that the RNC did pull the ad down, but not before they put it up.  Essentially, the RNC can now claim that they aren't behind the ad, even though it's echoing throughout the internet.) 

    

Meanwhile, our heroes proceed in their Quest for the Holy Pail accompanied by a parade of creatures. The two boars well sated from their meal of Duke Delay. Two feisty hedgehogs. A flock of wondrous birds. A unicorn with not a care in the world. And forty recently freed cherubs no longer slaving under the tyranny of evil forces.

 

Quixotic took out his lyre and broke into song:

 

It's getting to the point where I'm having so much fun

I am so happy

Sometimes it helps to madly reach all out

To the lonely

I am yours, you are mine, we are what we are

You make it love

 

Remember what we've said, and done
And how we helped  each other
Jesu  have mercy
Don't let the past remind us of what we are not now
We are not dreaming
I am yours, you are mine, we are what we are
We are together

Finding ourselves together this way, we are free
And I am laughing
This only means that we love our Lord, I do, that's forever
Yes, and for always
I am yours, you are mine, we are what we are
We are together

Something inside is telling me that we've found a secret
And we are seeking.
A new approach to life, and laughter is the key to the heart
We are together

I am yours, you are mine, we are what we are
We try so hard
We try so hard
We try so hard

Comes the evening
Following the afternoon
What have we got to lose?
Jesu Christe
You show us the way, we are grateful
What have we got to lose?

Which way shall we go?
The least of our worries
Listen to your heart
Oh my heart is thriving
What's life, if one does not reach out
We're tryin' and that's what is the use

Jesu has an answer
He says don't  fly away
What have you got to lose?
Will you come see me
In your happiest hours
What have you got to lose?

Chestnut brown canary
Ruby throated sparrow
Sing a song, don't be long
Thrill me to the marrow

Voices of the angels
Ring around the moonlight
Asking me, said she so free
How can you catch the sparrow?

Lacy lilting lady
Justice fleeting and elusive
Changed my life, made it right
Be my lady

Do do do do do, do do do do do do
Do do do do do, do do do do

 

Lancelot turned to his comrades. What pray tell are we to do with these children? The innocents must be fed and provided with a place to live and learn.

 

Sir Quixotic piped up: Sir Lancelot.  The Lord has shown us to this quest and to these children and the good Lord Jesus Christ will help us find a home for them. (Blesses himself)

 

But we are mere mortals and the Lord has given us the tools, the mens, to make our own decisions. We must surely pray for guidance, but it is lunch time soon and I do not even see an apple tree.

 

Well Lancelot, I was not speaking on some ethereal plane, I mean look over there at 4:00.  Quixotic pointed to an abbey just to the north.

 

Oh, I see. Ummmm. I guess we can stop for a bite? Lancelot  replied, and with that the column moved toward the abbey.

 

This abbey turned out not to be what they had thought. The smaller building in the front of this community was but a chapel and the terrain hid the huge monastery behind it.

 

Bottomly, come here at once !! Quixotic ordered and the cherubs' leader followed our trio through the main gate.  Two monks stood guard and immediately opened the entry to the estate upon seeing the three knights.  As was required, the heroes stripped themselves of their weapons before proceeding toward the larger building with the largest guard.

 

The priest welcomed the four into the main room and brought them to a table.

 

I am Father Steele and I manage this center of learning. And you are the great Sir Quixotic of whom I have heard much. Much things and good things, I might add.

 

I am Quixotic Father and I have with me two other knights of the Roundish Table; Sir Gaharis and Sir Lancelot.  This young man is Bottomly.

 

Lancelot then proceeded to tell the priest of the doings of the late Duke Delay and how the children had been freed from slavery.

 

You mean to say there are forty children outside who have not supped?  You knights know better than that.  Brother Graham, BROTHER GRAHAM, Father Steele called.  A rather short but husky monk appeared.

 

Brother Graham, this is Sir Lancelot along with Sir Quixotic and Beau Manes.  This youngster is the leader of two score children. Would you be so kind as to take Bottomly here with you and have him show you his friends and return with all the children?

 

Why of course Father. Replied Graham.

 

The children were brought into the inner sanctum to a great dining table and fruits and meats of all kinds were spread upon the table in fine dishes. And the children ate their fill full of joy as Graham told them stories of knights and ogres.

 

Father, you represent the best of the clerics and we thank you for your charity, for your courtesy and for your time. We wish to know some things about your great monastery. Could you tell us from whence it came...er...who first established this great house of learning.

 

Perhaps you should inquire of your senior comrade, Father Steele said pointing to Quixotic.

 

Quixotic looked at the floor as Lancelot turned to him. 

 

You knew this was here the entire trip did you not?  Speak up Quixotic.

 

Father Steele, sensing the embarrassment and humility of Quixotic spoke up:

 

Thirty years ago, this was a great field filled with the dead of a great battle. Uther's army had just finished off the worst duke of the realm. Sir Quixotic, that one day had vanquished a full score of warriors from the north and was grievously wounded.  My uncle was a hermit living in a small hut located right where this room now looms.  Uncle Thomas took Sir Quixotic in and healed him of his wounds.

 

Several months passed until our senior friend was healthy enough to take leave and he promised Thomas that he would return one day and reward him.  Of course Thomas replied that he was bound to aid a good knight in a good cause and that it was his duty to his Lord & Savior (blesses himself).  Quixotic meanwhile, was released by Uther to pursue a quest for the Sacred Books and the knight proceeded to Wales where he met with Talesian, the Bard.  

 

Our friend traveled for almost a fortnight before finding the great educator in a small enclave on the northwest coast.  Out of supplies and worn out from his journey, Quixotic was welcomed by the bard.  Do you seek the old knowledge?  asked Talesian.

 

Yes Master.  I was told in a dream that there was a cache of old pages brought over by the Romans two centuries ago; that the Latin of Ovid and the Greek of Homer were available for the brave to seek. I believe that this learning should be sought and the pages cared for after being properly catalogued.

 

Talesian led Quixotic to the border of Wales and England and they came to an old tomb. After opening the edifice labeled Libris Dei, the two entered and Quixotic was shown hundreds upon hundreds of books. With permission of Talesian, Quixotic made arrangements to have the books transported here. All at his own expense.

 

Peasants were employed to begin work on our little chapel.  Word spread across the land and into Europe of the great find and monks arrived here from all lands.  The monks, working with the peasants built all that you see here.

 

Quixotic did all of this and asked nothing in return.

 

Lancelot looked at his old friend, puzzled.  He turned to Father Steele, How doth thou know of these strange and wondrous things?

 

Because Sir Quixotic took with him a young man as his squire and that young man was me.  But come, I will show you more.

 

Father Steele led the knights on a long march to the rear of the building and outside into a beautiful farming area.  The Holy Gardens the monks called it.  To the east was a small graveyard. 

 

Father Steele showed them a marker:  Here Lies The Great Quixotic, The Model For All Chivalry.

 

Lancelot gasped.  He turned to Sir Quixotic. What....

 

Sir Quixotic took the beaten and rusty bucket from his head and handed it to Lancelot.

 

This is what you seek.  You have passed all the tests.  And with that the knight evaporated into the mist.

 

The bucket glowed and the two remaining knights saw the wondrous aura with awe as they bent down on their knees.

 

THIS IS THE HOLY VESSEL OF OUR LORD JESU CHRISTE. YOU CANNOT TAKE THIS WITH YOU. BUT YOU MUST TELL OTHERS OF WHAT OCCURRED ON THIS SACRED GROUND.

 

And with that, the Holy Pail rose into the ether.

 

I read an article by Ezra Klein the other day, in the liberal American Prospect magazine (Yes, I do try to read both sides) called, "The Argument Over Inequality, The myth of individual exceptionalism may undermine society on the whole."

The title grabbed my attention, after all, I always believed that individual exceptionalism was a real thing. Since I was a child, I was sure that there were people in my family and in society who were exceptional in one way or another. Not only that, I have often thought that perhaps I was exceptional in one way or another, that I had something special to add to society. Yet Mr. Klein was here to tell me that actually, everything I thought about exceptionalism and personal achievement is wrong, and might actually be BAD for "society on the whole." Surprising.

Klein starts by using CBO numbers dishonestly to establish that our current system of capitalism is unfair:

"2006 is now the most unequal year on record. The number to remember is 5,800 percent. That's how much the incomes of the bottom 20 percent would have increased since 1979 if they had been given the same $863,000 pay increase as the average member of the top 1 percent.

That didn't happen, of course. Instead, the number was 11 percent, or $1,600. That was the raise given to the bottom quintile during the past 30 years. Altogether, it could almost buy you a Macbook Air. Almost."

Never mind that the "poor" is a fluid definition in America, as opposed to most other countries in the history of man where the class you were born into was most likely the class you'd die in. Never mind that people who are poor in America today often move up tommorrow if they work at it, and sometimes those who are rich today, aren't always so rich tommorrow, all thanks to our "unequal" system of capitalism.

Using Bell's invention of the telephone and Darwin's evolution research as examples, Klein goes on to suggests that it's simply not fair for a select few to reap rewards for various inventions. After all, every invention builds on the technology that comes before it, and often times there are "parallel inventions." Someone, sooner or later, would have invented the magic doohicky:

"That is often the dull reality of progress: It follows a comma rather than a paragraph break. A field of research achieves a critical mass of ideas and underlying concepts and the next step becomes clear to a number of experts. A mixture of timing, PR savvy, and aggressive legal representation decides the name that gets etched into the history books. But the credit, properly distributed, should really accrue to the collective knowledge and expertise of society."

Think about that for a second. "The credit, properly distributed, should really accrue to the collective..." But society didn't invent the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell did. And he didn't do it for the collective. He did it for his own selfish reasons and thank god for that. Bell gets the credit, and society gets to use the telephone.

The article gets worse from here, thankfully it's short. Like Mr. Klein's intelligence. The problem is that this "collective" versus "the individual" mindset isn't just Mr. Klein's bright idea. To use one of President Obama's favorite lyrical instruments, this "false choice" of collectivism versus individualism, is the stock in trade of the left. This idea is the root of what Obama was talking about when he was promising hope and change. Hope for all of those folks who don't push themselves to reach a higher level in life, change for those who do.

Call it "The Myth of American Unexceptionalism."

On the foreign policy front, President Obama has operated from a position of equanimity with the rest of the world's nations. In many ways, Obama actually positions the US as a bad actor in the international community - America has to gain forgiveness for it's actions from the rest of the world. Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, unless by exceptionalism you mean exceptionally bad.

The truth could not be farther from reality. America has had it's foibles, we've certainly made mistakes. But on the whole, the international "community" if you could call it that, has a lot more to apologize for than we do. Never mind the miles long list of positives America has contributed to the world, as well as the less quantifiable benefits of our democratic nation's mere presence as a the sole superpower.

The leftist will stop me right here and make the tired claim that the "last eight years" have destroyed America's reputation abroad. But this common refrain cannot survive even a modest study. How exactly is that true and who is doing the judging? France's Sarkozy was friends with Bush, and may have a man crush on Obama. Germany's Merkel has been a long time ally with the US, pre-Obama and now post. The UK's alliance with the US has been unshakeable, and looks to continue that way for years to come, even if we do give their leaders thoughtless gifts. So who hates us really? Russia? Spain? Bitch, pleeeze.

Despite this, President Obama went on his apology tour and made clear that the dastardly actions of the past administration will not be carried forth in Obama's new America. The crowds liked it but in terms of yield, there has been no benefit thus far. On the other hand, Obama's relinquishing our role as the sole superpower and defering to a dysfuntional U.N., the resulting loss of America as a true beacon of hope and an inspiration for freedom and democracy, will have it's costs, both in terms of America's direct interests, as well as the progress of democratic progress throughout the world.

Obama's entire domestic platform is based on an overt sense of establishing unexceptionalism. Bailing out irresponsible borrowers and corporations on the backs of tax payers (most of which are considered "rich") or close to it is yet another venture into the realm of unexceptionalism. After all, it's those who were responsible with their borrowing, exceptional by today's standards, who have to pay for the mistakes of the unexceptional, the irresponsible.

Obama's definition of fairness doesn't take personal acheivement into account at all, except in reverse. Obama wants to restore "fairness" to the tax code but his changes will mean an already lopsided contribution scheme will only get worse. Obama favors raising capital gains on the wealthy, even if it stymies investment, because (he says) it's fair. It's not fair to the investors, whom already likely pay more in taxes than fully 40 plus-percent of the populace. Nor is it fair to the market itself. So who is really gaining from this fairness? Truth be told, no one, and I guess in that respect you can call it fair. Yet all this fairness does is encourage people to be less exceptional.

But the biggest area in terms of inspiring America to be unexceptional is in President Obama's health care plans. Americans are so equal, so unexceptional in their individual merits, that access to health care should be equal regardless of what they contribute to society.

The left will call me heartless for not caring about the 50 million uninsured, they will say that Obama is only offering health care to those who don't have it and the rest of us can continue to use our existing health care plans. However, by providing a government sponsored alternative, employers have no reason to continue paying into a private sector health care system, and this will ultimately lead to it's demise. This will impact not just the quality of health care across the board but also the level of ingenuity and advancement, given to us by exceptional doctors and researchers, whose individual work has benefited the collective.

The very people Obama has forwarded to run with the government take over of America's health care industry invariably support rationing as the main means to lower costs. (Tom Daschle wrote about rationing health care extensively in his book). Rationing is the ultimate expression of unexceptionalism - we are all so damn terribly equal and unexceptional in our individualism. Mere drones in the bees nest we call America. Even if there was a 1 in 20 chance that a certain procedure might help, it will be stricken from the arsenal to reduce costs, in the name of what's best for the hive. Yet we are not bees.

Perhaps at a high enough altitude, such moves in order to reduce the cost of health care on the collective, in order to make it more available, sounds fair. But to the guy who put in exceptional effort throughout his work life, being denied treatment that might save his life, on the grounds of "comparative effectiveness research" isn't really fair to him or his family.

All of this to solve the problem of health care. But there are other solutions to providing care to the uninsured who need it, and lowering costs, without dismantling one of the great industries in America whose improvements to the collective American quality of life has been nothing short of exceptional (please don't get me started on the United States' WHO ranking, even considering it's high cost).

The lessons learned from communism and socialism directly refute the sorry ideas of the left and Mr. Klein. The great experiment that is America proves that individual and American exceptionalism has benefited the collective way more than any other invention in history, especially those created in the name of fairness. True fairness is freedom. Freedom to be selfish even.

Fact is, individual exceptionalism is responsible for every single great thing that we benefit from in our lives today. Up till now, America has celebrated and encouraged the individual who was exceptional. I'm hoping that this doesn't change or America's exceptionalism will truly become a myth.

Bruce Reed hits the nail on the head in Slate with his article "Binge, don't purge: With Specter's switch, Democrats should heed the lesson the GOP forgot: An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.".

Democrats should take that lesson to heart. This morning, prominent bloggers Chris Bowers and Markos Moulitsas greeted Specter with considerably less than a Hallmark welcome. Bowers complained that the switch "doesn't help progressives at all" and called Specter "the Democrat Most Deserving of a Primary Challenge." He failed to note the obvious irony in pushing Democrats to adopt the very strategy conservative ideologues had used to send Specter running into our arms: a concerted campaign to purge nonideologues who dare to buck orthodoxy or express occasional dissent. [my emphasis]

...

Two years ago, pro-choice advocates tried to persuade Harry Reid and Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Chair Chuck Schumer not to endorse Casey, a pro-life Democrat. Reid and Schumer told them Casey would be the strongest candidate to oust Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. They were right: In a state John Kerry won by just 51 percent to 49 percent, Casey walloped Santorum by more than 17 points.

...

If voters are forced to choose between a party of narrow minds and a party willing to listen to different points of view, they will make the same judgment as Arlen Specter: Open minds beat closed ones every time.

There's a good lesson here for liberals:

We should embrace pluralism and diversity, even as we uphold our core values, such as individual dignity and social responsilibity.We can agree to disagree, and the dialogue of diverse views makes us stronger, not weaker. 

The purists think that strength comes in sameness, from getting rid of those that disagree. I don't. America proves otherwise, and the current big Tent of the Democratic party does too. And liberalism is in fact about respect for viewpoints, unlike the much more authoritarian GOP. We disagree most of the time. That's a good thing.

This is a very brief blog.  I'll be honest.  I'm still affected by that last blog where I tried to help us "feel" the intimacy of torture.  So I've been in need of protecting myself.  But this is an article I'd like to bring to your attention.  Written by a physician, as she contemplates her own work as a surgeon in light of the torture memos.  If you have time, read it all:

Having trained medical students, I've come to recognize a familiar pattern of behavior when young doctors hold a scalpel for the very first time. Most people -- actually anyone who has experienced even a paper cut -- are hesitant to slice through flesh...

"Really, me?" I asked, the first time I was handed the knife. I cupped my hand as if to accept a communion wafer but was taken aback by the scalpel's weight, a sure sign in my mind of the instrument's gravitas. Like doctors-in-training before and after me, I wrapped my fingers around the handle in a kind of death grip and winced as the belly of the blade touched the patient's body. And as much as I'd like not to admit it, my hand shook, so great was my fear of pushing too hard and slicing too deep.

.......

Two weeks ago, the Justice Department declassified four memos regarding the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush Administration and used by the C.I.A. with senior level Al Qaeda members. The details of these documents made my skin crawl;

........

What renders a surgeon's work different and humane, however, is not just the individual doctor's desire to do the right thing by his or her patients (though I seriously wonder if Jay Bybee thought he was doing the right thing by his fellow Americans when he listed the 10 acceptable interrogation techniques, waterboarding among them). It is the surgeon's commitment to and steadfast compliance with his profession's code of ethical conduct. It is a constant awareness of the extraordinary trust that patients and the public place in their physicians, a trust that entails transparency and accountability in the patient-doctor relationship.

As I see it, the problem now with these documents is not that our trust in those accountable has been shattered. It is that the rest of us are beginning to show signs of becoming habituated to such transgressions.

I present this without comment.  Any comments I could make have already been presented in a myriad of blogs I have written on the subject.  Right now, like a maple tree that's been tapped for sap, I'm tapped out.

Apparently I'm not habituated.

_______________________________________________________

On an unrelated note, unless you consider that surgery and swine flu relate to medicine, here is a very interesting article about the relationship between factory farming of animals and the potential for new viruses to evolve.

Warning:  While true, this post may be offensive to some...if not all.

Georgia candidate for governor says sex with mules, watermelon behind him

Georgia Creator's Rights Party candidate for governor, Neal Horsley, who is running on the "nullification" platform  has an interesting background that's going to make the state's 2010 election cycle one for the history books...

A snippet:

Neal Horsley:  "When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule..."

The New York Times recently published an article about Fructose increasing the risk of heart attacks, taking care to note that, "The study did not test high-fructose corn syrup ... and judgments should not be made about it from the findings." And the grey lady published another article noting that American shoppers were eschewing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) for our old friend, Sugar.

My wife and I have been avoiding products with HFCS for quite some time now, and spending a little more to do so. We had noticed that products with HFCS seem to aggravate her Irritable Bowel Syndrome and my Acid Reflux. Drinking a Big Gulp of iced tea or soda from 7-11 almost guarantees me a night of chewing Gaviscon tablets to stop the bubbling feeling deep in my gullet. So I, as the Doctor in the joke says, "Don't do that!" We also later read in various places that HFCS affected the balance of leptin and ghrelin that tell us that we've eaten enough.

Now Scicurious at the blog, Neurotopia v2.0, takes on the bad reputation of HFCS, distinguishing between pure Glucose, pure Fructose and the mixes of these sweet substances that are called Sucrose and HFCS.

The skinny is that Scicurious concludes that HFCS might not be so much worse for you than table sugar, not that you want to be eating so much of either.

UPDATE: Scicurious bases her comparison on HFCS-42 and HFCS-55, which are 42% and 55% fructose respectively, thus not too different than Sucrose in fructose content. However, HFCS-90 is commonly used as well, for mixing with HFCS-42 to make HFCS-55, for sweetening of baked goods, and as noted in this ADM infopage for sweetening of diet foods:

Cornsweet® 90, containing about 90% fructose, is ADM's sweetest high fructose corn syrup. Its high sweetness makes it the ideal choice for reduced calorie foods such as beverages, jellies and dressings. Normal room temperature storage is sufficient to prevent crystallization and minimize color development.

Given that any listed HFCS might be 90% fructose, I can't simply accept Scicurious' conclusion that HFCS is not much worse than ordinary sugar.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4814

Those guys and gals over at the NRA.  Ya just can't get anything past them!!! 

The Humane Society is advocating greater regulation of dog breeding and the NRA is suggesting that their real goal is intended to put dog breeders and kennel owners out of business.   If one was watching Animal Planet's exposure of the practices in some of these puppy mills, where animals never get off the wire floors, where their feces are left for days and where dead animals are left in the cages with the mothers and siblings to rot, one has to wonder whether the goal is actually simply to put an end to these abuses.  The kennels featured all had recently renewed licenses provided by bureaucrats who felt their hands were tied by too few regulations.  The law demands there only be food and water, so if the food is rotting and the water rancid, that does not preclude it from being food and water in the legal sense.  What judges allowed these definitions to be so narrow as to irradicate their intended meanings and perpetuate the torture of animals?

The NRA goes on to write, "The fact is that they want to ban all hunting in America, especially hunting with dogs, since it radically opposes animal ownership."  This is being described as a fact, but I have to ask, if the Humane Society opposes animal ownership, then why are there so many adoption centers?  I don't know.  The NRA makes a lot of money so they have to be smarter then I am, but does that make sense to anyone else?

As for banning all hunting in America, I think the NRA is getting the Humane Society confused with PETA.  Yes, I believe they are opposed to sport hunting, the killing of animals that are not going to be eaten, but I am unsure they oppose all hunting.  The Humane Society is not fighting Col. Sanders about his vile and filthy chicken operations, or Tyson, for that matter.  It appears to me to be focused on a more narrow focus, a quality life for animals based on certain minimal standards which are more then what we have today on the books.

Let me leave with a stand-up joke I once heard.  The comedian was sharing news accounts of how people were being shot and killed in New York City just so the thieves could take their fur coats.  The comedian was furious and declared opposition to this practice.  She declared, "I believe if you are going to shoot someone just for their furs, you should have to eat them too!"         

Here are my 'casting choices'' for "Casino Jack:"

Jack Abramoff: Kevin Spacey
Ralph Reed: Rob Lowe
Grover Norquist:  Russell Crowe
Michael Scanlon:  Paul Bettany
Tom Delay: Spencer Garrett
Conrad Burns:  Chris Cooper
Bob Ney:  James Spader (weight gain)
John Doolittle:  Wayne Knight
Steven Grilies:  Brian Dennehy
Kevin Ring: Kevin Costner
Italia Federici: Bonnie Hunt

Wow, so here you have it. "George said it was okay, and I didn't authorize anything, I just received the authorization and passed it on down the line." A perfect Richard Nixon moment:

 

Patience...wearing....thin.....

Read more »

We've been debating in great detail what is and isn't torture, did we torture, who authorized it, how harmful is it, etc., etc.

Well, come to find out all the torture did not occur on foreign soil. Those of us who stay away from Faux News were not subjected to it, but a large portion of the country was...

This video is hard to watch, but if you love your country, you owe it to yourself to see what is being done to your fellow countrymen (and women.)

There was some discussion on another thread yesterday about how in some areas of the country the only cable news available on basic cable is Faux. That would certainly explain why their ratings are so much higher than those of MSNBC. But I digress. The point is, this is what your fellow citizens are being subjected to. When you write your elected officials regarding torture, you may want to mention this, as well. If this is not considered torture, it should be. If I had to listen to this crap day after day after day, I would confess to anything to make it stop.

by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger

It's no shock that those long-opposed to All Things Immigrant are using the Swine Flu outbreak--which has mostly affected Mexicans at this point--to ratchet anti-immigrant rhetoric up to an irresponsible level. It's disappointing though, especially because the last few weeks saw more rational dialogue emerging in media coverage. This week's Wire examines the voices talking about immigration both in the media and on the ground, from those recycling age-old "eliminationist" rhetoric to those who put their own bodies on the line to fight for inclusive justice.

In AlterNet, Joshua Holland uses history to contextualize virulent statements hurled by anti-immigrant pundits like Michael Savage. Holland deftly debunks numerous anti-immigrant, right-wing myths using a historical lens: By tying the source of contagion to immigrants, today's pundits are echoing age old patterns that "contributed to a series of pogroms in which thousands were burned alive" in 14th Century Europe. Just what are today's pundits saying? Savage asks "Could this be a terrorist attack through Mexico?" Michelle Malkin, Bill O' Reilly and Neil Boortz agree: "[W]hat better way to sneak a virus into this country than give it to Mexicans?" shrieks Boortz.

While Colorado lawmakers aren't using such frantic hyperbole, they are doing nothing to dispel the state's reputation as heavy-handed when it comes to immigration enforcement. On Monday, the Democratic-controlled state legislature introduced a non-binding Joint Memorial that requests the use of DNA technology and expanded local police powers to "identify, arrest, and detain" immigrants. If granted, the request would allow the state to use "biometric identification--like DNA tracking--and federal databases to create in enforcement dragnet," according to Erin Rosa of The Colorado Independent. Rosa also reports on scary developments in enforcement technology that attempt to mend the gap between the federal government's lack of reform and the needs of each state.

Not all harsh enforcement measures result from a lack of federal legislation. A Republican-led Congress passed a law in 1996 restricting the ability of immigrants to challenge the legality of their deportation," as Rochelle Bobroff and Harper Jean Tobin report for New America Media. The measure is pointedly cruel: It allows courts to proceed with deportation even if an asylum-seeker will be endangered upon their explication. Though there is a provision that the courts can use to rule otherwise, this law represents yet another policy that needs to be revisited when the White House negotiates humane and effective reform.

Writing for AlterNet, Frank Sharry reports on the divide deepening between moderate Democrats, who are "ready to tackle common sense reform" and Republican "hardliners." "While Democrats seem to be making headway," Sharry writes, "The Republican Party continues to be dogged by Minutemen hard-liners who oppose practical solutions."

The political gap is growing, as other groups draw together. RaceWire's Michelle Chen reports on the Black Immigration Network, "the first national network concerned about immigration issues and racial equity issues surrounding both African Americans and immigrants of African descent." This Network is important because it bridges historical tensions between the two communities. And as Chen makes clear, there are people who exploit such divides to their own benefit.

The effects of the Iraq war, while a much quieter subject in today's news cycle, are still playing out. AlterNet's Nina Berman tells the tragic story of Iraqi refugees who are struggling in the poor U.S. economy and lack adequate help to get ahead. Omar Ibrahim is one such refugee who came to Texas in 2008. He is still jobless and family back in Iraq doesn't quite understand. "They know that America is a dream," Ibrahim says, "but it is a bad dream."

Finally, in an inspiring show of activism, Public News Service's Mary Kuhlman reports on two nuns who engages in civil disobedience at a Chicago ICE detention facility to draw attention to the fight for human (immigrant) rights. Obama's 100th day marked their "tipping point," after more than two years of prayer vigils. They needed to try something different. The nuns' agenda? Making it possible for detained immigrants to see religious workers. Immigrants, many of them asylum seekers, are isolated even from their families. In this particular case, the women's actions paid off.

At play today in our immigration debate are warring philosophies of who a "people" are and what we owe each other for simply belonging to the same human family. On one side, frothing, fearful punditry stoke division and hostility. And on the other, fearless and brave activists champion for our better natures. It is no small battle.

 

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.

If the health issue expands at all even if it has receded by next spring the fear will hang on.

Comments on Illegal Activity Against American Civilians In Wake of Torture

Frank Rich in a NYT editorial suggests, before the US invasion of Iraq, there was an effort to fabricate information to establish the (dubious) connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

The goal of this fabricated information and connection, in Rich's view, was to make the case to invade Iraq.  In short, illegal POW abuse -- and the dubious information supposedly collected  -- 'justified' an unsubstantiated war.

What else was 'justified' on the back of invalid information or dubious legal arguments?

Read more »

This is pure and utter bull shit !

You know, I've looked at the evidence so far that
indicates that other countries that have not seen
some of the problems in their financial markets
that we have nevertheless don't separate between
investment banks and commercial banks, for
example. They have a "supermarket" model that
they've got strong regulation of.

Playing right into to their hands.

Keep in mind, though, I mean, I have enormous
respect for somebody like Joe Stiglitz. I read his
stuff all the time. I actually am looking forward
to having these folks in for ongoing discussion.
Somebody who has enormous influence over my
thinking is Paul Volcker, who is robust enough
that, having presided over the Carter and Reagan
years, he's still sharp as a tack and able to
give me huge advice and to provide some
counterbalance.

Volker ??? Give me a break...he's nothing but another
"Free Market" Reaganomics clown.

The last point I'd make, though, is I think
that - and I may have mentioned this to you
- but now that I think about it, maybe it was
post-election. When I first started having a round
table of economic advisers, and Bob Reich was part
of that, and he was sitting across the table from
Bob Rubin and others, what you discovered was that
some of the rifts that had existed back in the
Clinton years had really narrowed drastically.

Obama maybe a good speaker but he's just as in bed with
the Wall Street greed-heads as Reagan or Bush.

C

This morning, I saw something hilarious on YouTube.  Senator Inhofe (R-OK) went on Fox "News" to talk about how since Specter jumped ship to avoid certain death in a Pennsylvania closed Republican primary, the Republicans can mount a counter-offensive in the 2010 elections because ideological purity somehow gives them legitimacy.  It seems to me that the Senator from Oklahoma needs a lesson in recent PA political history.

Pennsylvania is a political double-stuffed oreo.  Blue on the edges, with a big creamy red center known fondly as Pennsyltucky. One need only ask Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pennsyltucky) to find out that the "Hillary Democrats" of this area are terrified both of black people and the government coming to their doorsteps trying to take away their guns.  Imagine the terror a black secret islamo-fascist gungrabber must inspire!

Despite having vast swaths of red through it, Pennsylvania had millions of democratic crossovers this year, enough to make the GOP preemptively cry voter fraud.  While there were concerns that a lot of these new registrations were to boost Hillary, and that the white creamy center of the Pennsyltucky Oreo would never vote for Obama, on election night my home state went firmly blue (Solidified by Obama calling for NCAA football playoffs on election eve, something Penn State fans have been after for decades.  No surprise I didn't see much about that in the MSM).

The point is that most of these new democrats (barring the Operation Chaos bozos) didn't change their registration back.  Turns out that mixed in amongst the racists, militia nuts and teabaggers were a lot of reasonable people who happen to have centrist political views, who might just be registered Republican because all their neighbors are.  Perhaps these people have even been nudged a little left of center by the epic failure of the Bush administration, and are now open to ideas they found reprehensible when Clinton proposed them with Reagan's "golden age" in recent memory. 

These reasonable Republicans were Specter's key demographic in the Republican primary.  Now that democrats control the center in the political chessgame, especially in PA, those on the center must join with the democrats or perish, as those voting in the Republican primaries will likely vote how Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh tell them to.  The reason Specter can't win a primary on the Republican side isn't that your moronic teabagger movement fired up your party against centrists, it's because all the centrists got fired up against your party and quit in 2008.

Rendell just announced that he expects Specter to run unopposed.  If he changes his mind on EFCA and starts voting more like a democrat, I would have no problem with this.  However, if he doesn't, I'd like to have a choice between Specter and a more liberal candidate.  Of course, the winner will breeze through the general election against whatever sacrifical lamb the GOP throws up. 

Moreover, this isn't just a PA problem for the Republicans.  The loss of the special election in upstate New York (an area considered similar to Pennsyltucky by the city crowd) shows that Democrats are becoming a silent majority in all but the reddest parts of the country.  How ironic. 

The dems have a material advantage, great pawn structure (experienced fundraisers and field organizers), a brilliant tactician in Obama at the helm, and now have complete control of the center of the board.  At the risk of beating the chess analogy to death, the Republicans have no option left but to tip their king over and start from scratch.  That is unless the economy blows up so badly we're living in shanty towns eating tuna straight from the can.

I stopped eating pigs after getting myself sick at around age 12. Greeezy pork chops were never my thing, and the fat is slimier than beef or chicken fat. That film of fat is what led me upstairs to puke in the pot. Since then it's become more reasonable, and the top reason is the factory farm with its pig-shit lagoon. But don't forget the prolific way pigs can incubate and promote diseases other animals can't. I've made exactly two digressions since.

From the Guardian:

"A court in Spain has today opened an investigation into torture allegations against US military personnel at the Guantánamo detention centre.

Judge Baltasar Garzón, an investigating magistrate at the National Court in Madrid, said he would investigate allegations made by four detainees who were held at the centre and later released without charges, according to a court document quoted by the Spanish press.

The torture allegations include "sexual abuse", "beating" and the throwing of fluids into prisoners' eyes.

A recent decision by the Obama administration to release documents about Guantánamo helped the judge conclude that a police investigation, which could lead to criminal charges, was necessary.

"This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law and to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it," he said."

In 2001 Robert J. Hanyok, the official historian of the National Security Agency, concluded that the NSA had deliberately distorted reports about the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” which produced the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” which authorized Lyndon Johnson to fight a full-scale war in Vietnam.

Congress gave Lyndon Johnson more or less unlimited power to “defend the United States” after North Vietnamese gun-boats apparently attacked an American destroyer on August 2 and August 4, 1964, but there were no attacks.

“There was nothing there but black water and American fire power.”

The NSA immediately classified Hanyok’s report “top secret” and buried it in a black hole where it remained until 2005, when bits of it were leaked to the New York Times.

39 years later the Director of the CIA gave Colin Powell a little bottle to wave at the United Nations. “It could be anthrax!”

Look at that moron! He’s waving a little bottle!

Let’s go to war!

Congress and the press couldn’t look at the evidence about Vietnam and Iraq, because all of it was secret, except for whatever supported the case for war.

But suppose there were no secrets, and all that garbage about phony attacks and non-existent weapons of mass destruction had been laid out for all the world to see.

There’s obviously a very big upside: 58,000 American soldiers don’t die in Vietnam, and 2,000,000 Asians don’t die in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, and 1,200,000 Iraqis don’t die in Iraq, along with 5,000 American soldiers…

But what’s the downside? What ever would we do without George Tenet, who couldn’t find his own butt in a bathtub?

The downside is a secret.

On balance, it was a not too terrible day here on Sanford's Plantation, formerly known as the Great State of South Carolina.

On the one hand, we had the latest in the long-running torrent of fatuous comments by our junior senator, flagged this morning by TPM's Jim Kurtz.

Using tortured logic that would make even the governor proud, Senator DeMint predictably named unions as the culprits in the GOP's failure to win Pennsylvania last November. Not, of course, because they played a key role in healing the wounds of a divisive Democratic primary and rallying blue collar workers around Obama's candidacy. The real reason, according to DeMint, is fear of unions that drove working class Republicans from the Rust Belt into the welcoming embrace of the right-to-work South.

Whatever. I was willing to give the senator a pass on this one. Maybe he lost his train of thought, or suffered a moment of divine inspiration. But his subsequent branding of Club for Growth posterboy Pat Toomey as a "mainstream candidate" sealed the deal. Sigh.

All, however, was not lost. This afternoon, the latest round in what has become an endless fusillade of private school choice legislation was moved out of a senate education subcommittee on a 6-4 vote, with an "unfavorable" recommendation. The negative recommendation significantly reduces the bill's chances in the full committee.

The fight is far from over, but public school advocates are breathing a sigh of relief. Providing tax credits to parents who send their children to private -- read religious -- schools is one of the governor's pet projects, and his drive has been bankrolled by out-of-state zealots who view South Carolina's children as pawns in an amusing board game.

Under the tired rubric that competition will cure all ills, these disingenuous legislative gambits would do nothing to improve access to quality education. Private schools go where the money is, and the majority of South Carolinians can't afford the tuition even with a tax credit. The net effect would be further erosion in an already fragile public school system and subsidized religious education for the wealthy. Praise the Lord and pass the vouchers. The beat goes on.

With all due respect to those who believe the administration should make prosecuting war crimes its top priority, as the parent of a public school seventh grader this kind of stuff scares me crapless.

I can't yet let go of the "torture memos," and I'll be posting more commentary on the legal and ethical problems that Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and others face for trying to justify the unjustifiable.

But I'm also bothered by what I can only call "torture denial."  People who are saying that it wasn't really that painful, the standards were vague, some lawyers said it was okay, we had good reasons, it was effective, other countries do even worse, etc.

And so I'm going to want to address the justifications, rationalizations, and denials.

But for now I have a simple question:  Does it work both ways?

Is it okay for Al Qaeda to waterboard our soldiers until they vomit?  Is it okay for our sons and daughters to be kept awake for up to 10 days by bright lights and loud noises, while they are so cold that they shiver uncontrollably and their very bones ache from the cold?  Is it okay to spit on the Bible?  Do we have any problem with Americans being shackled in positions that eventually cause them to scream in pain?

Do we accept the principle that our enemies can apply pain to our friends and keep applying increasing amounts of pain until our friends break and are willing to say whatever our enemies want them to say?

Because that is what "harsh interrogation" (and "torture") means.  You apply pressure and stress and pain until the subject does what you want.  If that is acceptable for us, is it also acceptable for Al Qaeda and Iran and North Korea and anyone else in the world?

Saying "We're the good guys" isn't good enough.  It's not enough to talk the talk.  We also have to walk the walk.

Are we willing to accept a "level playing field" for pain and suffering, and allow our enemies the same liberties that we have allowed ourselves?

H. Pylori, friend or foe...?

When H. Pylori, a corkscrew shaped bacteria, was discovered in 1982 to cause peptic ulcers, it was immediately declared an enemy.  Since then infection rates in developed countries have dropped dramatically.  

From Wikipedia

At least half the world's population are infected by the bacterium, making it the most widespread infection in the world.^[57] Actual infection rates vary from nation to nation; the Third World has much higher infection rates than the West (Western Europe, North America, Australasia), where rates are estimated to be around 25%.^[57] Infections are usually acquired in early childhood in all countries.^[8] However, the infection rate of children in developing nations is higher than in industrialized nations, probably due to poor sanitary conditions. In developed nations it is currently uncommon to find infected children, but the percentage of infected people increases with age, with about 50% infected for those over the age of 60 compared with around 10% between 18 and 30 years.^[57] The higher prevalence among the elderly reflects higher infection rates when they were children rather than infection at later ages.^[8] The lower rate of infection in the West is largely attributed to higher hygiene standards and widespread use of antibiotics.^[61]

Data strongly suggests that H. Pylori is also implicated in causing or worsening stomach cancer too.   

Stomach cancer, also called gastric cancer, is the second most common type of cancer worldwide. In developing countries where the rate of H. pylori is very high, the risk of stomach cancer is 6 times higher than in the U.S. Evidence now suggest that H. pylori may be as carcinogenic to the stomach as cigarette smoke is to the lungs.

Eradication of H. pylori may reduce the risk of stomach cancer, but not eliminate it. A continued risk is associated with the degree of damage to the mucous membranes sustained before H. pylori treatment started. The damage can be measured during an endoscopy.

So where's the problem?  Well, like many things we dont understand fully, H. Pylori is hard to pigeon hole neatly.  For starters it has a complicated history with humans and about 7 years ago it was discovered that it has been infecting humans for at least 11,000 years.

"H. pylori has been living in the human gut for a minimum of 11,000 years, but probably far longer," says Martin Blaser, professor of microbiology, who led the research.

Previously, it was believed that the Europeans introduced H. pylori to the Americas at the time of Columbus in the 15^th Century. There is also evidence from Egyptian mummies that H pylori infected people about 1800 years ago.

The bacterium is associated with the development of peptic ulcers and gastric cancer, raising the question of how a damaging bug has persisted in humans for so long.

But Blaser told New Scientist: "More than 90 per cent of people with H. pylori never get ulcers or stomach cancer and anyway these diseases only occur after reproductive age, so they do not effect natural selection,"

More recently the same scientist has continued to tease out the complicated relationship.:

It is a mistake, according to Dr Blaser, to think of H. pylori as just another pathogen. He reckons that it is better perceived as a symbiont that is sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful. The evidence suggests that its relatives have been living in mammalian stomachs since the mammals began, some 150m years ago. It, itself, has been around for at least 60,000 years and until about 50 years ago it infected 70-80% of the human population. Now, as a consequence of the routine use of antibiotics for such things as ear infections, only 5% of American children have it. That change, he thinks, is having consequences.

Dr Blaser has discovered, for example, that H. pylori helps to regulate stomach-acid levels in a way that is usually helpful to both itself and its host. If the human side of the loop gets too strong, and the stomach becomes too acid, the bug may produce a substance called cag. The intended effect of this, Dr Blaser thinks, is to say "turn down the acid level". However, cag also has a side-effect. It is toxic to the stomach lining, and it is this toxicity that provokes the ulcers and cancers for which H. pylori is notorious.

The obvious medical temptation--and, indeed, what has happened in practice--is to annihilate the bacterium with antibiotics. That works as an anti-ulcer treatment, but when H. pylori goes its homeostatic effect goes with it, allowing the strength of the stomach acid to rise chronically. This acid has a tendency to spill out of the top of the stomach and into the oesophagus. That has unpleasant consequences. In fact the recent drop in H. pylori infections has almost exactly matched the rise in gastroesophageal reflux disease (which feels like bad heartburn). Over time, the damage the excess acid does to the walls of the oesophagus may cause cancer.

The link with asthma has a different mechanism. When Dr Blaser and his colleague Yu Chen analysed a health and nutrition database called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, they found that American children between the ages of three and 13 who are infected with H. pylori are 60% less likely to have asthma than their uninfected contemporaries. They believe this is because H. pylori makes the immune system more robust. The lack of it lowers the threshold for responding to a foreign protein that might come from a pathogen. As a result, things like pollen and mites trigger responses even though they are not, actually, dangerous. This idea is similar to the "hygiene hypothesis" that the super-clean environment of the modern world fails to challenge children's immune systems enough for their own good, and thus opens the way for conditions such as asthma. It differs, however, in that Dr Blaser thinks humanity has co-evolved with the bugs that prime the immune system, rather than picking them up at random.

Its always important to remember when dealing with our microbiome, theres a a lot we don't know.  We think were advanced medically because we are learning to adeptly deal with problems, but often we fail to map out the consequences of the solutions.  In otherwords, we often solve one problem and create two others. 

Stay Tuned...

Red Cross