Once we conclude that it is acceptable to torture some detainees in some situations, I think there will be only the briefest of pauses before we conclude that we must torture all detainees in every situation. Here's why. 

With regard to torture, we have been told that only detainees possessing certain information have been or will be tortured, and then only as an enhanced technique, after ordinary interrogation methods do not succeed. 

But how is it determined whether a detainee has torture-worthy information? Was he named by another detainee? Condemned by an enemy or rival?

And how is it determined when a not-tortured detainee has divulged all the information he has? 

If an interrogator is not getting results, then torture must follow. How can an interrogator tell the difference between a detainee that has torture-worthy information but is just holding out, and a detainee who has no useful information, without torturing him? If we are allowed to torture, then we must eventually torture every detainee to be sure we have exhausted his knowledge. And if we are going to torture him anyway, then why bother with preliminaries?

Even a detainee who spills his guts immediately must be tortured, because he might just be trying to put one over on the interrogator by pretending to be cooperative.

If we don't know which detainees have torture-worthy information, we must torture all of them.

And if it is acceptable to torture detainees, what distinction can be made for ordinary criminal defendants or suspects? How long would Scooter Libby have withstood waterboarding before he gave up Dick Cheney? How long would Cheney have held out before he admitted that he ordered Scooter to blow Valerie Plame's cover?

Torture must be an all-or-nothing proposition. Either every one of the detainees must be tortured, or none. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

The "review" the White House and DoD have (partially) done is incomplete, in our view.

There are some "lessons learned from 9-11" that should have been coordinated. They were not.

Read more »

We all know that since taking over the White House the Obamas have changed many things in Washington. From the mundane like unexpected visits to a Burger joint to the more cultural and politically sensitive, such as observing the National Day of Prayer with his family in private, and not turning it into a public ceremony like the former President.

But it seems the Obamas are not yet finished giving the nation's capital a much needed makeover. In wake of tonight's White House Correspondence Dinner, Politico asked, "has Obama turned Washington D.C. to the new Hollywood?" (See Dinner Dash via Politico)

The dinner to tonight has been anticipated for a weeks. Some of compared it to Washington's version of a High School Prom, and the Obamas are clearly Prom King and Queen. The entire week as news companies prepared for the dinner the week was supposedly filled with parties and dinners of the who's who of Washington politics and journalism, and Todd Palin (who is filling Sarah Palin's spot).

Hollywood stars who usually stayed clear of Washington during the Bush years, possibly because they might have suspected that they might be dragged off to a secret prison because they were deemed enemy combatants by the Vice-President from his undisclosed location; however, since Obama took office, slowly but surely they have been creeping back into the District.

Despite initially downplaying John McCain's campaign's assertion last year that Obama was bigger than Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears, when candidate Obama went to Germany, today it doesn't seem as if whoever thought that up was very far off. Americans though do not seem to mind having such a popular president and first family, in fact they seem to indulge it.

One commenter wrote to Jack Cafferty for a segment of The Cafferty File that Michele Obama "calms us", in the sense that even though the country as a whole is going through a series of crises, from the economy to two wars overseas, Mrs. Obama's presence brings up out the best of us and manages to make the situation not seem as bleak. And this is the case with the President as well, despite having the world on his shoulders and a big agenda, his presence still calms most Americans. They can trust him, and trust is the greatest currency in Washington now since the last administration lost whatever it had through a series of political blunders, suspected crimes, and corruption.

In the Era of Obama, so far, Washington has opened up like never before. Because of his ambitious agenda and the all of the ongoing political issues that are at the floor of the three branches of government, the American people find themselves more engaged in politics, not only out of general curiosity--of which there is a lot of interest for the First Family--but also because in many cases their livelihood can be dramatically affected by the stroke of a pen or push of a button, because of legislation like the the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the budget, ongoing struggles with the major car companies, and the big banks. Political engagement is no longer a luxury, but rather a necessity of life these days.

The White House Correspondents' Dinner is packed not just with politicos and journalists, who have nothing better to do than gloat about themselves to themselves, but also Hollywood celebrities, who find themselves in a situation where they are not the stars of the show. Just as interested to get the brief chance the meet the man everyone cannot stop talking about.

Tammy Haddad's, former Hardball with Chris Matthews producer, annual pre-dinner-brunch from the reports looked more like a meeting of A-list celebrities than bunch of journalist. According to Politico people were crossing off names of the people who they already met, as if the event was live-action scavenger hunt. Unfortunately the big prize wouldn't be made available until much later. (See Biggest year yet at Haddad's brunch via Politico)

A while back before President Obama was inaugurated I wondered whether or not, because of his popularity and they American people desire to know more about him, whether or not having People magazine as part of the White House Press Corps would be a bad idea. While surely the President is the nation's chief-executive and should be taken seriously, Americans have taken to seeing this president as not just a politician but a cultural force and symbol of America. He is a celebrity but in the most ideal since of the term.

Let us just hope our country is big enough for two. 

I have taught in the public schools for 20 years.  Please hold you applause.  Seriously,  I have been a part of public education long enough to have learned that some things just don't change.  High school students will always be more interested in each other than in the historically significant.  Current events are whatever the most current gossip sources decree not what is reported in the media.  New is always better than old.  Young is always more important than old. The kids are always at least one step ahead of the grown ups.  Everyone agrees that teachers are the primary reason that American education is broken.  Everyone knows more about how to fix schools than the adults who go to them on a daily basis.

I am a pro-reform educator.  Change is absolutely necessary to make our public schools relevant, forward thinking and successful.  I just don't understand why everyone's ideas as to how to accomplish this change are more valid than mine.  It happened again recently while reading Huffington Post.  Joel Klein, Chancellor of NY Schools, weighed in on how to fix teachers.  His proposals were not at all radical.  Tying tenure to performance rather than to time served.  Using test score to measure and track teacher performance. None of these are necessarily bad ideas.  I don't necessarily disagree with them in principle. However, they are all ideas about things to be done to teachers, not for teachers, not with teachers, but to teachers.  Like the children we teach, we are to be molded and shaped to fit the vision of the powers that be.  Like children we cannot be trusted to develop on our own.  Like children we must be humored and then ignored.  Not only is this attitude insulting; it is also a major roadblock to true education reform.  If we acknowledge that teachers are part of the problem, then we must also see teachers as part of the solution.

The elephant in the room that teachers can see but regulators, politicians and educational experts cannot is that each child is a unique individual.  Even kindergarteners come to school on that very first day with personality and world view largely formed.  They will all learn in different ways and at different rates.  Some will love learning.  Some will not.  Some will embrace knowledge for its own sake.  Some will only learn what is obviously necessary and relevent. Some will wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.  Teachers understand this in a viseral way.  We see it every day.  We work with or fight with these facts every day.  No amount of merit pay or teacher training or test score tracking will change those facts.  Teachers, like doctors and lawyers, cannot guarentee results.  There are simply too many factors to be considered for each individual child.  Multiply that infinite number by the number of kids in a classroom and you can see the problem. We deal with people, not with mathematical formulas.  Good lawyers loose trials.  Good doctors loose patients.  Good teachers loose students.

I don't see much hope for education reform that is top down in its orientation because administraters, politicians, and education academics do not work with kids daily.  The kids are not people to them.  They are statistics, products and test scores.  Until classroom teachers who deal directly with the kids as people each and every day become part of the process of creating real plans for education reform,  we will not succeed.

Teachers can be taught by other teachers cooperatively and respectfully.  Teachers can learn to produce the test scores that the public wants to see if allowed to be part of the process that creates them.  Teachers can be held accountable for student performance if their unique insights and input are part of the process of evaluation.  After all doctors regulate other doctors through the AMA.  Lawyers create and inforce their own rules through the Bar Association.  Teachers can contribute to the process of evaluation of their peers as well. Let us participate in the solutions since we are so clearly set up to be the problem.
    

My mother always used to say I burned the candle at both ends. I have been that way for as long I can remember, and I'm pretty sure it won't change for as long as there is breath in my body. I seem to have an inescapable need to cram enough into one lifetime for three (maybe five) people. And now that I'm pushing 60 pretty hard, I'm noticing an increased sense of urgency.

I want to experience as much of what life has to offer as is possible. Right now I want to spend 10 hours a day (okay, maybe 12) blogging here on TPM...arguing, cajoling, supporting, defending, explaining, questioning, and plain old visiting. I want to have enough time to read every blog, every link, every comment, with plenty of time to write lengthy responses to many of them, and still have time left over to banter and get silly. I want to take the time to study and really understand the subject matter, and form an educated viewpoint. Then I want enough time to write my elected officials and give 'em hell or tell them (infrequently) what a good job I think they are doing.

Additionally, I want to spend 10 hours a day watching my grandchildren so that their mothers can work, yet feel confident that their children will be safe, loved,  and well cared for. I want enough time to make each of the three of them feel important, and that I love each of them as if there is only one of them. I want to teach them their ABCs and 123s, and how to paint and make bugs out of play dough. I want to take them for walks and have time to stop and crawl around on the ground following roly poly bugs, or tracing the ant's tiny steps back to their anthill, and checking the low branches of trees for bird's nests (we actually found one yesterday, with a mama dove sitting on her eggs! What an exciting moment that was!) I want to read to them and teach them to read, and sing and dance, and make musical instruments out of mommy's pots and pans. I want to help them imagine they are fairies and teach them to search for buried treasure, and swing to high enough that they think they'll actually touch the clouds with the tips of their toes. I want to lay with them in the grass and find dragons and ducks hiding in the clouds.

I want to have enough time to keep my house clean (not the kind of clean that keeps the health department away, but the kind where no matter you look there are no dust bunnies scurrying around, no spiders weaving their webs in the untouched corners of the ceiling, no crumbs from last night's dinner waiting to be devoured by a baby who has just discovered that those delights can be found if you keep your eyes open as you crawl around.) I want to put a gourmet meal on the table at least 5 nights a week, not only for my husband, but for my kids, too, so that they have more time to spend with their babies when they get home from a hard day's work instead of spending another hour in the kitchen.

I want time to work in my garden, keep up on my scrapbooks, search out new recipes, have a luxurious hour long cup of coffee in the morning. I want to sit on my patio and listen to the birds chirp and watch them eat the seeds I leave out for them, and splash in their bird baths. I want to take walks in the neighborhood. I want to watch the sun set.

I want time to pray, then time to actually listen for the answers. I want to sort through 25 years worth of photos and momentos and get them into albums before I die, so my kids will have a record of their lives to look back on. I want to volunteer at a food bank and a homeless shelter and the hospital. I want to write a book about my crazy life.

I want to travel...one more trip to the UK, one to Alaska, one to Australia. I want to take a trip on a Russian ice breaker to Antartica to see the penguins while they still have ice to live on. I want to go around the country to meet you guys...

I want to finish the quilt I started two years ago, and paint the dresser for the guest bedroom that has been in the garage taunting me for over a year. I want to decorate for the seasons, indoors and out. I want to go to the gym. I want to lose the weight I've been pissy about for 20 years, and practice yoga, and read the 30 books that laugh at me from the bookcase (and the one a friend wrote that I got 10 chapters into and haven't been able to get back to, even though it's killing me to know what comes next!)

I want to learn how to do Irish dancing, and finish my geneology and once and for all get my scrapbook room looking like the ones in the magazines. I want to make up with my sister, and learn how to forgive my father for what he was unable to be for me. I want to make my husband so happy that he'll never even WANT to leave, let alone do it.

I want to learn how to speak Spanish, explore the Constitution, and write an article so moving that it will have conservatives asking what they can do to help the liberals move their agenda forward. And every once in awhile I'd like to take a nap...just a short one. And that's just off the top of my head...there's much , much more I want to do. You know, world peace, the end of hunger, health care for everyone...

I'd better get busy, I don't have a minute to waste.

 

 
 

Last night I attended the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra's performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and it was nothing short of fabulous!  The St. Louis Symphony is one of the great symphonies in America and every bit of it's excellence was on display in this fantastic rendition of the brilliant 9th Symphony.

If you like Beethoven or if you like the 9th in particular I would encourage you to listen this evening to a live broadcast of this evening's performance which includes 4 incredible soloists and a magnificent and talented choir of well over a hundred voices.  Last night they were outstanding and my guess is, if anything, they will be even better tonight.

Tonight (Saturday evening May 9) you can listen to this live performance at 8 p.m. Central time on the internet to the St. Louis Symphony.  You will not be disappointed. 

The symphony will be broadcasting from Powell Symphony Hall one block north of the Fabulous Fox Theatre in St. Louis.

You can tune in to the broadcast on KFUO 99.1 FM in St. Louis or go here on the internet:

http://www.classic99.com/listennow.htm

The station is broadcasting all day today nothing but the SLSO and they will also be broadcasting the Conductor's pre-concert lecture prior to the performance.  So, pour yourself a glass of wine, turn up your speakers and... enjoy friends!

   The advent of Mother's Day always evokes memories of my own childhood and evolves into the awareness of my own experiences as a mother.  Ironically, these recollections have delivered me to now declare my own views on the torture issues. (Not just about President Obama's hesitation to prosecute the architects, but the use of torture itself.)

   Before entering into the foray to defend or condemn any of the principals, I've attempted to research (including reading many posts here) and review sources relative to the many facets of this issue.

    As I toiled, touchstones my Mother espoused came to mind....

    'Let your conscience be your guide.'

    'Two wrongs don't make a right.'

    'There's always someone worse off than you.  Remember the man who wept because he had no shoes until he saw the man with no feet.'

    'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

    'Be mindful, the Truth of your actions leads to the Consequences of your actions.'

Read more »

Leaving Fenway Park after game two of the 2004 World Series and crossing Kenmore Square to retrieve my car, it was hard to ignore the young man selling tee shirts on which was written that vulgar slogan about how bad was the New York team vanquished a week earlier. My college age daughter was warning against the odd cockiness that had come over a lifelong Red Sox fan with a 2-0 lead in the Series, but I could not help but ask why the tee shirt salesman was still obsessed with That Team, since the Cardinals were the team at issue and he told me that nothing was more important than how bad was that team from New York.

All of that came to mind several times this week, as did the clever title of Thomas Boswell's book from some years back: "How Life Imitates the World Series". Boswell was the Washington Post reporter who told CBS News as the post season began in 1988 that one of the so called "Bash Brothers" leading the Oakland Athletics, Jose Canseco, was "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids."
.

Read more »

a meme embedded in a comment on the cjr needs to become more common: dc scum (so-called unbiased media). it's so perfect.

Within the last three months, 6,500 Tamil civilians have been killed, 14,000 have been injured and almost 200,000 have been forcibly detained in military-run camps by the Sri Lankan government as part of its campaign to annihilate the separatist Tamil Tigers (LTTE). In its most recent attempt to address this situation, the UN Security Council has demanded that the LTTE simply surrender to the Sri Lankan government. Regardless of one's opinion of the LTTE, the idea that it would be willing to surrender under the present circumstances is ludicrous. As the Country Director of a prominent international NGO* put it, "asking the LTTE to lay down arms - really stupid - why not just ask them to shoot themselves in the head?" His comment was probably an understatement.

Because it suspects that any one of them could have connections to the LTTE, the Sri Lankan government is holding virtually every civilian who emerges from the war zone indefinitely in "barbed-wire internment camps" in which there are "regular rapes and killings", according to Medico International, "enforced disappearances" according to Human Rights Watch, and "overcrowding, malnourishment, dehydration and limited medical facilities" according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Admitted LTTE members would almost certainly be subjected to even more egregious abuses at the hands of the worst human rights violator in South Asia. It is therefore unsurprising that LTTE members, regardless of their ideology, would prefer a relatively quick death via explosion or cyanide capsule rather than surrender and risk being tortured, raped, starved and/or imprisoned prior to being killed.

While the US's suggestion that the LTTE surrender to a third party is more reasonable, it is also completely unrealistic. In a recent interview, Sri Lanka's Defense Secretary made it clear in no uncertain terms that Sri Lanka would never consider such a proposal, stating that the US "should be ashamed of that kind of request. We will not hand [LTTE members] over to anybody."

If the international community is genuinely committed to ending the fighting in Sri Lanka, it needs to take practical steps, such as invoking the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and deploying an international monitoring mechanism, in order to create conditions in which both sides would be forced to agree to a ceasefire.

 

*Name has been withheld to protect the individual's safety.            

So what if all the programming jobs are going to India and all the manufacturing jobs are going to China? There are still plenty of good jobs for YOU in the global economy, if you can…

Ride an 8-foot unicycle and catch bowls on your head, or…

Lift a 1200-pound tire, or…

Hang coffins off a 1000-foot cliff.

And even if you don’t have any special talents, you can still…

Deliver pig-carcasses on your bike!

For more Inspection columns, please click HERE.

    Why does all this torture debate remind me of "either it's right, or wrong," "rule of law," "the meaning of 'is'" and "I did not have sex with that woman..." only the offenses here make all that past overwrought angst seem mildly piddling in comparison? You mean we sent Susan McDougal to prison; forced her to live in a cell block with high profile targets: women who murdered their own children, and we're going to become all relativistic about this?

   Oh, and I forgot to mention: the sides here have completely flipped. Relativists have decided they are now absolutists; absolutists have become squishy, weak kneed relativists; with the firm morals of watery jello.

   One of my great joys on the web is the give and take over at a site called Volconvo. It's billed as a debating site, though I prefer to think of it as a learning site: where we learn how to discuss topics and about the different thinking processes we all have.

   On a thread called 9/11= Inside Job a while ago I was exposed to the absolutist rhetoric of those who are fond of using "truthers" and "deniers" when it comes to insulting and making fun of those who question the official 9/11 story. "Deniers," of course, has been pulled from the term "holocaust deniers" and applied unevenly, in my opinion, to both those who have questions and concerns... and those who have built up a convoluted theory. Plus, how can one even begin to compare toasting millions of Jews and other "undesirables" with those wondering out loud about what actually happened, or even those a bit more "out there..." who have designed their own personal absurdly complex conspiracy theory-based tinfoil hat?

   A patently absurd comparison, content-wise.

   But if we do use this admittedly somewhat off-based comparison, then I find it amusing that some of those love to slap around those who question 9/11 suddenly get all pro-denying when it comes to torture.

   Doesn't matter if we prosecuted, even executed, soldiers for waterboarding in the past.

   Doesn't matter if children are included in these various methods to get at their parents.

   Doesn't matter if electricity was applied to genitals.

   Doesn't matter if due process is denied and torture was applied to those who simply were pointed to by a vengeful neighbor as "suspicious."

   Doesn't matter if a method of drowning was applied well over 100 times to at least one person.

   Doesn't matter if pepper spray was applied to a detainee's hemorrhoids.

   Doesn't matter that this was used to try to get detainees to provide false connections: bin Laden with Saddam, to provide cover for a war that, like any war tends to, killed innocent people in horrific ways.

   Suddenly now everything's relative. What would be a simple example of an out of control administration and abusive; corrupt, interrogators becomes all complex; so convoluted. And if it works, well the it must be justified, right? Admitted Christians turn "turn the other cheek" into "turn and slam that cheek against a wall until he says what we want him to say."

   The very meaning of the word "torture" is being tormented with excuses worthy a mentally ill parent of a bully-boy; who might ask the parents regarding the conflict with their now hospitalized son, "But how 'effective" were my son's methods?"

   And in regard to Dick Cheney's talk about unclassified, secret, memos that "prove" torture "worked," well then he's either lying, or as only a citizen now... revealing state secrets for his own personal gain. In that case he's a traitor and should be prosecuted as such. It really is that simple and not so convoluted.

   That's real "rule of law: "real "justice."

   If we are going to reuse and redefine the term "holocaust denier" then this seems a far more apt application: for these "deniers" will do and say anything to deny and excuse torture. Their kind of approach would feel all too familiar to those who ignored Jews being experimented on, or when they were sent to the ovens... or made excuses for why it was "OK." And, of course, it would familiar to those who have confronted Holocaust deniers. These modern day "deniers:" despite our having prosecuting it before, believe torture isn't torture... if we do it.

   Or if "it worked."

   Or if "what they do to us is worse."

   All the same excuses some of them probably used when they beat up some kid in elementary school for fun and pleasure. Now they've moved on to supporting drowning people, reviving them, then drowning them again over 100 times.

   Yes, it's all relative: if you want to go all pansy on "rule of law." In that case? Even murder of the innocent might be considered "relative." Every time a Rove or a Cheney open their mouth lately, all I hear is, "'Was' it torture? Well, depends upon what your definition of the meaning of 'is' is."

   It "was."

   And it "is."

   Once again proving their masterful ability to torture both context and syntax, and confuse tenses. That should make us all "tense" when it comes to their idea of "justice."

                                     -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

Here are some short reactions to the first three items in TPMDC Saturday Roundup- May 9, 2009, 1:06PM.

Obama Calls For Credit Card Reforms:  "There is no time for delay," said Obama. "We need a durable and successful flow of credit in our economy, but we can't tolerate profits that depend upon misleading working families. Those days are over."

We don't need a durable system, that is what conservatives want -- a lasting status quo in which the powerful retain power. 

Credit does not flow, but debt can be transferable; Obama is misframing.  Credit is the sound basis for debt, it resides in individual honor and in recourse (collateral, whether real or ideal).  (The other basis is faith.)  Non-cyclical debt is unsound and/or dishonorable.

Agreed that profits based on deception are problematic and reforms are past due. However:  Obama is using systematically deceptive language to try to develop profits, and probably not with intentional irony.  It is one thing to study Orwell, another to be a student of Orwell.

GOP YouTube Address Blasts Obama On Gitmo  "Closing our terrorist-detention facility with no backup plan is one campaign promise that can't hold up to national security realities," said Bond. "While the President has made closing Guantanamo Bay a priority, the highest priority must be keeping America safe."

The highest priority, if there is such a thing, must be keeping America sound.  This Republican meme has got to be challenged effectively.  On the one hand they make safety sacred, but then they turn around and do unsafe stuff as well as telling us the Constitution is sacred.  Go figure.  "provide for the common defense" does not mean "ruin America for the illusion of safety", and it's not the highest priority anyway.

I agree that closing Gitmo without a plan would be a mistake.  That said, it's not unreasonable to PLAN NOW  to close Gitmo as a prison soon without having all the details fleshed out.  Not only should this be obvious but look at how Repos supported Bush and his adventurous flagrant abuses of power without an exit strategy or even a plan beyond the simple-minded "Get Saddam" or "Kill bin Laden".

The larger question:  If the US is going to continue to have "detainees" or prisoners who don't fit neatly into the ordinary criminal justice system, why not rehabilitate Gitmo's image and reality?  That Abu Ghraib was closed does not mean Gitmo must close.  Gitmo qua prison started out honorably under Lehnert.  Examine the costs and benefits carefully, don't bow to momentary public aversions.  Or better yet, think big:  Close Gitmo ENTIRELY (that would probably really bug the right wing!).

Obama Attending White House Correspondents' Dinner
President Obama and the First Lady will be attending tonight's annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, essentially a comedy roast with the President himself as the guest of "honor."

There is that word 'honor' again!  Medium-rare, roasted or not.



 

Torture seems to be the subject on cable, on the web and right here at TPMCafe.  The evidence is overwhelming. I do not need to give specific cites. Just take a close look at TheraP's blogs over the last month--that is if you do not have enough time to go over the last year's essays by our lead poster.  Or check out Carolg's tri-weekly posts citing so many web articles. Or....

And that damnable cheney just spins. Oh, it was only three people who were waterboarded, geez the three were scumbags anyway.  And now Obama is making US less safe. And........

If there is one thing I know for sure, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THREE PEOPLE. You see how to properly spin news and opinion when it is all going against you.

Oh, and by the way, dickyc is contending that all these investigations will only hurt the 'little guy'.

He has the gall to say this while he and rummy and w watched the soldiers go to prison.  Talk about little guys. The one female soldier  according to the pictures, looks like she barely reached five feet.  She could hardly be able to get on half the rides at Disney World.

Some times we need to define our terms. What for instance is a good definition of  a 'Police State'? Well let us see what Wiki says:

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.^[1]

That seems 'reasonable', does it not?  And I think torture is one of the tools used by a police state. What exactly defines 'TORTURE'?

 

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."^[1]

And what is Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

 

Cruel and unusual punishment is a statement implying that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity. It was founded in the English Bill of Rights, which was signed in 1689 by King William III and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England, Scotland, and Ireland following the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.

These exact words later appeared in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787). The British Slavery Amelioration Act of 1798 also used the term, forbidding slave owners from using "cruel and unusual punishment" on slaves in the British Caribbean colonies.

So Torture and Cruel and Unusual Punishment are tools used by police states.

 

I am glad that is all cleared up. And I am glad that Western Civilization has been concerned with issues relating to these subjects for centuries.

 

So what is the purpose of my rant today? I got really mad after reading a rant from that son of a bitch who runs the NRA again after reading this:

 

I had not planned to mention this, but Mayor Tom Barrett's behavior since we came to town makes me think he spent too much time hanging out with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg a couple of weeks ago. Tom Barrett went to Mike Bloomberg's meeting of big-city mayors in New York City to talk about big-city crime and that's the problem. They're all talk and no action. Mike Bloomberg, if you really want to stop violent crime, you don't need to spend taxpayer's money to throw parties for mayors and hold seminars and schedule photo ops...and act like violent crime is some new problem with some secret solution.

It's real simple. If you want to get crime off your streets, get criminals off your streets! Mayor Bloomberg, it's not rocket science. NRA has supported putting bad guys behind bars for decades - and it works. Mayor Bloomberg, talk gets headlines. But prosecuting criminals gets results. And the people want results! I'll make you a deal, Mike Bloomberg. Here's what you do. Walk down to Town Hall and tell your prosecuting attorneys that from now on, no plea bargains, no reduced charges, no dropped cases. A drug dealer caught with a gun goes to jail. A violent felon caught with a gun goes to jail. Discharge a gun in commission of a felony, go to jail. Smuggle a gun, go to jail. If you do that, if you stop talking and start acting, your violent crime rate will drop 30-40-50% in one year.

This is the same crap I had to listen to in the 60's and 70's from Agnew and Nixon; just to name a couple of our most famous war criminals. You see the argument is that us liberals molly coddle criminals. We do not 'lock-em-up'. We let most of our criminals go free because...because we are liberals, I guess.

So prosecuting criminals and putting them in jail will solve all our problems. LIKE WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROSECUTING CRIMINALS AND PUTTING THEM IN JAIL.

JESUS H. CHRIST (blesses himself), WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE KIDDING?

So how we doin' in that regard anyway. 

 

American prisons and jails held 2,299,116 inmates as of June 30, 2007.^[10] One in every 31 American adults, or 7.3 million Americans, are in prison, on parole or probation. Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored. A significantly greater percentage of the American population is in some form of correctional control even though crime rates have declined by about 25 percent from 1988-2008.^[11] 70% of prisoners in the United States are non-whites.^[12] In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandated sentences that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s.^[13]

As of 2004, the three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to civilian population are Maine (148 per 100,000), Minnesota (171 per 100,000), and Rhode Island (175 per 100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are Louisiana (816 per 100,000), Texas (694 per 100,000), and Mississippi (669 per 100,000). ^[14]

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2005).^[18] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prision.^[9] The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.^[3]

By comparison in 2006, the incarceration rate in England and Wales was 148 persons imprisoned per 100,000 residents; the rate for Norway was 66 inmates per 100,000 and the rate in New Zealand was 186 per 100,000.^[3] In Australia in 2005, the rate was 126 prisoners per 100,000 residents.^[3]

The incarceration rate in the People's Republic of China varies depending on sources and measures: in 2003, for sentenced prisoners only, the rate was declared at 118 inmates per 100,000;^[3] in 2008, an estimate for all forms of imprisonment in China assessed the incarceration rate at 218 prisoners per 100,000 population.^[22]

First, I  am prouder of my state than when I started this sixth grade essay. Minnesota aint doin too damn bad. ha

Second, I really feel that a police state incarcerates a lot of people. Soviet Gulags, Nazi Internment Camps.  Well the good ole USA aint doin too bad.

Third, what kind of country does LaPierre (who is a Canadian anyway) want?  Should we have 6 million in prison and 18 million more walking around with stars on their shirts? Or hell, lets go all out. 18 million in prison and 60 million walking around with stars on their shirts.

Fourth, remember that in many states, after you have served your time, you still to not attain full citizenship. Most of those 7 million on parole or probation cannot vote.

How exactly does a police state treat its prisoners?

The non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.^[24] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration, and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.^[25]

In August 2003, a Harper's article by Wil S. Hylton estimated that "somewhere between 20 and 40% of American prisoners are, at this very moment, infected with hepatitis C". Prisons may outsourceCorrectional Medical Services, which, according to Hylton's research, try to minimize the amount of care given to prisoners in order to maximize profits. medical care to private companies such as

Also identified as an issue within the prison system is gang violence, because many gang members retain their gang identity and affiliations when imprisoned. Segregation of identified gang members from the general population of inmates, with different gangs being housed in separate units often results in the imprisonment of these gang members with their friends and criminal cohorts. Some feel this has the effect of turning prisons into "institutions of higher criminal learning."^[26]

Ok. So basically we rape, beat, and inject disease into our prisoners.  Sounds like torture to me, huh?  A lot of pain, a lot of disease, a lot of fear...Sound cruel and unusual?

Here is the kicker. We as a people seem to be a little skittish about all this. So why not hire some thugs to do the job? Kind of wash our hands of the entire matter?

In recent years, there has been much debate over the privatizationmarket economy for prisons might not also lead to a market demand for prisoners (tougher sentencing for cheap labor). While privatized prisons have only a short history, there is a long tradition of inmates in state and federal-run prisons undertaking active employment in prison for low pay. of prisons. The argument for privatization stresses cost reduction...

Aint this great, we can wash our hands of the entire matter and save money too. Oh and the workers for the capitalist torturers, their employes make less money than government workers. Except management of course. But that is the American Way.

We turn our prisoners into slaves, working for no money so they can produce for the capitalists. Wonderful.

Now how exactly does a police state treat its children?

Recently, forty seven states have made it easier to be tried as an adult^[34] , calling attention to the growing trend away from the original model for treatment of juveniles in the justice system.

 

Harmful to youth: Juvenile detention facilities are often overcrowded and understaffed^[42] . The most infamous example of this trend is Cheltenham center in Maryland, which at one point crowded 100 boys into cottages sanctioned for maximum capacity of 24, with only 3-4 adults supervising. Young people in these environments are subject to brutal violence from their peers as well as staff, who are often overworked, underpaid and under stress. The violence that incarcerated youth experience --- fights, stabbings, rapes --- is well known to those who work in the criminal justice system, and those who oppose it ^[43].

Some have criticized the United States for incarcerating a large number of non-violent and victimless offenders;^[64][65] half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offences, and 20% (in State prisons, whereas Federal prison percentages are higher) are incarcerated for drug offenses.^[66][67][64] "Human Rights Watch believes the extraordinary rate of incarceration in the United States wreaks havoc on individuals, families and communities, and saps the strength of the nation as a whole."

Well, I guess you could say that a good police state prepares its children for the reality of adulthood.

So getting back to our war criminal cheney.  He seems to admit--at the same time unadmitting--that the US does torture. But only three people.

WHO THE FUCK ARE THESE PEOPLE KIDDING?

Just one after thought here. A sixth grader should have been able to find this Wiki essay. I included long quotes because the amount of information in them was extraordinary. 

I just got off the phone with Mama wishing her happy birthday.She was born in 1924 and is 85 this month.Mama is an incredible person and a very good mother.She said, "people tell me I get around pretty good for my age." I said "well Mama, you have  always worked hard and that made you tough." She replied, "I wouldn't call it hard work, but Ive always been busy."

Mama never had a job outside our home but she worked more hours than any factory worker, and I don't remember many days she took off from that labor. She had four sons and a husband,plus she told me sometimes her two brothers lived with us.That's a whole lot of clothes to wash.She told me that some weeks she starched and ironed over 40 shirts.

Her washing machine was an old open type G.E. just a big tub with a motor under it, a simple agitator inside it it. There was no spin cycle, on the top were two spring loaded rollers with a hand crank you turned as you fed the clothes through it to squeeze the water out. When I reminded  her of that old washer  she said "it wasn't that hard and was a lot better than the wash board and tub she had used when she first got married.Ha

There was no electric clothes drier, her dryer was in the back yard and consisted of two iron T-posts driven in the ground about 30 feet apart with 4 small wire cables running between them. On these she hung the clothes and sheets.The dirty clothes hamper was never full. Just picturing in my mind  those clothes hanging and waving in the breeze, brings a kind of nostalgic peace , thoughts of quieter, simpler days.

She cooked 2 meals a day for at least 6 people, and these were not single pot dinners, they were full blown breakfasts and a dinner of meat, potatoes, gravy, 2 or 3 vegetables and biscuits. Many times a hand made pie or cake for desert. After all the men had  eaten and gone ,she washed all those dishes ,pots and pans, by hand. I don't know why we were not made to help her, even so, she never asked for help.

I have been working since I was 16 years old without any time in which I havent worked, I got this from her.

Her only time out for pleasure was on Friday nights, when we would all load up in the car and go down to Industrial Blvd in Dallas where the liquor was sold. There we went to one of two places. One was a drive in called "Who Cares" or another drive in called "The Trolley"

The Trolley was an old  train car converted into a dinner and beer joint located right next to the railroad tracks. Who Cares was a big joint with row after row of awnings to park under.They were called drive ins because you drove up ,parked, and stayed in your car.

 A  waitress came to your car to serve you. You rolled the window down and the waitress hung a tray on the side of your car to set your drinks on. Mama and Dad would have themselves a few relaxing beers,listen to the music piped out of a jukebox to the outside speakers. You could give the waitress money for the jukebox to keep it going and even request songs.

The rest of us ate hamburgers and listened to the music from our perch in the back seat. If  we were at the Trolley we would watch the trains going slowly by, reading the labels and graffiti on their sides. The smells wafted on the wind, hamburgers grilling, then burnt diesel from the train, and sometimes the swampy smell of the Trinity River not far away. 

We didn't go to church but Mama believed in God.She made me say grace before meals "God is good, God is great, let us thank Him for our food." I dont know where she got that prayer, but she passed it on to me.

At bed time she would say, "say your prayers before you go to sleep." This is the prayer she taught  me,"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep,and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take."

She was letting me know she thought someone was up there and in charge and  I
might do well to find out more about Him.Sometimes when I was little,I can remember looking up at the full moon at night , that bright luminous disc,  and in the gray outlines of its mountains and craters ,I thought I could see God's face, filling the whole surface, like the face on a nickle, and I would talk to Him, asking what He was thinking about.

She believed in a supreme good spirit but she also believed in an evil one.Everyone calls him the devil but she just called him the  "booger man." She didn't mean by this some mucus slinging nasty being with a bad attitude, she meant a evil and malicious shadow spirit out to harm people. She wasn't above using him to incite a little fear when she needed to enforce discipline.

When I did something wrong or she thought I did, then the inquistion would begin.
"Did you do this or that?  "Who started the fight,or made this mess?" With all seriousness she would say, "you know good boys dont lie, and if you do lie, the BOOGER MAN will get you!"

Many nights  I woke up from sleep at some sound, and think I saw in the shadows movement, maybe the booger man? If I had not done anything wrong that day, or if I had but had already fessed up and took my punishment, I wasn't afraid, and I would say, "you cant come near me or touch me, so go away."  Her methods may not be approved by Dr Spock, but they managed to instill a sense of right and wrong,something valuable to all human beings.

Mama never paid a bill the whole time my father was alive, she knew nothing of business affairs.So when he died we wondered how she would be able to manage. She never missed a beat, she balanced the check book, paid her bills,sold her home and dealt with the Social Security Administration on her own, she insisted.

She lives off of that Social Security check now, she budgets her expenses, lives in her own apartment and even earns some side money helping the manager around the apartment complex.This at 85 years old. She is incredible.

She doesn't drive a car and never has, which is why she wants to live in Dallas where there are buses. Once I tried to teach her to drive and even bought her an old car.One day she decided to give it a try,she drove around the block, pulled into the driveway and rammed into a tree.Her driving days were over. My Dad said when he came home Mama
was packing her bags to leave. She thought she had done the unforgivable by wrecking that old clunker or maybe she felt she had failed , and that was unbearable to her.

All that I know and all that I am as a man today was shaped by this woman called Mama. , Mama was a good mother."Happy mothers day Mama Lucille, and all the mothers at TPM."

Lately there have been a number of leaks to the press trying to give credence to a theory that the Dem leaders are just as responsible for torture as those bush Principals (and their willing toadies in the law and psychology) who were privy to memos, transcripts, videos, and meetings where torture was designed, authorized, and supervised down to minute details.  The "story" goes that certain Dem leaders were "in the know" and should have stopped the torture or blown the whistle or spoken on the floor of the House or the Senate, or brought impeachment charges, or asked more questions at briefings or "done something" about it.

Now, I'm sympathetic to the fact that we all knew about torture as soon as we saw those Abu Ghraib photos.  And I had my own suspicions as soon as I saw hooded detainees on TV over and over, from the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, carrying over into the invasion of Iraq.  Right away, to me, as a psychologist, aware of the Stanford prison study, those hoods were a tip-off.  They were widespread.  They seemed to be something that had been requisitioned and handed out to soldiers as another piece of equipment, like plastic handcuffs and so on.  I was concerned that detained individuals had been herded into metal containers in Afghanistan.  I was concerned that there were bounties being paid for handing over people to US custody.   And I was concerned when they moved the prisoners to Guantanamo, when I saw them shackled, when I read about 200 of them going on hunger strike there.  I knew something very suspicious was likely going on.  Especially when those Abu Ghraib photos surfaced.  And when we knew the Red Cross was being hampered in assessing the welfare of persons in US custody.  And when we read about those secret renditions to black sites or being turned over to foreign governments - where, despite bushco denials, we had to suspect torture.

So I ask myself, could I too be held responsible for not doing more?  Should I have been suspicious that psychologists were designing torture, reverse engineering what we know of how people tick and how to compel obedience to an authority - in the service of punishing humans in a laboratory?  Should I have figured that out and sought out those psychologists who "knew" torture was going on and that the APA had looked the other way or outright endorsed it?  Honestly, although I had put together everything in paragraph 2 above, I never suspected psychologists were involved.  Indeed, I didn't know there was an active group of psychologists fighting the involvement of their peers.  I was quietly doing my private practice, working from home, and I had turned in a different direction following the 2004 elections - to try and understand the religious right, in order to fight what seemed to me a perversion of religion tied in with government.  So, in that sense I took my eye off the psychology ball.  And it never came up in our quarterly ethics committee meetings either.  So am I, together with that committee, somehow culpable too?

I cannot condone torture under any circumstances.  No matter what scenario you try to give me.  It is illegal.  It is immoral. It is reprehensible to the extreme.  I am sorely troubled that psychologists took a leading role in designing a torture process.  I am horrified that lawyers twisted and bent words and sentences and came up with memos to subvert the Constitution and international law.  And I find it hard to believe there was not a conspiracy to sanction and carry out torture within the highest levels of the bush criminal enterprise - disguised as government.

I admit I could have done more.  I admit my focus was elsewhere.  But I do not think I should be hauled in and interrogated for dereliction of duty.  I can account, if necessary, for my actions and my focus between 2004 and 2006 (my time as a near-mole within the religious right).  It was the DoJ scandal that brought my attention back to politics, and through paying close attention to that scandal, and the emerging torture memos, I could see clearly the role that had been played by lawyers in subverting the Rule of Law.   So it was in the Spring of 2007 that I began to also write at the Café, in addition to my comments at The Muck, where I'd been posting for some time.  That was when the full horror of the criminal enterprise that was bushco, and its subversion of the law in the service of those crimes, had come home to me.   

So the question is:  Did Dem leaders actively and willfully conspire to inflict torture on humans and commit treason against the Constitution?  I don't know for sure.  But I suspect the conspiracy is a closely held private "corporation" - if you consider that the word comes from "corpus" which means body.   Dem leaders might have done more.  And they, like me, might have taken their eye off the ball, might have been biding their time in hopes of retaking power.   We will ultimately know more, I believe.  All of us might have done more.

But did they actively and willfully conspire?  I doubt it.  

When we read leaks of "evidence" along with suggestions that the Dem leaders are as corrupt as the bush criminal conspiracy to subvert our laws, to reward cronies, to spy on us, to lie us into war, to bankrupt the poor in order to enrich the rich, I just don't see the same magnitude of abuse.  I don't see evidence they conspired with the Principals of bushco.  Maybe I 'm missing something, but treason I'm not seeing in Dem leaders who might have done more.   And that, to me, is the heart of the question.

I maintain we need these crimes investigated.  There must be an independent investigation, with authority to issue subpoenas, empower grand juries, indict, prosecute, and so on.  Dem leaders should welcome that.  They should endorse it.  They should make themselves available to investigators and give evidence.  If any have been willfully derelict or actively condoned torture or treason, they must be brought to a public accounting and pay whatever penalties must be paid.  This is our system of law.  This is right and just.  

But let us not lose sight of the conspiracy from which sprang all that we have witnessed over 8 years - a closely held, small group - which made use of willing lawyers and willing psychologists, which played (quite likely spied upon) Dem leaders and the American public.  Let us keep our eye on the ball.  Torture is the issue, which is ripping apart our standing in the world and our political system.  It is the issue, which has opened Pandora's box.  Too late to turn back from dealing with it as a national disgrace.  We must steel ourselves and face it square on.   But we must also carefully distinguish the intentional, conspiratorial and subversive acts against our Constitution and the Rule of Law from the ignorance, cowardice, or passivity of those who should have known more, asked more, and done more.    I count myself among them.

___________________________________

Update:

In response to comments below, let me be clear.  I am not absolving Congressional Representatives of their duty to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  In addition to torture, they knew many other abuses had occurred and they never sought to impeach.  I realize there were problems in that impeaching the president would not have been sufficient, given the huge role the vice-president played here.  Time will tell, hopefully, what consideration was given to that possibility and why it was ruled out.  Oversight could have been much better as well.  But we know for a fact that often Congress was lied to or information they sought was refused.  So there's plenty of blame to go around and I'm not minimizing that. 

At the same time it seems to me that those who conspired, and their willing collaborators, are now trying to sow doubts in the electorate - doubts about whether an investigation will drag Dems into the same level of responsibility for torture and the subversion of our Constitutional Rule of Law.  We need to remain vigilant and not be "played" or dissuaded out of insisting that these crimes be investigated and prosecuted, where warranted.  And I, personally, see all the difference in the world between conspiracy and treason on the one hand and cowardice or lack of due diligence on the other hand.

Did they all know about the torture?  Yes.  Even those who were not briefed specifically.  They must live with their failure to stand up to tyranny at whatever personal price.  And so must we. Some of them may pay a public price for that failure.  We private citizens will pay and are paying a private price. 

Much discomfort remains connected to the issue of what to do about Bush administration leftovers. Many progressives are still actively advocating for investigation, truth-telling, accountability and reform. Therefore, we rely on the hard news sources as well as the blogosphere to keep us well informed. I use a news aggregator. I have a section in my Bloglines aggregator called "Investigative faves." Let me show you why you, too should be reading them. The list is in reverse chronological order:

1. TPM Muckraker for "Report: Top Gossling Pushed to Declassify Info to 'Embarrass the Democrats'," by Zachary Roth (5/6/09). The story refers to former Rep. Peter Goss, who served for a time (not very well) at the CIA. Did any of the associated Goss underlings leak the story about Rep Jane Harman and AIPAC? Just below this story is one titled, "Zelikow: I Think Cheney Tried to Destroy My Torture Memo, " by Zachary Roth (5/6/09). The title is self-explanatory.


2. Firedoglake.com's emptywheel is mostly written by Marcy Wheeler, who writes today asking "The OPR Report Why No Sanctions for Bradbury?"This post cites the original WaPo story and asks a number of very important questions regarding what should happen to the torture memo lawyers. Yesterday's post was closely related: "Dougie Feith's Little Shop of Tortures?" For this she researched Doug Feith's 2003 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and made some fine deductions. Wheeler does perhaps the best investigation online. Blogger bmaz explains (5/5/09):
   
   

   We started this discussion in earnest a little over two weeks ago when Marcy Wheeler scooped the world by revealing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month and Abu-Zubaydah 83 times. Marcy didn't get handed the information by a governmental press flack and she didn't print it as a result of a leak from some coddled and conflicted secret source with an agenda. Nope, she did it the old fashioned way, she earned it by doing the tedious grunt work of reading the memos and documents. The very work the traditional press shirked.



3. ACLU Blog of Rights posted a piece titled, "Guantanamo Bay, U.S.A.?" The (5/6/09) story concerns the possibility that the Obama administration will go back to the use of military commissions for some of its detainees. Another big story asks whether the "DOJ Ethics Report [is] coming soon? (5/5/09)


4. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com wrote, "Someone needs to give Jane Harman an award for this," (5/4/09). Regarding Harman's appearance at the AIPAC conference, crusading against domestic surveillance. Another fine post is titled, "UAE 'torture' scandal and cover-up sparks outrage in the U.S.," (4/3/09). You may have seen this disturbing video on television recently.


5. Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood. He recently posted that the "Govt Seeks Dismissal of AIPAC Case," (5/1/09). This is another article connected to the Harman AIPAC episode. On April 29, Aftergood wrote, "Appeals Court Curbs Use of State Secrets Privilege." This regards the ACLU vs. Jeppesen DataPlan lawsuit.


6. Spy Talk at CQ Politics is written by Jeff Stein. On May 4 his headline read, "Rice: 'We were deaf, dumb and blind' on al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001." The /11.post discusses Rice's penchant for helping little kids understand what was going on with the grown-ups on 9/11. His question for the April 28 post asked,"What did top spook Blair really say about Harman and the NSA?." This refers to Adm. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence.


7. Wired: Threat Level by Kim Zetter: "DOJ Faulted for Failing to Follow Surveillance Reporting Requirements, " (4/30/09). To quote:
   
   

   Following the release of an annual report this week about wiretaps requested by state and federal law enforcement agencies comes a complaint from the Electronic Privacy Information Center that the government has been derelict in its duty to report other surveillance statistics having to do with "pen register" and "trap and trace" orders.
   
   In a letter (.pdf) sent Wednesday to Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, EPIC noted that the Justice Department had failed to report the use of such surveillance as required by federal law.



8. About.com-Civil Liberties is written by Tom Head. Here is an example of his work: "Sympathy for the Devil," (4/22/09). It begins, "According to memos released by the Obama administration last week, the CIA under the Bush administration tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 alone."

Those of us who are expecting that these questions and problems are not going to disappear soon, want to see the truth get out. We want justice done and the rule of law return full force to the current administration. We can settle for no less.

[Original post date at S/SW: 5/6/09]

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

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

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics national intelligence blog news torture APAIC jane harman

The former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, has admitted to a conservative talk show host that Republicans would find themselves with a real dilemma if  President Obama were to propose Solicitor General Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, of the Second Judicial Court of Appeals for a seat on the Supreme Court.   ""You have to admit Elena Kagan is a brilliant woman," said the Utah Republican to Scott Hennen. "She is a brilliant lawyer. If he picks her, it is a real dilemma for people. And she will undoubtedly say that she will abide by the rule of law."  In other words, Kagan and Sotomayor are qualified, but they are liberal.

But what if Obama were to consider nominating a staunch conservative?  How thrilled would Hatch and his henchmen be?   

We could find out.

 What if the Obama team outFOXed their Republican naysayers by  "leaking" their "consideration" of the name of a conservative constitutional  lawyer? [gasp!] A REAL conservative, who has been highly critical of the Bush administration's arrogation of executive power, who openly called for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment, ridiculed the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and sharply criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez?  And yes, even criticized President Obama recently for being too soft on the architects of Bush administration torture policies?

Someone like Bruce Fein?
 

Bruce Fein, a 1972 graduate of Harvard Law School, served as associate deputy attorney general  and as general counsel to the FCC during the Reagan adminsitration.  He wrote an extensive 30-page critique of  Times vs. Sullivan, the USSC ruling that freed the media from much of its liability under American libel laws (misattributed to John Roberts during his nomination hearings for the post of Chief Justice). In 1987, Fein served as minority party research director of the committee that investigated the Iran Contra scandal.  He is the author of numerous articles on constitutional issues, and he is highly respected as an authority on civil liberties. 

Republicans would either have to say that a) Fein is a terrific choice because he is conservative.  They would thereby have to accept Fein's criticisms of the Bush/Cheney administration, which would then render attacks on other constitutional lawyers who opposed Bush's policies moot.  b) Alternatively, the Republicans could keep up their naysaying, opposing a staunchly conservative constitutionalist, and, in the course of attacking Fein, bring his many criticisms of the Bush White House to light in the process of denigrating him.

While I doubt that Obama would actually end up nominating Fein as a USSC justice (Fein was a founder of the American Freedom Agenda with Bob Barr and Richard Viguerie, and addressed Ron Paul's Sept. 2, 2008 "Rally for the Republic"), floating the possibility of nominating him would give wider prominence to Fein's outspoken criticisms of Bush's interventionist foreign policy and his exoriation of the Bush/Cheney anti-terror policies, including wiretapping and detention of terror suspects. Fein recently criticized President Obama for not prosecuting the Bush administration officials who wrote the memos justifying torture during interrogations.  If Hatch has a "dilemma" opposing Kagan and Sotomayor, what box would a whisper that Fein is being considered for nomination to the USSC put him in? How would Eric Cantor, Michael Steele and Sarah Palin react?   What would Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have to say if they couldn't attack a potential nominee for being "too liberal"?

This could dramatically change the dynamics of the discussions of all subsequent nominees for retiring justice David Souter's seat and and those of any other SC justices that may become available during Obama's presidency.    

Let's take a stress test. Let's say that you wanted to test your financial security. I might put in that test things like: your verified income, housing expenses, debt obligations, and other's evaluation of your "credit worthiness." Oh. I see this looks familiar. It looks like a standard credit or home loan application.

Read more »

It's being reported that President Obama and Congress are trying to put more regulations on credit card companies and on banks, businesses and loan companies.  This is a good idea - we need to stop those bad practices that got us in this mess in the first place (I don't care if it was a Republican or Democrat that supports less regulation, although it's usually the GOP pushing for less).  However, for more immediate help with our economy we need more actions now.

I mentioned before the idea of giving incentives for consumers to go out and buy things thereby boosting sales for businesses.  I continue to feel this would the best and quickest way to get the money rolling again in our country and others.

Just sit back and think about it folks.  What causes you to go to a specific store or company to buy something (other than the immediate need for something)?  A discount, rebate or coupon - saving money on something you desire of course. 

Why would somebody cross town to buy a lawnmower when there's a store down the road from them that sells them?  Why would somebody travel to another city for an item when that same item can be found at the local department store?  To save money - that's why.

Consumers will buy if they think they are getting a great deal, if they trust the store's return policy and if the quality of their merchandise is good.

How many times have you walked into the market store to see an item that normally sells for $2.99 suddenly marked down to a $1.99 or you see that item being listed as, "buy one, get one free"?  You ever wonder to yourself, how can they afford to take such a cut to their business?  Well folks, it's either because they normally make about a 60% profit from the $2.99 original marked price or they are overstocked and need to get the item sold or lose money because they have to throw it out in a few days.  Most likely the reason is, they want to attract more customers so they are willing to take a temporary cut in profits of that item for better ones later.  In the long run, they make more money because more customers come to buy that item and while at the store, end up buying even more things.

So, going back to fixing our economy or at least helping it improve, if companies and businesses want to get better results (get consumers out buying their products) they need to start taking some hits (loss of income) in the short run to improve things for their future.

How can the government help?  Going after credit cards, backing up products like they are the GM cars and trucks, offering huge discounts like a few thousand dollars off the purchase of a car to get old clunkers (gas guzzler, environment danger) off the road is a very good start.  However, the faster way to get consumers buying again would be to offer discounts, coupons and rebates for buying everyday items like food, televisions, computers, computer games, videos, toys, clothes, car equipment/supplies, yard equipment, swimming pools, furniture, etc... 

While most of these items discounts should be handled by the company and them taking the temporary loss in revenue aiming for larger future revenues; government could offer rebates for bigger items, items that cost more than say $150. 

Rebates would be the best way to do it because it forces the consumer to buy the item at regular price (giving the company their money) and if the consumer wants that rebate back they have to follow the steps listed on the rebate paperwork (fill out the cards/application, look up the model numbers, serial numbers, date of purchase, where it was bought, etc...) and mail the request in.

I don't know about the rest of you but a lot of times I don't even bother doing all that unless the rebate is $25 or more.  So, because of people like me, a lot of money will never be spent giving rebates back to consumers yet the company got that new business anyway because of the rebate offer.

As for those that do send in the documentation, well think about it folks.  How much money is our government spending right now trying to keep companies and businesses afloat?  Billions are being given away to companies that may never revive themselves - that's money going down the drain. 

On the other hand, if that same company made a profit from new sales because the government offered rebates to the consumers, the consumer is happy, the company survives and government (taxpayers) saves money in the long run.

Let's say the government is currently giving GM $1000 per car bailout money.  The car if it had been sold would have given the company a $5,000 profit (but the car continues to sit on the lot - not selling because consumers have no incentive to go and buy it). 

Now, let's say the government offers the consumer instead of GM, a $800 rebate for buying that same car.  First off, the government just saved $200 and GM just made that $5000 profit helping them to stay afloat.  To top that off, unless the consumer fills out the paperwork, they may not even send in the rebate request, saving the government (taxpayers) even more money.

Simple logic, if we're going to spend money to help a company, it's best to spend it on consumers instead of companies because it's consumers that make the world go around - sort of speak.

We've all seen issues like this before: It starts-out vaguely, eventually crystalizes into a finite form, and then goes vague again as the counterattacks mount. Next thing you know, the original straightforward issue is all but lost in an incomprehensible flurry of documents, exposes', charges, countercharges, lies, truths, half-truths, and irrelevancies. I knew we were heading for trouble when I started hearing Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill turning-up in this discussion.

So far, I'm sure of just ONE thing: The Bush people are scared to death. One suspects a potential universe of Pandora's boxes -  'waterboarding' perhaps among the least of them, conveniently trotted-out like Brer Rabbit's briarpatch to divert attention from even graver and more obvious abuses. They never imagined that they would be in this position (ie, bunkered-in against a hostile Congress and White House, public opinion floating slowly and inevitably against them). It went sour for them so quickly, that the speed itself is frightening. Underneath all this extraneous desperate mud, one REAL question continues to sit -  solid as a post, and undismayed: WERE CRIMES COMMITTED? Everything else is secondary, and may matter more as mitigation in a potential 'penalty' phase down the road than it matters now.

Keep our focus on LAW in spite of all distractions, and we will eventually break thru to a workable semblence of the untidy truth.

What are Green Fluorescent Proteins...?  Did someone really win the Nobel prize for it?

 

A San Diego beach scene drawn with an eight color palette of bacterial colonies expressing fluorescent proteins derived from GFP and the red-fluorescent coral protein dsRed. The colors include BFP, mTFP1, Emerald, Citrine, mOrange, mApple, mCherry and mGrape. Artwork by Nathan Shaner, photography by Paul Steinbach, created in the lab of Roger Tsien in 2006.  

GFPs are indeed Nobel worthy.  Just this past year in fact.  But what the hell are they?  Well simply they are proteins that can be inserted into cells and then the cell will light up when examined under a certain type of microscope, a fluorescence microscope. 

GFP was originally discovered in jellyfish by Japanese biologist Osamo Shimomura and first used to illuminate cell activity by Columbia University neurobiologist Martin Chalfie. [Roger Y.] Tsien pioneered the next step in GFP's refinement, engineering tens of thousands of markers that could be attached to any gene in the body.

From wiki:

The GFP gene can be introduced into organisms and maintained in their genome through breeding, injection with a viral vector, or cell transformation. To date, the GFP gene has been introduced and expressed in many bacteria, yeast and other fungi, plant, fly, and mammalian cells, including human.

The availability of GFP and its derivatives has thoroughly redefined fluorescence microscopy and the way it is used in cell biology and other biological disciplines.^[19] While most small fluorescent molecules such as FITC (fluorescein isothiocyanate) are strongly phototoxic when used in live cells, fluorescent proteins such as GFP are usually much less harmful when illuminated in living cells. This has triggered the development of highly automated live cell fluorescence microscopy systems which can be used to observe cells over time expressing one or more proteins tagged with fluorescent proteins

Analysis of such time lapse movies has redefined the understanding of many biological processes including protein folding, protein transport, and RNA dynamics, which in the past had been studied using fixed (i.e. dead) material.

 As to its significance, Wired gushes:

Nearly every paper now written on gene or cell function involves GFP, either directly or by building on GFP-lit research. Its harnessing is considered one of the great advances of modern science, arguably on par with the development of the microscope -- another tool that allowed researchers to investigate a previously invisible world.

So basically GFP allows us to see, through the magic of fluorescence, whats going on inside certain cells and even tag individual genes so we can see when they 'express'.  Pretty amazing!

Tsien himself deserves much credit.

[He] contributed to our general understanding of how GFP fluoresces. He also extended the colour palette beyond green allowing researchers to give various proteins and cells different colours. This enables scientists to follow several different biological processes at the same time.

Nevertheless, GFP is not perfect.

...for all its acclaim, GFP has its limits. The wavelengths of light it emits and light used to observe this emission are quickly absorbed by cells, making it difficult to study living cells except in laboratory tissue cultures, microbes and extremely tiny animals. Those studies reveal little of what might be discovered by watching living tissues in complex organisms in real-time.

"The use of fluorescent proteins in intact animals, such as mice, has been handicapped," write Tsien and Shu.

The remarkable work continues.  Tsien and his colleague have now discovered proteins that fluoresce at infra-red wavelengths.  This is an advance indeed!

A fluorescent protein found in an extremophile bacteria could give scientists an unprecedented view inside living animals.

The proteins, which glow with tissue-penetrating infrared light, could be used to tag cells in living animals, allowing researchers to watch real-time biological processes that have until now been hidden.

"Because their wavelengths penetrate tissue well, infrared-fluorescent proteins are suitable for whole-body imaging"

Theres still work to do but this will certainly lead to major breakthroughs in the future.

UPDATE 5/18/09: some groundbreaking work in imaging cellular division and cell specialization using Yellow Fluroscent Proteins.  GFP's officialy jealous!

PS If someone can tell me how to embed a video, I'd like to do that.  The video in the link is cool!

Red Cross

Stay Tuned...

Jeff Sessions - who couldn't get his own judicial nomination through a GOP Judiciary Committee even after flip-flopping to the correct position on whether the NAACP or the KKK poses a greater threat to the Republic - is now tying himself in knots over whether he would have a problem with a gay Supreme Court nominee per se, or just with one who believed gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. I'm sure when Strom Thurmond voted against Thurgood Marshall's nomination to the Court, it had nothing to do with him being Black - just with him being a Black man who believed Black people should have their equal protection rights protected.

But while it's funny/ sad/ ridiculous to watch Sessions and Co. squirm in saying first that "identity politics" are bad and then that we should be concerned that a gay nominee would make people "uneasy," or hear the Family Research Council signal openness to a gay nominee without "pro-gay ideology," there's a reason these guys are struggling to say something coherent: Open gay-bashing is becoming less popular in America, but it's hard to explain why LGBT people shouldn't have equal rights if we're not inferior Americans.

It's not by accident that the right-wing opposition to gay equality is a moving target. Anti-gay bigotry is still prevalent in America, and will be no doubt for a long time. But as Americans, including many who are uncomfortable with gay people, become less sympathetic to politicians saying that there are no gay people, that gay people need psychiatric help, that gay people are sinners, etc., Jeff Sessions has to come up with different ways to explain why he opposes the "gay agenda" - just like he had to come up with new ways to explain his animus towards the NAACP a generation ago.

So the issue is: elitist judges trying to tell regular people what to do (this one gets more tenuous now that more people support same-sex marriage than the Republican party); schoolteachers depriving parents of control over how (and whether) their kids learn about sexual orientation; priests getting locked up for not officiating at marriages they don't believe in; now Miss California's Miss America candidacy was judged not just on her body but on (gasp) how she answered a question! Perusing The Corner suggests that National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher's latest argument for why LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to get married is that opponents of gay rights will face social stigma as soon as gay people escape enshrined legal stigma. In the 90's Mike Huckabee was decrying our culture's decline "from Barney Fife to Barney Frank" - now he's decrying a gay blogger's intolerance towards Miss California.

So as more states and more Americans come out for legal equality, expect conservatives to get that much more creative in explaining their opposition as a defense of the little guy (the teacher, the priest, the voter, the beauty pageant contestant, the law professor), that much more eager to declare themselves tolerant of people with "gay tendencies," and that much more fulsome in their outrage when intolerant liberals suggest they have a problem with gay people.

Welcome to our company:www.sportshoesworld.com,We are a wholesaler and retailer of fashion brand new bag, (handbag,shoulder bag,wallets, computer bag, travel luggage,ect.), sunglasses,watches, hats,belts.ect. such Chanel, Chole, Coach, Dior, Balenciage, Prada, Gucci, Louis Vuitton ect.we always can supply you the most popular styles on the market. You will get best service and highest quality but low price goods (enough competitive in this line) from our company!

We can also do drop shipping for you, you sell the product and then we ship the item to your customer for you. You don't ever handle the product or maintain inventory, we do it all for you .

We always supply all different kinds of colors and specifications. We have no quantity limits! All the orders are accepted. Mixed different colors and sizes are welcome!

If you need more information ,you can browse our website: www.sportshoesworld.com. or Contact me d irectly by email: carriexmchina@hotmail.com

Infrastructurist has the details on some great news.  Americans are driving less, ending a steady climb in vehicle miles traveled since... well forever.

But it brings up an interesting question.  Is this really a change in behavior or just a reaction to increase in unemployment and reduction in discretionary trips.  Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight fame, takes a stab at digging into the stats.  Even though he was wrong about the Oscars, he's right about everything else.  He figures:

There is strong statistical evidence, in fact, that Americans respond rather slowly to changes in fuel prices. The cost of gas twelve months ago, for example, has historically been a much better predictor of driving behavior than the cost of gas today. In the energy crisis of the early 1980s, for instance, the price of gas peaked in March 1981, but driving did not bottom out until a year later.
---------------------------------------
The exceptionally sluggish pace of new-vehicle sales, moreover, in the face of extremely attractive incentives being offered by the automakers might imply that Americans are considering making more-permanent adjustments to their lifestyles. And the denigration of the brand of the Big Three automakers in light of their financial difficulties -- about one third of Americans have generally told pollsters they will buy only an American-made car -- might reduce some of the patriotic associations with the activity of driving. Building a light-rail system might not persuade Bubba to get rid of his vehicle -- but forcing him to buy foreign might.

I have a slightly different theory why this might be happening that I've touched on previously.  The oil shock didn't just affect consumer behavior.  It was also the pin that pricked the subprime bubble.  At it's peak, subprime loans accounted for around 20% of the mortgage market.  With those buyers disappearing, development into the transit-poor exurbs plummeted.  People either had to forgo buying their dream home and continue to rent, or purchase small single family and even multifamily homes, all markets which are found more readily in urban areas.

In this scenario, rather than making a conscious decision to living closer to work and services, people are being forced into this decision by market forces well beyond their control.  The unsustainability (spellcheck says this isn't a word but I'm going with it... it's Friday) of exurban growth patterns finally became too much for the market to bear and returned to the more stable model of growth focused in transit/pedestrian friendly urban areas.

Crossposted from here.

One last post regarding the TPM Chip-in event we organized two weeks ago.  To call it a phenomenal success would be the understatement of the year!

The costs that were incurred by seashell and thepeoplechoose have been reimbursed, although there is no amount of money in the world that can repay their generosity of character and spirit.  Seashell, take an extended bow.

The long journey The Old Grouch selflessly agreed to undertake in order to tie up loose ends (and the related expenses), turned out to be unnecessary.  Truth be told, I think both he and DickDay were disappointed by that fact.  Another time, boys.

The remaining funds contributed with so much love and joy have been forwarded to DickDay.  Don't tell him I said this, but I see a new pair of burn-hole-free PJ's, a six pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes in his future.  Shhh!  There he is ... pretend we're talking about something else.

Finally - a personal moment, if I may.  Were it not for Face (I don't know how to do an upside-down question mark) none of this would have taken place.  He stood up and declared his desire to help, with a clear and succinct idea.  Such a simple thing.  Yet, in this world of ours, so rare.  Because of him, the Cafe banded together and made it happen.  Thoughts flew, fingers typed, a community flowered and a life was changed.  To have been a part of that miracle is a memory I will treasure forever. 

As I will forever treasure you.  Thank you.   

 

It would seem that the so called stress tests have been loosing
more that a little of their credibility and on more that one front.
Now Time magazine has an expose about them. Even referring
to the esteemed Mr. Geithner as a con artist of the first caliber. 

 Not that three months of supervisory scrutiny of the
country's top 19 banks hasn't produced some grim news. If
the economy dropped to Depression-era levels of
unemployment and credit shrinkage, according to the
Treasury and the Federal Reserve, those firms could lose
nearly $600 billion by the end of 2010, on top of the $350
billion they've already lost since mid-2007. Bank of
America needs nearly $33.9 billion in new capital, Wells
Fargo needs $13.7 billion and Citigroup needs $5.5 billion.
Altogether, 10 of the top 19 need $74.6 billion in
additional capital. (See who's who in Obama's office.)

But in a remarkable bit of salesmanship, Geithner has
managed to package those findings as positive. Most of the
banks can meet or beat the newly imposed government capital
requirements on their own, either by selling off parts of
their business, converting loans into stock or
participating in the fledgling government-led effort to get
toxic assets off their balance sheets. And those that are
short on cash won't need more in total than the $110
billion to $135 billion the Treasury still has from the
original $700 billion in TARP funds that Congress gave the
Bush Administration for bank rescues last fall. "There is a
reassurance in clarity," Geithner said at a briefing on
Thursday.

Eat your heart out, Prof. Harold Hill.

Those revelations were greeted on Capitol Hill with stunned
silence by Republicans and barely suppressed joy by
Democrats. "I believe that many of [the banks] will be able
to meet their capital needs, without further government
capital," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the
Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday. Further, he said,
Administration officials "don't think there's a near-term
need" for more money from Congress. "That would be
terrific!" chirped the committee's Democratic chair,
Carolyn Maloney, of New York.

Ah...but if it were only true...and that simple. But as with most things
of this nature, the reality is quite different. But trying to bring back
the good old days with credit and the printing press does not always
work out. As Germany found out in the 1920s.

 But it's not all of it. Facts are important too, and some
think Geithner and the government are fudging them. Nouriel
Roubini, the hard-headed pessimist who foresaw the
financial crisis, wrote Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal
that the overall positive message of the stress tests
"would be good news if it were credible," but it's not. He
points to the recent IMF report that estimated $2.7
trillion in U.S. loan and security losses, and his own
estimate of $3.6 trillion for the same potential losses.
"The financial system is currently near insolvency," he
concluded. Bernanke disputes the numbers, saying banks have
"taken significant write-downs, they have reserves and
there are substantial earning capacities." But Roubini is
not alone in questioning whether the government used
appropriately pessimistic assumptions in conducting the
stress tests, especially as the financial sector faces a
potential flood of commercial real estate losses that could
mirror the residential market's recent woes.

Still, even if the numbers are based more on positive
thinking than cold hard facts, it's tough not to be
impressed by what Geithner and company have accomplished.
In addition to the boost in public confidence, they've
apparently figured out how to get the banks to support
Geithner's other iffy program, the one designed to rid
banks of toxic assets. Until now, banks have resisted
selling the highly securitized, largely illiquid toxic
assets, arguing they're worth more than the current
fire-sale prices being offered on the open market. But
taking them off the banks' books is key to restarting
lending, and the stress tests' mandate to boost capital may
be enough to get the process started.

The Treasury has given the troubled banks until June 8 to
decide how to raise that capital, and until November to do
so. Just by chance, early June is right around the time the
Treasury expects big-time fund managers to have come up
with the $500 million they need to leverage government
subsidies to purchase the toxic assets on the cheap.

All of which goes to show that whatever his faults, Tim
Geithner knows how to game America's confidence in the
banking system. But does that mean the stress tests
themselves are one big confidence game? Perhaps. The
playwright David Mamet said such scams get their name not
from the confidence the victim places in the con man, but
the trust the con man pretends to place in the victim to
elicit trust in return. By that standard, Geithner may be
the most effective con man around, for better and for
worse.

Ah yes...the old shell game and he learned it from the the masters.
The self same people who brought us this disaster. Any one for a
slightly used B flat flugelhorn ?


C

ProPublica/Salon published a really good article on the role of psychologists in crafting the Bush administration torture policy.  This article is well worth the read and provides tons of information on many of the players and issues popping up in congressional reports and memos.  It also adds a few people and facts I was previously unaware of.  There is just too much in the article to properly quote highlights ... read it!!!

As a part of the report, ProPublica has posted an entire mailing list archive from the "Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security" (PENS) group in the APA.  These discussions led up to a much disputed report that many APA members found to be soft on torture.  The raw emails offer an interesting window into the debate.  At 216 pages, there is a lot of fluff - but a brief scan also turns up some very germane discussions as well.

Huffington Post is one of the few outlets to pick up on this.  The Physicians for Human Rights is calling for an independent investigation of the process leading up to the APA report:

"These serious allegations require an independent investigation to determine whether APA leadership engaged in unethical conduct," said Steven Reisner, Ph.D., PHR Advisor for Psychological Ethics.

"The American public deserves to know if there were inappropriate contacts or conflicts of interest between APA officials and the Pentagon," he said.

They seem to be fleshing out closer ties between the APA and Pentagon/military brass than has previously been acknowledged.

The actions of psychologists and the APA seem to be critical on this issue.  The entire premise of the Bybee memo relies on professional assertions made by military psychologists.  Also, the congressional report is clear that from the very beginning the torture idea was concieved and advanced in large part by these mental-health "professionals".

Anyhow, there's another 200+ pages of raw documents that show another little piece of this tragic puzzle.  Have a nice weekend.

(Note: also must give props to ArsTechnica as one of the few to report on this).

 

Shiteface..er..Quinn and Sir Palidan were on their way to the wall again. This time without any of the guardsmen. King Arthur simply desired an independent eye to the goings on up there.

 

The outsourcing was costing a lot of money lately, and Bedivere was concerned that an entirely new Kaygate might be brewing. Rumors of finer steeds being purchased, as well as an influx of 'trophy wives' might indicate a little skimming by the realm's 'trustees'.  Gwain's estate was involved among others, as far as investing in some of the companies. Although Gwain himself , was always above reproach.  Besides, he never understood a thing about money.

 

Sir Cheney and Sir Boner were not above reproach. But as members of the aristocracy, the proof of 'improprieties' must be solid before any proceedings could be brought.  Quinn and Palidan were good picks. Quinn had worked as a contractor and ran his own crew. Palidan would not ever take his share of booty until it was all counted out at Camelot.

 

Hey Eduardo, how is that new mate of yours working out at the stables? Inquired Shiteface.

 

Well, the old grey mare just aint what she used to be.  HEEHAW HEEHAW

 

WHAT?

 

Just kidding, always wanted to say that!!! Eduardo added.

 

The four mammals had been on the road for a few days but still had a ways to go before they hit the wall.  (I always wanted to say that!!!)

 

Palidan, the salve that Belle of yours served up for me really helped. Those piles are gone. I mean I could even get rid of the saddle cushion I have been using, but I have become so used to it, I would rather not.

Any more word on that cabal at the stables?

 

Well, my Eduardo here heard the entire scheme.  He relayed it to Belle and then to me and we had to act right away according to Bedivere. But Cheney and Boner got away because, I mean....well the Court cannot really accept an oath from a four legger, so to speak. Hahahaha

 

That's easy for you to neigh. Responded Eduardo.

 

A couple hundred yards up Shiteface's finely 'plated' road the knights saw an encampment.

A large encampment with many pavilions, scores of horses and large carts. There was a large sign at the entrance:

 

CATAPULTS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

 

Oh, Geeez, it's the National Weapon Association.  We are supposed to check in with the arms vendors anyway Palidan.  We shall camp here and nose around. Whispers of sales to our enemies you know. Look for tattoos. Our dress certainly does not hide our allegiances, but we can look like we are looking for good deals and the possibility of investment. Geeeez, I hate these people. (Quinn blesses himself)

 

Eduardo, you stay around back and just listen.  Report to us later.

 

As the two knights entered the biggest tent, a speech was being delivered by the President of the NWA:

 

I had not planned to mention this, but Mayor Thomast's behavior since we came to town makes me think he spent too much time hanging out with London's Mayor  Bloom a couple of weeks ago. Thomast  went to  Bloom's meeting of big-city mayors in London to talk about big-city crime and that's the problem. They're all talk and no action. Bloom, if you really want to stop violent crime, you don't need to spend taxpayer's money to throw parties for mayors and hold seminars and schedule photo ops...and act like violent crime is some new problem with some secret solution.

It's real simple. If you want to get crime off your streets, get criminals off your streets! Mayor Bloom, it's not rocket science. NWA has supported putting bad guys behind bars for decades - and it works. Mayor Bloom, talk gets headlines. But prosecuting criminals gets results. And the people want results! I'll make you a deal,  Bloom. Here's what you do. Walk down to Town Hall and tell your prosecuting attorneys that from now on, no plea bargains, no reduced charges, no dropped cases. A thug caught with a cross bow goes to jail. A violent felon caught with a crossbow goes to jail. Discharge a crossbow in commission of a felony, go to jail. Smuggle a crossbow, go to jail. If you do that, if you stop talking and start acting, your violent crime rate will drop 30-40-50% in one year. *

Yadayadayada

Quinn turned to Palidan and whispered, I do not know what rocket science is, but I do know that crossbows do kill people and the vendors are responsible.  These animals are supplying our enemies and this must be stopped. I lost three on my road crew per marauders just last year. We were repairing roads for Chrissakes. (Blesses himself) We were not prepared for battle. Let us look around.

The knights saw huge storehouses of crossbows, bows, maces, axes, spears, swords...all sorts of weapons ready for sale to all buyers.  They strode outside to behold the catapults and the battering rams and other siege weapons. They went into one of the other tents.

There was a series of counters manned by vendors. Behind each counter were actual weapons and drawings of the larger weapons. They approached one of the counters manned by a slovenly ragged  troll with one eye and a scar that cut across his entire face, disfiguring his mouth and his nose. 

Come right up, he snarled. I am Gnarly and I am here to help you.

We are knights errant who wander to discover new things and communicate our findings to the richest of buyers, buyers interested in maintaining their forces on the continent. What kind of coin is thou seeking for this fine weaponry? Asked Palidan.

Well let us look at these deluxe crossbows, Gnarly said as he pulled out a catalogue:

	Barnett Crossbows		Excalibur Crossbows
	TenPoint Crossbows		Crossbow Accessories Find all the accessories you need for your crossbow such as rope cocking devices, scopes and more..

Take a look at the Barton or the TenPoint. But nothing beats the ExCalibur.  This here fine Ex was christened by our own beloved King Arthur. It is semi-automatic but (Gnarly cups one three fingered hand over his disjointed mouth) but if you pick up a few 'accessories' for a couple more pence, you can turn this fine article into an automatic. No problem. And we even ship the manual with each piece. Ha

But are not automatics against the King's own laws? Quinn inquired.

Automatics are, but not semi-automatics. Ha

Well I am no legal expert, but if you sell the weapon and the 'adjustments' are available with instructions, I mean are you not in fact breaking the law? And if the manufacturer knows this, has not it crossed the line with regard to this very important series of statutes?

Gnarly, continued: Oh that is for yer lawyers and such. Me, I am just a poor vendor strutting and fretting upon the sales floor, attempting to fill my small purse to feed me family and friends alike. Legally speaking, signifying nothing. Ha

We shall return after discussing this matter and outlining a proposal.

The two then came up with a fictitious order and returned.  A purchase order was drawn up and at the top of the paper was the title:  Sir  Cheney's Hellofaburden War Supplies.

After nosing around some more, Quinn found an accounts ledger with the purchasers designated as Picts.  He filed it into his belt.

This may be all the evidence we need Quinn, noted Palidan.

As they left the pavilion with their evidence in hand they noted over at the Camel Lot parking section that, there was a protester dressed in a robe and in sandals. He was standing on a crate with his lyre and broke into song:

 

The European world, it is deploring

Violence flarin', arrows loadin'

You're ready enough to kill, but not for devotin'

You can't wait to go to war,
but what's that bow you're totin'

And even the Thames River has bodies floatin'

But you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don't believe

We're on the eve

of destruction.

Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say

Can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?

If the battle is lost, there's no runnin' away

There'll be no one to save,
with all of England in a grave

[Take a look around ya boy, 
it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you don't believe

We're on the eve

of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is among Etruscans

Then take a look around to our own Northhampton

You may leave here for 4 days in space

But when you return, it's the same old place

The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace

You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace

Hate your next-door neighbor, 
but don't forget to say grace

And... tell me over and over and over
and over again, my friend

You don't believe

We're on the eve

Of destruction

Mm, no no, you don't believe

We're on the eve

of destruction.

The prophet then put down his lyre and picked up 
his sign and began pacing. A woman in a robe
joined him with her own sign.

*	Roz Chast Shiteface turned to Palidan: Funny how opposing ideas sometimes come together, huh?   The two gathered their steeds and moved on up the road to a local inn.              *   2006 Annual Meeting Officers' Speeches: Wayne LaPierre

 

Eddie Valiant: So that's why you killed Acme and Maroon? For this freeway? I don't get it.

Judge Doom: Of course not. You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night. Soon, where Toon Town once stood will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food. Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful.

Dear GOP - I'm out of work and can't find a job.  What can you do for me?
Dear "can't find a job," -  we are going to give rich people tax cuts.  There'll be lots of jobs, you can bank on it.

Dear GOP - I'm a single mom with a sick child, and no health care.
Dear "single mom" - we are the party that respects the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Dear GOP - if I don't get a job soon I'm going to kill myself!
Dear "kill myself" - the GOP upholds your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Dear GOP - I'm worried that pollution is destroying our planet.
Dear "worried" -  not to worry, we'll give big polluters a really, really big tax cut.

conservatism - con·ser·va·tism [ kən súrvə tìzzəm ] - noun
1. reluctance to accept change: unwillingness or slowness to accept change or new ideas
2. right-wing political viewpoint: a right-of-center political philosophy based on a tendency to support gradual rather than abrupt change and to preserve the status quo
3. desire to preserve current societal structure: an ideology that views the existing form of society as worthy of preservation

On April 29th a new group, Resurgent Republic, headed by former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie released a report showing a Republican resurgence.  Longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg sent a biting letter to Gillespie refuting his data.

You would probably be surprised if I didn't have some reactions and advice to offer, as you explicitly state you are "modeled on Democracy Corps." Given your goal, I am perplexed that your first poll would be so outside the mainstream on partisanship. Your poll gives the Democrats just a 2-point party identification advantage in the country, but other public polls in this period fell between +7 and +16 points - giving the Democrats an average advantage of 11 points. Virtually all your issue debates in the survey would have tilted quite differently had the poll been 9 points more Democratic.

Greenberg offers Gillespie some pithy advice:

The problem of partisanship pales before the problem of self-deluding bias in question wording that might well contribute to Republicans digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole.

Your most important finding was the strong opposition to Barack Obama's budget when you describe it for voters. Ed, from your platform on Meet the Press you told Republican leaders they can confidently oppose this budget and expect independents to side with them.

Greenberg doesn't hold back in his snarky criticism:

In effect, your survey has you winning an argument with yourself. Indeed, that is where you start your analysis of the first poll - telling readers in bold and underlined type that you are winning the big ideological debate by two-to-one, which "verifies America remains a center-right country." In this seminal debate, one side says:

Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

The other, pathetically out-of-touch side says:

Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal.

In an interview with Huffington Post; GOP Defined As "Utterly Uncaring" In "Time Of Crisis", Greenberg summed up his view of the Republican party:

The party leaders all personify the geographic and ideological base -- namely, southern white conservatives, he said. The emphasis on cultural issues is ill-fitting in the current climate. The strict opposition to the president's economic plans was almost transparent in its motivation. And the criticism of the stimulus was "defining their party as utterly uncaring during this time of crisis."

On May 4th Resurgent Republic's Whit Ayres (not Gillespie?) responded to Greenberg: 

Thank you for your critique of the first Resurgent Republic survey. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you should be flattered. We admire the work of Democracy Corps, and hope we can further public debate on important issues.

Conservatives know only one way to define themselves; reluctance to accept change, and unwillingness to accept new ideas, as the world passes them by. 

And that is why Republicans and their ideology are the party of the doomed.

doomed [ doomd ] - adjective
1. destined to disaster: condemned to suffer a dreadful fate, especially one that is imminent and inescapable
   From that time, the creature was doomed to extinction.
2. in danger of the eternal punishment of hell.

As TPM has even point out, banks are now reporting sudden profits based on their trading activities.  But don't believe for a minute that these profits come from the skills of the traders or that the traders are, in the end, worth the princely sums they demand in compensation.

One thing that's very hard to do, in money management and trading, is to separate skill from luck or, more appropriately, skill from market conditions in which it's almost impossible to do wrong.  "Everyone is a genius in a bull market," the saying goes because in a bull market, most stocks are going up.  You either have to be very bad or very unlucky to constantly pick the losers.

The current situation with the banks is far easier than trading stocks in a bull market.  All these bank traders have to do is put the banks capital to work profitably.  The banks are getting free capital from the government and near-free capital from the Federal Reserve.  So the cost of capital is nothing.  The trade you do to make money is very simple: buy anything. If you use free money to buy a Treasury bond, bam... you make 3%.  Use it to buy a junk bond and, sure, you take some risk that you'll lose money it cost you nothing to obtain and will cost nothing to replace, but if the loan performs (as the vast majority do), you make 15-20%

Now, lets say your banks had to borrow its money at some actujal rate of interest, even 1-5% -- the trade becomes more difficult.  Your junk bond stops paying, you lose your money and have to spend 1-5% to get it.  Now you're in the hole and need a bigger win to make the money back.  That's a hard trade.

What's happening at the banks now is a  no-lose trade.  There's no skill. Anyone can do it.  Take free money, buy anything. Wait.

The male bower bird of Australia collects objects to arrange as a stage, on which to display its pleasing stature and song. It weaves grasses into walls to frame the stage, places bright and dark pebbles around it, and makes sure it is oriented east-west, so that noonday sun will illuminate the place of honor. This takes roughly 70% of its day, and a goodly portion of that time consists of defending the bower against destructive attack from competitors, or launching attacks on others' bowers.

Is the bird wasting its time? The bird that opts out of the competition also opts out of the gene pool. We would root for trying harder, reaching higher, just as we applaud small colleges seeking to make the Final Four, or American Idol, or any of thousands of forms of human competition. We spend money on storytelling, whether books or movies. We buy pictures to mount on our walls, even though we can't eat them, or survive attack by sheltering behind them.

The question of necessity is raised by the economic overshoot we have experienced. We were buying for the fun of it, we think, instead of the necessity of it. But economists and writers point to Japan as having been too concerned with saving, back in the 90s, and the government tried hard to inspire spending. Is there a level of frivolous economic activity that is necessary?

Read more »

...CALL MAX AND TELL HIM TO INCLUDE SINGLE PAYER ADVOCATES AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS IN THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON MAY 12TH.

I just can't seem to make any sense out of the way Max Baucus is approaching the job of reforming health care in America, truth be told I don't understand why the first committee to take up this issue is Finance.

But, I digress.

It is quite apparent to me that Senator Baucus is much more interested in keeping his donors happy than he is in helping you and me. No other Democratic member of Congress has taken more money from big pharma and health insurance companies than this tool, Baucus got $183,000 from health insurance companies and $229,000 from drug companies.

 

Take a look at this blurb that tells of a speech Baucus made:

 

Speaking before the Hill "___"*"___" Breakfast Policy Briefing Thursday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) argued the need for health care reform.

"Comprehensive health reform is my top priority in the Finance Committee," Baucus said. "And that's because when I look at the numbers, they add up to one thing -- a crisis."

 

*Now let me fill in the blank above and tell you WHO he was speaking to,  AstraZeneca. Hmmm... isn't AstraZeneca a pharmaceutical manufacturer (read BIG PHARMA) that funds his campaign for Senate every six years. 

I just saw a video of the Senate finance committee hearing that was addressing health care reform. Invited to attend by Baucus were Health Insurance Companies, Big Pharma and lobbyists for Health Insurance Companies and Big Pharma. Noticeably absent was anyone that was for SINGLE PAYER, in fact those in the audience that supported Single Payer were thrown out of the hearing. 

I recommend that you take a look at THIS  flier that supports Single Payer Universal Health Care.

I would also point out that polls show that over 60 percent of Americans and 60 percent of physicians want single-payer.

Here is a couple more sites to use in our quest for Single Payer.

          Physicians for a National Health Program

         Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare

PLEASE get involved and tell MAX to include ALL opinions in the Health Care Debate, ESPECIALLY the opinions of those professionals that actually provide Health Care!

Max Baucus is trying to keep the Insurance Companies and Big Pharma happy by screwing "U.S.".

PLEASE call MAX and let him know, we know, what he is trying to do!

Well, it looks like the blamed the wrench and let the wrenchman go.  Looks like a lower level person is going to take the hit.  SOOO TYPICAL...

This guy would have gotten a promotion.

Members of All Three Branches of Government are implicated in potential war crimes among them torture and conspiracy to commit torture.

Even though this involves to a great extent a previous adminstration, I don't think we can really expect our government to hold itself accountable under the circumstances.

I also question whether holding those responsible accountable for their actions should be the job of one man, one 'special' prosecutor?

Is there any precedent for this situation, members of all three branches implicated in criminal activity, in our history?

Early on I heard it suggested that we needed a very high degree of impartiality.  Members of both parties have been implicated so this makes sense. 

It was suggested that perhaps a panel of three retired federal judges should together review all of the material and conclude what actions are appropriate to take.  I would like to see accountability and appropriate consequences rather than persecution and revenge.  But most of all I want to see our integrity restored by holding ourselves to the standards we expect and ask for from other nations.  I want to see our rule of law restored and respected by everyone.  I want to see our democracy come out of this stronger, not weakened beyond repair.  The best way to demonstrate that democracy works is well, to make sure we make 'our' democracy work. We must lead by example.  If we turn our democracy into a laughing stock well... our 'stock' diplomatically plummets and we are the butt of our own joke.

I don't really know what we do when all three branches of government are implicated in crimes.  Seeing Senator Lamar Alexander threaten our Attorney General with 'if you investigate us on torture, then we'll investigate to see if you committed any crimes during the Clinton adminstration'  that was just sickening!  WTF!!!

What I think is that 'to regain integrity, there must be accountability'. 

That stands above everything.  If people want leniency for people like some members of the CIA that 'carried out orders' then they should suggest what that would look like, retraining on ethics and law... demotion, etc.  I am less concerned with the actual consequences than I am the actual accountability and acknowlegment that laws were broken and crimes were committed. If we cannot take responsibility for our own actions we are a deluded nation.

How to make amends.  What consequences are appropriate under the law and as a nation having held citizens of other countries without representation... (not all of those 'tortured' were necessarily criminals or terrorists I am guessing since they had no trials etc., they were 'suspected' right), I have no idea.

Some people may deserve the book and every possible consequence thrown at them for complete disregard for the law and violations of oath of office.  For others perhaps demotion and retraining on laws and ethics is appropriate.  Let the consequence fit the crime of the individual.  Again I reference the story from  'A Few Good Men', a general was court marshalled and two lieutenants were dishonorably discharged.

Bottom line, I think we need to form a coalition of groups of people and come together to demand accountability because every branch of our government is implicated and we can't expect them to do what is right without pressure from 'us'.  If you know of a group acting on this issue please list them.  I would like to build a list.  Thanks!

This week Wattree and TheraP turned productive lights on the standards of progressives, the development of their perspectives and how archly judgmental people who know better can become.

Read more »

Over the last few years, ecological and energy depletion websites alike have been telling us that eating locally will reduce transportation costs, which saves energy and thus is a good thing. The term locavores has entered the lexicon, meaning those who pledge to only eat food produced within a limited distance of home.

But as reported in the Atlantic, Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University have compared the effect of eating foods that require less energy to transport with the effect of eating foods that require less energy to grow. Their abstract:

Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka "food-miles." We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household's 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than "buying local." Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food. PDF

In short, not eating red meat, dairy and certain cereals (all of which I love) should lead to a far greater reduction in household greenhouse gas emissions than, "eating locally." But can't one do both?

Atlantic's Marion Nestle notes:

I've always thought that the real benefits of local food production were in building and preserving communities. I like having farms within easy access of where I live and I like knowing the people who produce my food. If local food doesn't make climate change worse and maybe even helps a bit, that's just icing on the cake. Or am I missing something here?

One commenter to the Atlantic article replies, "there are BIG PROBLEMS with substituting eco-theory for the economics of international trade." Another continues, "... One needs to focus on eating what is in-season, locally and then, and only then, look at infrequent treats of out-of-season, non-local products. The thing that will motivate people to do this is some form of carbon tax that will provide a more realistic cost associated with transportation of non-local goods."

I'm not sure we'll need the carbon tax. I already find out-of-season food to be much more expensive than before.

YOU just gotta be kidding! 308 million Americans being dictated to by a two-bit state of 6 million that thinks it's a world player even though it has no natural resources, it's non-self-supporting and totally dependent on US aid and handouts from the Jewish Diaspora, it boasts the world's most recalcitrant troublemakers, it's arrogant, it has an endemically corrupt political class, it's ethno-centric, it's contemptuous of international institutions including the UN, the EU, the Geneva Conventions and the World Court, it's one of the smallest states in the world being only 20,000 sq m - AND IT INTENDS TO DICTATE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL STATE IN THE WORLD! You are kidding me, right? They might have been able to talk rubbish to the baby Bush but that era of stupidity and crass incompetence has passed. It wouldn't even make a B film script now.

In theory, all politicians are supposed to uphold the rule of law and the constitution. But those few who dare to actually practice what they preach have been traditionally thought of as outsiders, cast aside as fringe; derisively labelled "strict constitutionalists" or "crazy libertarians"; irrelevant to the realities of the modern world.

Take a trip to libertarian paradise.  Enjoy your stay. =)

I'd like to continue the conversation begun in my previous post "How the GOP Could (and Should) Come Back". In that post, I argued that:

There's no reason the GOP couldn't win by taking policy stands more or less the same as those that won elections for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but by offering an approach that rhetorically emphasizes precisely the opposite values. In short, Republicans might offer a style of governing that emphasis different priorities than the Democrats while offering essentially the same program.

It seems that most of the comments focused on a different issue than that raised by the post: whether or not the Republican party is likely to adopt a post-ideological, post-partisan, pragmatic approach. And few think that the GOP in its current incarnation will do so, and I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. It's right that the GOP is in a wilderness; but it remains to be seen just how dark and deep the forest is, and when they will find a clearing or exit.

One commenter expressed the sentiment:

What you are saying is this: GOP could be basically Democrats but pretend that they are republicans. Nice dream but fat chance.

That's part of it (hey it worked for Bill Clinton, didn't it?), but it's not quite right because it takes a shortsighted view of politics. I'm not merely suggesting GOPs become "stealth Democrats"; I'm saying that if they become more pragmatic and less rigid, then they can see how their core principles (not ideology, but core values) can be applied in fresh ways that lead to new policy opportunities and priorities.

Let's look at an issue that's dear to my heart as a staunchyly pro-same-sex marriage Democrat and an author of two books on gay culture, politics, and philosophy. Same-sex marriage could be a winning issue for both political parties; however, both parties would be attracted to different values that the policy embodies.

Progressives embrace same-sex marriage primarily as a civil rights issues and freedom of choice, a position that puts them in the position of being seen as taking an "anything goes", relativistic stand. Conservatives embrace same-sex marriage because it's pro-family, and it expands who's included in the definition of family by recognizing gay and lesbians are part of families and need to be included in society's traditional institutions.

Therefore, Republicans could strongly embrace same-sex marriage as a pro-family issue, and simultaneously oppose laws that weaken traditional marriage (e.g., domestic partnership legislation). They could become advocates of same-sex marriage because of its conservative virtues, essentially encouraging responsibility and an end to non-marital sexual activity across the board.

So, the GOP could couple their pro-family agenda with fresh ideas about using government to discourage divorce, and make an anti-divorce campaign central to their politics. For example, the GOP could promote voluntary "covenant marriage laws" (laws that give soon-to-be-married couples the option of selecting a form of marriage that makes divorce much more difficult). Taking a firm stand against DIVORCE could be the hot new issue with which they rally their Religious Right base.

An anti-divorce politics would probably resonate with their base, perhaps even more so than an anti-gay agenda in the long-term, while perhaps winning converts from culturally conservative Democrats. I don't know that there's any polling on the younger generation's attitudes towards divorce, but it's quite possible that youth raised in an age where Brittney Spears and other celebrities have trivialized marriage could be attraced to a pro-family policy agenda that isn't just a mask for homophobia.

Over the long-term there will be a viable opposition party to the Democrats whether it's the GOP or an up-and-coming new party, and this will be a healthy development for democracy. The question, I think, is whether they can move from clinging to old, out-of-touch issues to new both-and approaches that emphasize conservative values without prejudice. 

Yesterday saw the GOP return to scare tactics in order to find some way of returning to relevancy.  Today we see many examples that clearly show why that cannot be allowed to happen.  Irrational fear or rational but overstated fear corrupt our politics and our lives. 

Today, for the very first time since his inauguration, President Obama has angered me.  He has let fear - of political recriminations - prevent him from doing what is right.  Perhaps he is correct that a Legislative repeal of the absolutely repulsive "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" policy should not be priority during these difficult times, but that does not excuse him when he allows the termination of honorable gay service members to continue.  I understand that he cannot make the law go away, but he is choosing not to do the things he could and should to lessen its negative impact on individuals, the military and the nation.  He can and should sign a stop loss order as Commander and Chief putting a halt to any termination of service men and women under this policy until such time as the law can be reviewed and eliminated.  To allow this legally sanctioned descrimination to continue is simply not justifiable.  He,like so many Democratic politicians, is conditioned to expect not only that the GOP will use any excuse to play the gay card, but expects these tactics to be successful.  The employment rights of homosexuals should not be a political issue. This is a civil rights issue.  To allow descrimination to continue due to fear of political repercussions in the future is not acceptable.

Also in the headlines today is news indentifying specific Congressional leaders who were briefed on the Bush Administrations illegal torture program and who then did nothing to stop it.  Again we see the clear and corrupting influence of fear.  Fear not literally of another terrorist attack, but rather fear of being blamed for a future terrorist attack caused these law makers to be complicit in war crimes.  Their silence facilitated the continuence of these crimes and now gives the instigators of them political cover when it comes to investigations.  Maybe the reason the political establishment is so vehemently opposed to investigating obvious war crimes is because the corruption, lawlessness, and immorality cut across all brances of government and both political parties.  Again, moral and legal rightness is being thwarted by fear - the fear punishment for these crimes.

I am sure that in some ways paralysis on these and other issues of morality, law and social justice seems to be a viable course.  It is calm and peaceful to simply ignore and bury tough issues and self-recriminations.  But that peace is a false peace.  These issues will continue to rear their ugly heads and to grow and morph into new tangents that we cannot possibly anticipate.  We must set aside our own fears and force our leaders to set aside theirs.We must find the courage to stand up, take an unblinking look at ourselves and our politics and do what is right on issues as important and defining as human and civil rights.  We must cease to fear fear.

Some times you notice something, and think, "I'm gonna have to post about it later," and by the time you do, the story has changed.

This is particularly true in corruption cases, where things move rather quickly.

Case in point, the corrupt, self dealing Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Stephen Friedman, who, "bought shares in Goldman Sachs in December, profiting to the tune of $1.7 million."

Ordinarily not a problem, since the Federal Reserve does not regulate investment banks, but for a little fact, that in September, the Federal Reserve allowed Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company, and hence was regulated by the Federal Reserve, and most particularly was regulated by, you guessed it, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

But of course, as Yves Smith so eloquently notes, "A Conflict of Interest is Not a Conflict of Interest If It Involves Goldman," or as he said to the Wall Street Journal:

Last week, following questions from The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Friedman, 71 years old, disclosed he would step down from the New York Fed at year end. In an interview, he said he made the decision because the waiver letting him own Goldman stock and be a Goldman director expires at the end of the year. He added: "I see no conflict whatsoever in owning shares."

Except of course, as Ms. Smith notes, he bought shares in a company that he was regulating, and he did so before the waiver was approved.

This is insider trading, pure and simple.

Of course, today we see have justice, Wall Street style, as Mr Friedman has resigned, effectively immediately, from the NY Fed.

That's it. He gets to walk way and keep his money, there will almost certainly be no criminal investigation.

This is business as usual, and, yet again, all roads on corruption lead back to Goldman Sachs, the BCCI of Wall Street.

Taking these racketeers down them down must be a government priority.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

 Cigarette Commercials are banned, but the Tobacco Industry has a new way to hook in less affluent, minority children - Reality Television.

  Yesterday, I happened to watch VH1.

  Buff, sexy VH1 star "12 Pack" was puffing away with a vengeance.  So was his partner. 
  A bit too frenetically, as if he or the director wanted to make certain that cigarettes would be in this shot. 
 I made it a point to watch the next show, "Bones."  Another brief shot of a party girl smoking.

  Then after that, a show called Daisy of Love, yet another smoker.

  Smoking is ok, kids.  Cool TV people do it.  It's part of the scene.

  VH1 is pulling a sneaky. Working parents don't realize the channel has morphed from innocuous teen entertainment, and dark forces have insidiously penetrated that will harm their child for the rest of his life. 

  Once a kid is hooked, he is a customer till the day he drops dead. 

  Like my own kid, lured in by Joe Camel 20 years ago.  Now short winded with a chronic cough, and unable to quit.

 Meanwhile, the dying children's money can be spread all around.  VH1 president, Tom Calderone can stuff more wads of bills into his pocket.

 Of course Tom is too smart to touch a stinking cigarette.  He takes loving care of his own lungs, no doubt.  

 Tom apparently figures blue collar parents who don't micromanage their kid's TV watching deserve to watch their kid vomit up black blood in a few short years.

 And the cancer patient vomiting up black blood deserves it for trying to emulate the dude he saw on VH1 back when he was little.

I've said it many times, Michael Savage is an intellectual coward.

He absolutely refuses to appear anywhere where his opinions of "facts" can be challenge and he does not control the mic.

Well, this clip from a May 5 appearance on NPR proves my point.

Read more ...

Where's the 'Waterboarding Event' Hannity?

On April 22, Fox News' Sean Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded after ardently defending the practice and excoriating President Obama for ending the technique. "Clearly this president has not done his homework, and it is putting each and every American at risk," Hannity said about ending torture. Declaring he is "for enhanced interrogation," Hannity said he would happily consent to being waterboarded as a fundraiser "for the troops' families."

However, two weeks later, Hannity has yet to mention the promise again -- despite the offer from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to help Hannity raise funds by donating $1,000 for every second Hannity is waterboarded.

So.....Sean Hannity, when is 'D-Day'?  When will you volunteer for charity to be waterboarded in public?  We're still waiting to see if after being TORTURED whether or not you continue to think it's NOT TORTURE!

Perhaps Keith Olbermann should invite Charles Grodin onto his show to ask him if Sean Hannity has contacted him with a date?

I also think it's odd that no other local/cable station is talking about THIS story.  It's just as important as when Dan Rather got into trouble over Bush's military record -- isn't it?  It's for the troops Hannity said!

The lawyers continue to jump ship as the once-good ship DOJ springs another leak.

 

Read more »

We Did Indeed Torture - Waterboarded Prisoners

It's on the record now...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's use of waterboarding on Thursday, saying that, contrary to arguments made by Barack Obama, the techniques were a necessary last-resort measure to get information from detainees.

"I don't believe that's true," Cheney said, when asked to respond to Obama's statement that interrogators may not have needed to resort to torture. "That assumes that we didn't try other ways, and in fact we did. We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy, with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we'd gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances."

The remarks, delivered during an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, glossed over the 266 instances in which the United States reportedly used waterboarding on two terrorist suspects -- a figure that would suggest the technique was either not effective or not really used as a last-resort option.

Ok, Attorney General Holder, do you job and arrest former Vice president Cheney for war crimes.  While you're at it, pick up former Secretary of State Condi Rice, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld,  and President George W Bush.

Former Vice President Cheney can put the WORDS out there as many times as he wishes hoping to desensitize Americans to the fact that we TORTURED prisoners and therefore committed WAR CRIMES, but the fact remains the same.  The past administration are war criminals.

If this were any other country these people would be in jail - as per OUR demands.

Arlen Specter and I have some things in common. We orbit the same basic political ideals, we both stick out lick a cowlick, and we've been driven to the Democratic Party by the comic book sensibilities of the Republican National Committee. Das Committee.

Ideals exist in idealand. Absolutes exist at the edge of reality. Consistency is to be expected from a rock, or a moon, or blue. These are concepts. So when life, or cataclysmic change comes at you don't flinch. Stay there. When it's over, and you're interred in a box they will say, "Wow- he held on to his rigid superstitions and stuff despite overwhelming opposition from reality. Must have been either a crackpot or a genius."

 

Neutron stars, so named because they are comprised mostly of neutrons, are among the densest objects in the universe:

A neutron star is produced when a massive star explodes as a supernova and then collapses onto itself. The result is one of the oddballs of the universe, a star that is roughly 15 miles in diameter but more massive than the sun. On Earth, a teaspoon of a neutron star - think of a dense pudding of nuclear matter, most of it neutrons and all of it packed tightly together - would weigh about 1 billion metric tons if it were taken from the inner crust of the neutron star. If the teaspoon were taken from the denser interior where neutrons are more tightly packed, the matter could weigh up to 10 billion metric tons.

The strange thing about a star so dense is that it has a solid crust. 

The "atmosphere" of the star is roughly one meter thick, below which one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities of ~5 mm), because of the extreme gravitational field.^[11].

So how hard is this crust?

"We modeled a small region of the neutron star crust by following the individual motions of up to 12 million particles," Horowitz said of the work conducted through IU's Nuclear Theory Center in the Office of the Vice Provost for Research. "We then calculated how the crust deforms and eventually breaks under the extreme weight of a neutron star mountain."

Because of the intense pressure found on neutron stars, structural flaws and impurities that weaken things like rocks and steel are less likely to strain the crystals that form during the nucleosynthesis that occurs to form neutron star crust. Squeezed together by gravitational force, the crust can withstand a breaking strain 10 billion times the pressure it would take to snap steel.

12 Million particles sounds like an awfully small sample.  Still...pretty cool.

Stay Tuned...

(can anyone tell me how to do images?  I cant figure it out.)

by Brian Galle*

First published in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy as 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 370 (2009), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2009/10/

Republished with permission

In the days before and after the passage of California's "Proposition 8," a ballot initiative barring legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the state, it was widely reported that the LDS Church, together with other religious organizations, played a significant role in supporting the initiative. National attention peaked with a New York Times report detailing some of the church's efforts, which included e-mails to members imploring them to donate money to "Yes on 8" organizations as well as other logistical support for proponents of the measure. Gay rights advocates and others have now called for an investigation of the Church's activities, arguing that they violate federal restrictions on political activities by tax-exempt charities.

This Essay considers the merits of the argument that the Mormon Church's support for Proposition 8 violated federal tax law. I take as given the facts reported by the New York Times and other major news outlets. Although the facts are not really in dispute, much of the underlying law is. There are few clear guidelines governing lobbying by charities. In the end it is impossible to say whether the Church's conduct will have any tax-law repercussions. My conclusion that there is uncertainty, though, stands in contrast with existing claims that the expenditures of the LDS Church and others are clearly unproblematic.

My discussion here is also aimed at revealing some of the weaknesses of the law of charities. In particular, the Proposition 8 episode exposes a serious hole in the fabric of the federal law: the possibility that massive, multi-million dollar lobbying expenditures, large enough to swamp any opposition, may be perfectly legitimate, so long as they are undertaken by a sufficiently gigantic organization. It is hard to see a good justification for a rule that would, in effect, grant political influence only to the largest charities, but that seems to be one plausible interpretation of current law (albeit an interpretation I argue against here). Further, recent events show that the IRS so far has failed to grapple with the most important questions surrounding the rules against lobbying, such as the problem of how to value the use of mailing lists, websites, e-mail, and phone trees--tools that now are central to modern politics.

Part I of the Essay sets out the background rules governing charities. Part II explains how these rules, as interpreted to date, lead to fairly inconclusive results in the Prop 8 scenario, largely because of valuation problems and uncertainty about the extent of permissible activities for large organizations. Part III presses more closely towards a thorough understanding of the political-activity laws, arguing that the two best candidates for the purposes underlying those laws both suggest that the LDS Church's expenditures should be problematic.

Read more »

President Obama has nominated me to be one of the five commissioners of the FCC. I will rule TV and the internet. My résumé includes delivering free news-rags and sitting in a chair. Will I sell out the internet to my telecom friends, and allow Rupert Murdoch to buy PBS? Wait and see!

Sean, you need to get a life dude. What I grab and adorn my burger with?

Really?

I gotta say buddy, I've met some gropin' sumbitches in my life but you take the cake. Gropin'. Groping. Groper. You're old enough to remember that one, right?

You act as if you have small penis syndrome and a high school diploma.

There are a lot of people here who write quite a bit. I've been reading the Cafe since its inception, and am always astounded by the talents and passion that so many here exhibit. 

She seems to think it was one of Obama's campaign pledges to do something about war and starvation in Sudan - see more at miafarrow.org or contact Obama at White House (202-456-1111)

Update:  I'm tempted to make the score 2 to 0 because several articles now have titles or headlines saying the Texas teacher was killed by swine flu, while in the body the article admits otherwise.

Swine flu victim a dedicated teacher
[The Texas teacher] left for maternity leave April 14 and within days was hospitalized. District personnel knew she was sick but as late as May 1 had information from the Hidalgo County Health Department that swine flu tests were negative.

original blog:

CDC "date of onset" data shows both Mexico (upper pic) and USA (lower pic) flu epidemic cases peaked well before Biden's famous April 30 "stay out of confined spaces" remark. Not that the data was necessarily available at that point... but the data now show Biden not only overstated but was about a week or more late.  

Some fear a resurgence in the next official flu season, and in southern hemisphere regions almost totally untouched so far (by today's report).  Maybe some will have learned a lesson for the future.  Nonetheless, score one for the conceptual terrorism cuckoo and note that US resident deaths remain at zero (the death of the teacher in Texas is not being officially attributed to the flu) 

Notice that US non-confirmed cases are "probable" while Mexico's are "suspected".  Also, note April 10 and 18 as turning points.


                                       

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Carrie Prejean: Are Progressives Becoming as Intolerant as Conservatives? I've always been proud to consider myself a progressive, because being a progressive meant that I was open-minded, willing to assess every issue on its own merit, and I'm tolerant of varying points of view. But it seems that many of today's "progressives" have corrupted the term. Though many of these people call themselves progressives, they are not progressive thinkers-they are progressive in name only. Over the years they seem to have somehow lost their way, and as a result, have managed to redefined the term "progressive" to simply mean, not conservative. A case in point is the unconscionable way in which the so-called progressive community has demonized Carrie Prejean after she indicated, almost apologetically during the Miss America Pageant, that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why in the world did she say that?!! Thereafter, she was called a bitch, seminude photos of her have been posted on the Internet, and she's been generally, dragged through the mud. It is unbelievable that people who call themselves progressive could do that to that young woman. While I 'm in total disagreement with her views on same-sex marriage, those are her views, and she has every right to them. She didn't try to shove her point of view down America's throat; she was specifically asked whether SHE thought same-sex marriage should be legalized. And she and she responded- quite honestly, diplomatically, and in my opinion, quite courageously, that she didn't. Then the judge, Perez, I think his name was, taped a video on Youtube calling her "a dumb bitch." So I ask you, what kind of progressive thinker can take the position that a person doesn't have a right to their own views? Perez even went so far as to dictate how Ms. Prejean SHOULD have answered the question. Who the Hell is he to tell a person what they should think? People like, Perez, is more damaging to their cause than they are helpful, because in many cases, it's not the issue that people are against, they just don't like the people who represent the issue. I agree with Perez on this issue, but I don't like him. So if I was on the fence regarding same-sex marriage, I'd vote against it-not against the issue, but against him, and I'm certain that many progressive issues are being voted down for that very reason. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a progressive as "A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government." Granted, Ms. Prejean's attitude toward same-sex marriage is far less than progressive, but she never claimed to be a progressive. She said she was a Christian, so there's nothing unusual for her to adhere to a belief system that she's been taught all of her life. On the other hand, however, for so-called progressives to denigrate this young lady as though she doesn't have a right to her private opinion, nor religious beliefs, is far more destructive to society and backward thinking, than anything that she's ever publicly uttered, at least to my knowledge--and such a position is certainly not a progressive point of view. Many of the people who call themselves progressives today seem to have been infected by what old-school progressives considered their most ardent foe and the most pernicious bane on society--intolerance. It's no longer good enough to say that gays and lesbians should be afforded equal rights and be allowed to marry like anyone else in our society, now it is required that everyone must enthusiastically embrace that position-in spite of their religious beliefs, and even in their private thoughts. And it's no longer good enough to say that women deserve equal rights in the workplace, now, any woman who chooses to be a full-time mother and homemaker is considered a turncoat to the feminist movement, and "unenlightened." And please don't let a woman use her femininity in the workplace to get ahead-just as men use their masculinity on a daily basis-she's immediately demonized. In fact, I'm virtually certain that Ms. Prejean's feminine beauty is playing a large part in her demonization. And the irony is, such demonization is often led by other women. Due to our leftist indoctrination, they fail to realize that's the very worst kind of sexual discrimination. They've allowed themselves to be convinced that the only way a woman can truly validate herself as being a worthy individual is to prove that she can be just like a man. A similar mindset is reflected in the Black community. Many Blacks feel like the only way that they can validate themselves is by proving how "White" they can be. Both assumptions are silly, premised on backward thinking, and are highly derogatory to what it means to be a woman, and/or, a Black person. Both President and First Lady Obama are excellent examples of the fact that you have to abandon neither your heritage nor your femininity to embrace excellence. Thus, in this progressive's opinion, such thinking is the very height of ignorance. In fact, it's laying the groundwork for a new kind of latter-day conservatism. After all, it is not so much what Rush Limbaugh and the GOP leadership think that is so insidious, it's their belief that no one should be allowed to disagree with them. And any so-called progressives who share that mindset not only validate Limbaugh's point of view, but are in fact, conservatives themselves. The only difference between them and Limbaugh is that they're conservative regarding a different set of issues. They even share the conservative trait of hypocrisy. A true progressive recognizes that the most important characteristic of any free and viable society is tolerance. They clearly understand that the only difference between the old U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany was one was led by lift-wing radicals and the other by right-wing reactionaries. But in spite of that, they had more in common than they had that set them apart-they were both dictatorships, they were both oppressive, and like every dictatorship, they were both intolerant of individual beliefs. The very same dynamic is at work, though to a much lesser degree, in this country. Thus, progressives must always remain cognizant of the fact that we corner the market on neither wisdom, intellect, nor morality. Therefore, once we begin to give priority to dogma over independent thought, we cease being progressives, and become just another group of fanatical wingnuts--like Perez Hilton.  Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

If you watched Hardball with Chris Matthews over the last couple of days, you might have heard something about about the "New Haven Firefighters" reverse discrimination case. Unfortunately, if you have depended on the media coverage of the case, you're not getting the full story.

Over the last couple of days, Matthews and Pat Buchanan have engaged in heated, and very ill-informed "discussion" of the firefighters' case. Joan Walsh of Salon.com was the flak target day one. Today, Matthews hosted Frank Ricci and his attorney Karen Torre to present the plaintiffs side. and John Payton of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which filed an "amicus curiae" (friend of the court") brief on behalf of the City of New Haven.

Perhaps this essay will give you to details you need to understand the case.

Bear in mind the City of New Haven won a summary judgement on all counts. In other words, the firefighters case was thrown out of court. It never made it to trial. Neither the district court judge nor the appellate court found anything compelling enough in the lawsuit that needed to go before a jury.

This case has been described as the "perfect storm" of discrimination law.

While most of the coverage has centered on Firefighter Frank Ricci -- the dyslexic fireman who studied hard, who paid $1000 for a friend to turn his textbooks into audio books, who ranked 6th on his exam -- as compelling a story as his is -- he is not the center of the story.

Read more »

Read more »

Apparently is not working out  as expected.

Consumer borrowing plunged in March at the
fastest pace in 18 years as Americans put away
their credit cards and hoarded cash amid the
worst recession in decades.

The Federal Reserve said Thursday that consumer
borrowing dropped 5.2 percent in March, the
biggest decline since an 8.1 percent fall in
December 1990.

In dollar terms, consumer borrowing plunged by
$11.1 billion. That's the largest dollar amount
on records dating to 1943, and more than three
times the $3.5 billion drop that economists
expected.

The borrowing category that includes credit cards
dropped 6.8 percent in March after a 12.1 percent
plunge in February. The category that includes
auto loans fell 4.2 percent after rising by 1.2
percent in February.

The Commerce Department last week said that the
personal savings rate edged up to 4.2 percent in
March, marking the first time in a decade that
the savings rate has been above 4 percent for
three straight months.

Imagine that. People saving instead of borrowing. What a concept.
I can't imagine why. Maybe....Fool me once, shame on you. Fool
me twice, shame on me.

I know this may seem a little far fetched but could it be that the
general public has finally woken up to the fact that the party is
over. That the government is much more interested in the welfare
of the denizens of Wall Street than them. Or maybe the sh*t has not
quite hit the fan yet and they better be ready for when it does.


C

Koodos Madam Jackie Smith, Home Secretary of United Kingdom's Department of Law and Order.  Your decree to barr American radio talk show host, Michael Savage, from entering England is well received by all nations and hopefully that should include the United States of America.

A muck worm thrives where it exists.  Likewise, certain "vermin," to use Michael Savage's own words, enjoy spewing trash-talk on the radio.  Yet, this radio talk show host is clueless as to why Great Britain has placed him on the undesireable list of names which are deemed "would be contrary to the public interest".  But, I guess it is understandable why Mr. Weiner, (his real last name) is dumbfounded by England's recent action, since a muck worm could also not explain why its surroundings stink.  However, we should not be surprised why someone other than United States of America would take the necessary steps to publicly indict this individual.  

For a number of years, this radio talk show host has been spewing hate through the American public airways.  To many of us, he has been yelling fire in a crowded theater.  But, while this  vermin may hide behid the privilige of freedom of expression under the First Ammendment, many feel that he has crossed the threshold into hate speech.  My question however, is where is the oversight by the FCC, the Justice Department or condemnation by the Anti-Defamation League? 

Regrettably, while this individual has been demeaning gays, immigrants and even President Obama on a daily basis, his incindiary hate speech seems to resonate well in America's living room.    Yet, despite his Jewish background, this would be savage, is also well understood by the likes of  neo-nazis and anti-immigrant haters.  Thus, I can only surmise why this radio talk show host feels so comfortable trashing certain groups of people; for he may well be dillutional or he may simply identify with enemies of his Jewishness.

Notwhithstanding, this external warning should be a wake-up call to all of us here in the U.S; in that too many conservative extremists make use of our public airways, posing a clear and present danger to our communities.  You have, of course, heard recently of the Pensynlvania teens who bludgened a Mexican immigrant to death, simply because he was an immigrant.  More regrettably, was that the jury found them not guilty of a hate crime.  Surely, Morris Dees, a lawyer for the Sourhter Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes from sources such as neo-nazi groups or other intolerant groups - could well have made the nexus of hate speech on the radio and hate crimes on the streets.

Thus, Michael Savage is indeed a clear and present danger to our society.  But what else should be done?  Well, Great Britain took the first step, and we in the United States should petition the federal government for more oversight of hate speech on the public airways.  A word of caution though - if you contact the FCC, as I did in one occasion to file a complaint, you may not get an a response. 

In sum, I must tip my hat to the queen's land, but we should also make this "vermin" persona-non-grata in our homes.

Joseph Chez

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

A report for the Director of National Intelligence's office released just a little while ago names Nancy Pelosi as one of the members of Congress briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html).

It also names other names.

The Senate intelligence committee's chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing "described in considerable details" the techniques used, including "how the water board was used."

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

I did a quick search for the actual report and haven't found it. 

We've talked about how Democrats had to have also been involved in the torture fiasco.  Well, we have some names in Congress to go with the surmises.  And yes, it has been suggested before here that Pelosi had to have known and had been briefed.

I've had a crazy week that's left me a bit shell-shocked that ended with me giving an extremely mediocre hour-long talk this morning, so aren't really sure what to make of this.  I'm even having trouble dragging out of my brain how much about this list of names we already know.  But to me, this is another chip needed to piece this back together.  How did America come to torture?  Who in Congress let the Bush White House steamroll our Constitution?  Why in the hell were Democrats so happy to be a part of this "rubber stamp Congress"? 

Congress are our elected leaders.  Where was the leading?  Why were they just following orders? It's enough to make one sick, literally. 

 

graduated from Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore in 1926 and from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania in 1930. Afterward, Marshall wanted to apply to his hometown law school, the University of Maryland School of Law, but the dean told him that he would not be accepted due to the school's segregation policy. Later, as a civil rights litigator, he successfully sued the school for this policy in the case of Murray v. Pearson. As he could not attend the University of Maryland, Marshall sought admission and was accepted at Howard University. He was influenced by its new dean, Charles Hamilton Houston, who instilled in his students the desire to apply the tenets of the Constitution to all Americans. Marshall was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Black Greek-letter fraternity, established by African American students in 1906.

President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. A group of Democratic Party Senators led by Mississippi's James Eastland held up his confirmation, so he served for the first several months under a recess appointment. Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him Solicitor General.

In 1967, Thurgood Marshall became the first African American elevated to U.S. Supreme Court. He sreved for 24 years until he retired in 1991.

No one has been a more ardent supporter of President Obama than I. However, I do believe that he has developed a blind spot when it comes to the 'average' or 'regular person'. There are no "middle class" people appointed to serve on The Task Force on the Middle Class, or anywhere else in his administration. All of his Cabinet appointments have been Ivy League graduates, or graduates of other "elite" academic institutions. I believe that he has left himself open to criticism and charges of being elitist.

Using the criteria being applied by Obama's search and vetting teams, would Thurgood Marshall get an appointment to the Obama cabinet, or be an Obama choice for the Supreme Court? Would career achievement alone be sufficient to merit more than a superficial or perfunctory designation and/or assignment?

Clearly, President Obama stands on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall, and others like him, who's legacy made his candidacy and election possible. I would like to think that the candidate who ran on "Change we can believe in", would seek to avoid old style patronage and cronyism which can cause tunnel vision and thus create the blind spot of which I speak. The danger in having a blind spot is that you can get blind-sided as a consequence.

The resignation of Justice Souter gives President Obama an opportunity to widen his field of vision regarding his key appointments. He can show that he does indeed have a complete grasp of his place in the history of African-American progress in American political and social life. He can lay a marker to ensure that the path he followed does not close behind him. He can fill the seat soon to be vacated by Justice Souter by replacing Thurgood Marshall.

With a Democrat in the White House and majorities in Congress, the political stakes are particularly high for Congress because of its lower approval ratings. I am not one of those who consistently rates Congress low, though I am often mad at them for one thing or another. I like Congress and I have my favorites, about whom I post today.

(Image: Wordle.net)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) may see the results of his decades of work on health care reform for millions of uninsured Americans. According to Politico's feature , Kennedy almost single-handedly kept the idea of universal health care alive for 40 years, working with 7 presidents. To quote:

Exactly 40 years ago, Sen. Ted Kennedy popularized the idea of universal health care, saying the country needed a program "capable of bringing the same amount and high quality of health care to every man, woman and child in the United States."

. . . Despite a legislative portfolio bulging with accomplishments that position him as the father of the modern health care safety net, the one that matters most to Kennedy -- guaranteed health coverage for every American -- has remained stubbornly out of reach.

. . . Now, his own yearlong battle with brain cancer is lending a dose of urgency to finally finish what he started decades ago, when personal and family health crises compelled him to embrace the cause.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. This summer Senator Leahy will shepherd the Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Souter through his committee and then on the Senate floor. Senator Leahy has advocated for a non-judge to be the next Supreme Court justice. The Ranking Republican member of the committee, until recently, was Senator Arlen Specter, now a Democrat. Republicans named far right wing Senator Jeff Sessions as Ranking Member until the next Congress, and then it will be Senator Chuck Grassley, one of my favorite Twitterers. Leahy's fine intellect, patience and even-handedness will be sorely tested as Sessions carries the water of opposition to anyone the President nominates. To quote CQ Politics: ". . . it will also be interesting to see not only how Sessions handles the media attention but how he gets along with the strong-willed chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Democrat Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont." Rep. John Conyers, (D-Mich) is Leahy's counterpart in the House. A fierce fighter for justice and protector of the underdog, Rep. Conyers recently oversaw his Judiciary Committee's proposed expansion of the hate crimes law. It is also reported that Rep. Conyers will hold hearings on the torture memos.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill), Durbin makes an excellent Whip and probably helps the beleaguered Majority Leader, Harry Reid who is not included in my favorites. I am still not quite sure to make of Senator Durbin relinquishing his chairmanship of the Crime and Drugs subcommittee to Senator Arlen Specter.  We do know that Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy was upset by it.  Also I like both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (DMD), who have their hands full handling the House's Blue Dog Democrats, fiscal conservatives. There are also several of my favorite senators who are relatively new: Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Representative David Obey (D-WI) chairs the House Appropriations Committee. He takes his role very seriously and is willing to buck President Obama on basic issues. Politico gives a good example, the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which brings Vietnam to mind for this irascible "old bull" of the House. To quote:

Chairman Dave Obey said he was "very dubious" about the chances of success in the region and wants a "fish or cut bait" assessment in a year's time that will determine how long the U.S. continues on this path.

"It gives the president one year to demonstrate what he can do," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "It gives him ample resources."

. . . "The president feels obligated to give it a shot, and we'll help him give it a shot for a year," Obey said. "At the end of the year, I want to have a hard-nosed, realistic evaluation based on the performance standards we're talking about."

. . . Five standards are listed, including the performance of Pakistani forces with respect to counterinsurgency operations and the ability of the government to control the territory within its borders -- where the Taliban has already made significant inroads.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) took over the Energy and Commerce Committee last fall from its former chairman, John Dingle of Michigan. Ambitious and feisty, Waxman is pursuing an ambitious climate change bill, according to Politico. But it is an uphill battle with lots of opposition because of his strong support for a cap and trade program that would require utilities to produce more power from renewable energy sources. And people from the South need to include hydroelectric power and nuclear energy, about the only reliable sources in the region. This will require Waxman to work hard for the compromise necessary to pass the legislation, as well as make it palatable to the Senate. To quote:

Waxman and Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey delayed the start of a much-anticipated markup last week so they could have more time to iron out major concerns with the legislation among Democrats on the subcommittee considering it.

Moderate Democrats from the Rust Belt, coal states and the South have lined up to make changes to the legislation before Waxman and Markey unveil it. Many of these moderates -- tapped by Waxman's predecessor as chairman, Michigan Rep. John Dingell -- sit on the subcommittee drafting the bill.

. . . Waxman got a boost Thursday when Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, whose panel could claim jurisdiction over the bill, agreed to work with whatever product the Energy and Commerce Committee passes.

. . . Democratic leaders in the Senate acknowledged earlier this year that they don't have the votes to move a so-called cap-and-trade measure, but the White House still seems committed to moving something -- if only as a negotiating tool for the next round of negotiations over a global treaty.

What's to like about these legislators? The senators and members of Congress spotlighted today have certain traits in common: dedication, resiliency, intellect, a capacity to be bipartisan, a clear view of fiscal responsibility, respect for the rule of law, and liberal values regarding "the least among us." These are public servants upon whom you can usually count.

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

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

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics democrats congress us senate us house of representatives leadership

From the Fed-Citicorp off-balance-sheet item Glenn Greenwald cites in his article today on  lax oversight at (and of) the Fed:

Treasury and the FDIC also have agreed to share with Citigroup losses on a designated pool of up to $306 billion in primarily mortgage-related assets currently held by Citigroup.

$306 billion is a lot of money.  Still.  But who assumes responsibility as time goes on for the losses on this amount is truly revealing.  And frightening. 

Follow along with me as I work the math.

For losses exceeding "current reserves and marks"(to be realistic, let's make those zero), Citi is responsible for up to $29 billion.

$29 billion taken from $306 billion leaves $277 billion.

Citi then bears 10% of "additional losses", while the Treasury picks up $5 billion, the FDIC picks up $10 billion.

Wait, the government's losses are $15 billion max, Citi's is 10% of the total - this is a damn word problem.

Not to worrry. $15 billion is 90 percent of what? $16.67 billion. So Citi would be out $1.67 billion.

I hate decimals, though. Let's make it $2 billion (so even more than they really are exposed).

$277 billion less $5 billion less $10 billion less $2 billion - that leaves $260 billion worth of - crap, what happens next? We eat the whole thing?

Nah: after all the money from the loss-sharing arrangement is exhausted, the Fed will provide Citi with yet more "financing up to the value of the assets remaining in the designated pool after the loss sharing arrangements with the Treasury and FDIC are exhausted."

So Citi can borrow another $260 billion or so(given that the likelihood of underlying asset "value" being marked to market is next-to-never). On what terms?

Any advances made would be "at a floating rate equal to the 3-month overnight index swap rate plus 300 basis points."

The comparable New York Funding Rate for three months in today's WSJ is 0.9525%. So let's say Citi would be borrowing at around 4% if it were to happen today.

I'm sure most of your mortgages are around that.

(But surely the possibility of us suffering huge losses is something we have to live with for only a limited period of time? Once Citi is back on their feet at the end of 2010, say, this whole nightmare scenario comes to an end?

Right?

Nope. The facility is good for 10 years on the residential mortgage-backed assets, 5 years on everything else.

So prepare yourself for one hundred twenty months of angst.)

Did I mention the advances are "provided to Citigroup on a non-recourse basis, except with respect to interest payments"?

Citi's gotta pay the interest. The principal - not so much.

I think that's the deal on my 30-year.

Oh but it's not that terrible. Citi continues to share 10% of the loss! Extra patriot points for helping a poor country out. (Damn country - always getting into trouble and making me bail it out...)

$260 billion less $26 billion - we're only out, potentially, $234 billion, plus the $15 billion Treasury and the FDIC ponied up, less whatever interest we can collect from a bank that, given how things are going, is unlikely to be able to pay their light bills at that point.

So $249 billion.

Doesn't this deal sounds kinda insanely sweet? I know it would to me if I were a reckless, desperate money-center bank in need of public charity.

Really sending you to the alms house on bread and water, aren't we, Citi? You're out $29 billion plus $2 billion plus $26 billion - let's just make it $57 billion.

$57 billion out of - where did we start? - $306 billion.

Citi's maximum exposure - around 19%. US of A's - 81%.

Yeah. Sounds like the private sector appetite for risk really took a hit on this one. (Citi theoretically knows a lot more about these assets than we do. Coincidence?)

But hold on - don't have a cyclone in your bloomers yet, America - Geithner and Bernanke are watching our back:

Any financing provided by the Reserve Bank would be collateralized by the assets in the designated pool.

"Pool" - kind of like the one in Grey Gardens. Just not so well-maintained.

 

It lists him as the leader of the GOP and not Limbaugh. Someone really should have proofread that thing before sending it out. 

Here's what concerns me about all this hoopla and indignation over Michael Savage being banned from England:

In all the smoke, we can't lose sight of Savage's true nature.

At his core, he's a miserable, mean-spirited, self-important, loathsome little troll.

Read more ...

Well now I don't know but I been told the streets in recovery are paved with gold, or some say, anyway, that they are. And so they're saying go out and buy gold and get ready for the big economic cataclysm that has struck. 

Then others say that it's just little-bigger-than-usual correction, and that it'll all pass over and we'll be back to normal in a few months or a year. And that the President's plans will work and we'll all be back in high cotton by this time next year. 

But it's too much for me to figure out, so I'm giving up on economics for a while, 'til I see  which way the wind blows.

Been reading a little about science, though, lately. And the global warming controversy.  Some say it's not a controversy at all--that it's a foregone conclusion, and this planet is heating up and we're all headed for hell in a handbasket.  And it does seem that things are warmin' up a bit-- with Katrina flooding New Orleans a few years ago just because of one little ole hurricane, and the North and South poles breaking up.  And I also remember the time I stood in the vestibule of the church of San Marco in Venice, and it was flooded...seemed a l little odd to me.  Maybe there is something to this global warming thing. 

But the question is: is human actiivtiy  causing it? Well, yes, I think it is to some extent, but what the hell can we do about it.  It's probably already too late(says one side of my mind.)  Nevertheless, I'm willing to join the effort to turn this excess of carbon emissions around.  I just don't think we need to sacrifice human rights and freedoms on the altar of environmental correctiveness to do it. 

It could be that the human trashing of the planet just happens to coincide with some much larger and wider geological and meteorlogical trends on our planet.  Maybe there really is not much we can do about global warming. Nevertheless, I'm willing, as I said before, to do my part, but I don't want to see human freedoms limited or withdrawn for the sake of implementing some unproven, politically-correct oppressions  just for the sake of theoretically curbing carbon emissions. 

And I've made a few notes lately in some science reading that I've undertaken. Scientists are taking a look at the causes of global warming, as well as other environmental problems. But these are not discussions that can be resolved quickly.  So we don't need to get too excited about it all. But we need to pay attention.  We need to take a hard look at Al Gore's findings, but also, for instance, at Willie Soon's studies. 

Science conclusions are mad place at a slower rate than economic ones.  Scientific facts need to be tested and proven.  

Did you know that Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both figured out what calculus was, working independently of each other, back in the 1600s? There's a lot going on in the world of research and knowledge--always has been.

And a hundred or so years later an Englishman, Joseph Priestly, and a Frenchman, Antoine Lavoisier, both of them, were trying to figure what oxygen was. And Lavoisier figured it out because he founded the modern scientific method in the process, and that scientific process later confirmed his work, and so his work endured while Priestley's withered on the vine because he couldn't get some old phlogiston ideas out of his head.

And after another hundred years later, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace embarked on the same principles about natural selection in nature--discoveries  that later turned the world of bioligical research upside down, but Darwin got all the glory because, well, he just did.  I don't know why.  Help me out here. 

And then another hundred or so years later Watson and Crick were trying to figure out the structure of the DNA molcule, while Linus Pauling was doing the same thing in California, but Watson/Crick made the big breakthrough because they were visionaries who could act on a hunch, making a highly educated guess based on Rosalind Franklin's enigmatic photographs.

The point is that this scientific research is multifaceted, and it's complicated. And it's always going on somewhere.  Somewhere in the world today, some guys and gals are close to a breakthrough in Parkinsons disease or multiple sclerosis, or even cancer.

And somewhere in the world today there are practitoners of economics, the quasi-science, who are making breakthroughs of all kinds, busting up credit bubbles left and right. Back in the day,  Karl Marx figured a few things out about capitalism and then look what happened.  At the same time that he was crunching theories in the reading room of the British Museum, across the big pond Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller were conducting economic experiments of a different--and much more pragmatic, kind--experiments that spread the dinner tables in thousands of Michigan households and homesteads all the way to California and beyond. And look what happened. And now all those 19th-century infrastructures are falling into obsolescence and  rust-belt lethargy and look what happened.  The times they are a changing, always have. 

And now we are gathered here with this great economic catastrophe, and as if that weren't bad enough a global warming crisis right on top of it, and even Iran going nuclear with Israel getting nervous about it. So the lesson is: people have got to be careful with quasi-science. Lenin and Stalin took Marx's stuff and ran with it, but look what happened in the real world. 

Germans and Americans and Russians and humans took Einstein's discoveries and applied them to uranium and plutonium and look what happened--good stuff and bad stuff. No way around it.  Gotta be careful. Roosevelt and Johnson and Obama took Keynes' pump-priming, deficit-spending, crap-shootin, spendin'-stimulatin' stimuli and applied them to the downhill-racing, brake-failing economies of the world and, well,  let's see what happens.

O my God, it's enough to turn a fellow back to believing in something besides human nature. May God help us. And  Be sure and keep an eye out for your neighbor, while doing whatever's best for you and your loved ones. 

Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full 

    

When the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes hearings on the confirmation of President Obama's choice to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter, the first Republican to speak on the matter will be Senator Jeff Sessions R-Al. 

Chosen by the Senate Republican Caucus to represent the interests of good Republicans everywhere, Sen. Sessions will be certain to inquire of the nominee whether he or she believes recent practices of US interrogators amount to torture and whether the nominee bears any empathy toward anyone to such a degree as it could affect his/her decisions.

He will do what good Republicans expect him to do, he will show that good Republicans everywhere believe that empathy is bad and that torture is good, and that no Republican could, in good conscience, vote in favor of a nominee who could empathize with those less fortunate or see any illegality in torture.  

 

5/8/09 - Updated to include an excerpt from a  12/18/2008 New York Times article re real estate developers who had Madoff accounts. The article specifically mentions loans collateralized by Madoff accounts.

[Frank DiPascali] is prepared to testify that he manipulated phony returns on behalf of some key Madoff investors, including Frank Avellino, who used to run a so-called feeder fund, Jeffry Picower, whose foundation had to close as a result of Madoff-related losses, and others. If, for example, one of these special customers had large gains on other investments, he would tell DiPascali, who would fabricate a loss to reduce the tax bill. If true, that would mean these investors knew their returns were fishy... - "How Bernie Did It", 4/30/2009, Fortune, James Bandler & Nicholas Varchaver 

Frank DiPascali

"Manipulated phony returns" says it all. With Frank D.'s help, some of the most wealthy people in the country were cheating feloniously on their taxes and they all knew Bernie was a crook. If profits were rigged, there is no reason to think accounts weren't fabricated wholesale.  

Bernie's sophisticated real estate developer clientele has been very quiet since the scandal broke and I wonder how many of them might have been taking advantage of Bernie's sideline business. Something about Bernie must have attracted so many of them to "invest" with him.

Did Bernie jack up the value of their accounts so the developers could use them as collateral to secure loans, thereby artificially (and illegally) expanding their access to credit? On 12/18/2008, the New York Times published an article, "Madoff Scandal Shaking Real Estate Industry"  by Christine Haughney which specifically stated Madoff accounts were used as collateral.

Haughney interviewed a real estate lawyer, Jerry Reisman:

 "[H]is clients were especially concerned because they counted on Madoff investments to complete some of their real estate projects, pledging their investments as collateral for projects. Those developers fear that when their banks realize that their investments with Mr. Madoff have disappeared, they will demand new collateral from other sources, Mr. Reisman said."  

The issue, as far as I know, has never been followed up online. Feds might not be anxious to publish this kind of information since confidence in the credit markets is already so low. On the other hand, the Feds just might be keeeping the names of Bernie's crooked customers under wrap for now.

The August 2006 announcement that SL Green Realty Corp. and Reckson Associates Realty Corp. merged as part of a $6 billion deal should interest the Feds investigating Bernie.

Reckson Associates chairman, Donald Rechler, and SL Green chairman, Stephen L. Green, were Madoff customers.  

The Rechlers know their way around the stock market. When they wanted to modernize their buildings in the '90s to accommodate the demand for hardwired networks, they didn't pay for the work out of their pocket. They formed an office services company, HQ Global Workspaces, Inc., took it public and used the proceeds to re-do their buildings. Then the company went under.

When the Rechlers took Reckson Associates Realty Corp. private, they ended up having to cough up more than $25 millon for shortchanging the other shareholders, one of which was Henry Kissinger's brother, Walter, who was also a Madoff customer.

If the real estate developers were screwing around, it should be fairly easy to determine whether some of them were aided and abetted by their accountants. For example, Sprung & Cohen prepares the 990s for the Leonard Litwin Foundation. In fact, Richard Cohen is the  assistant secretary.

(Curiously, the Litwin Foundation stopped including Madoff account statements in its 990s after 2005.)

If Cohen & Sprung does Litwin's other tax work, the folks there would have known if Leonard Litwin's Madoff statements were rigged because they managed account statements for a number of other Madoff customers.

Another way DiPascali could have produced a phony tax deduction for a Madoff customer would be to generate a phony contribution to a personal foundation or another complicit non-profit organization. Using the theoretical Leonard Litwin example again, the Feds should investigate whether Litwin actually deposited $10,000,000 in cash into his foundation's Madoff account in 2001.

Obviously, I am only speculating about what Frank DiPascali did for Bernie's customers. I doubt Donald Rechler, Stephen Green and Leonard Litwin are going to be too perturbed by me using them as examples to illustrate the possibilities. After all, the Madoff swindle is the biggest of its kind in history and everyone's trying to figure out what happened.

My educated guess is that a lot of influential people have been trying very hard to keep the lid on this scandal but I don't think they are going to get their way this time.