The Cyber Attack started on July 4 and continued for several days,you may have noticed a slowdown on the web depending on whether or not your traffic had to share the same trunk line as the attack squads, the zombies.

Jul 9, 12:40 am ET  WASHINGTON - U.S. authorities on Wednesday eyed North Korea as the origin of the widespread cyber attack that overwhelmed government Web sites in the United States and South Korea, although they warned it would be difficult to definitively identify the attackers quickly.The powerful attack that targeted dozens of government and private sites underscored how unevenly prepared the U.S. government is to block such multipronged assaults.While Treasury Department and Federal Trade Commission Web sites were shut down by the software attack, which lasted for days over the holiday weekend, others such as the Pentagon and the White House were able to fend it off with little disruption.The North Korea link, described by three officials, more firmly connected the U.S. attacks to another wave of cyber assaults that hit government agencies Tuesday in South Korea. The officials said that while Internet addresses have been traced to North Korea, that does not necessarily mean the attack involved the Pyongyang government.

The wave of cyber assaults are known as "denial of service" attacks. Such attacks against Web sites are not uncommon and are caused when sites are so deluged with Internet traffic that they are effectively taken off-line. Mounting such an attack can be relatively easy and inexpensive, using widely available hacking programs, and they become far more serious if hackers infect and tie thousands of computers together into "botnets."

In an Associated Press interview, Philip Reitinger, deputy under secretary at the Homeland Security Department, said the far-reaching attacks demonstrate the importance of cybersecurity as a critical national security issue.The fact that a series of computers were involved in an attack, Reitinger said, "doesn't say anything about the ultimate source of the attack.""What it says is that those computers were as much a target of the attack as the eventual Web sites that are targets," said Reitinger, who heads DHS cybersecurity operations. "They're just zombies that are being used by some unseen third party to launch attacks against government and non government Web sites." [ 1 ] 

Zombies and Botnets what are they? Zombies are computers that have been infected with codes from a hacker that allows them to manipulate the computer. Several zombies are called a herd, and herds joined together make up a botnet.

The most potent weapon for Web gangsters is the botnet. A bot, broadly speaking, is a remote-controlled software program that is installed on a computer without the owner's knowledge. Hackers use viruses, worms, or automated programs to scan the Internet in search of potential zombies. One recent study found that a new P.C., attached to the Internet without protective software, will on average be infected in about twenty minutes.
                                                                           ***
In the most common scenario, the bots surreptitiously connect hundreds, or thousands, of zombies to a channel in a chat room. The process is called "herding," and a herd of zombies is called a botnet. The herder then issues orders to the zombies, telling them to send unsolicited e-mail, steal personal information, or launch attacks. Herders also trade, rent, and sell their zombies. "The botnet is the little engine that makes the evil of the Internet work," Chris Morrow, a senior network-security engineer at M.C.I., said. "It makes spam work. It makes identity fraud work. (and it makes the cyber warfare now under discussion  work) [ 2 ]
                                                                    ***
Less than five years ago, experts considered a several-thousand-zombie botnet extraordinary. Lyon now regularly faces botnets of fifty thousand zombies or more [ 2 ].
Read the above link [ 2 ] for a fascinating inside look at Zombie hunters.

The attackers set forth an army of zombies, their job was to all try to sign on to these sites at once,this overloads the server and paralyzes it, the site goes down in overload, and sometimes the ISP. At this point they have estimated 30,000 zombies were used, I suspect more. One botnet in Canada was found to have 1.5 million zombies before it was broken up by law enforcenment. Good net security apparatus has spike warnings that alert watch operators to sudden rushes of traffic so they can respond quickly to attacks.Some of the government sites responded well and some went down.

 James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the fact that both the White House and Defense Department were attacked but didn't go down points to the need for coordinated government network defenses.
"It says that they were ready and the other guys weren't ready," he said. "We are disorganized. In the event of an attack, some places aren't going to be able to defend themselves. [ 1 ]

Was it the North Korean Army Lab 110?  

The state-run Korea Communications Commission said Friday that it had identified and blocked five Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses in five countries used to distribute computer viruses that caused the wave of Web site outages, which began in the U.S. on July 4.The addresses point to the computers that distributed the virus that triggered so-called denial of service attacks in which floods of computers try to connect to a single site at the same time, overwhelming the server.They were in Austria, Georgia, Germany, South Korea and the U.S., a commission official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media on the record.

Speculation over who was responsible for the attacks that targeted high-profile Web sites, including those of the White House and South Korea's presidential Blue House, has centered on North Korea.And though such finger-pointing has been trickling out since the attacks began, the identity of the IP addresses themselves provides little in the way of clarity.That's because it is likely the hackers, whoever they are, used the addresses to disguise themselves _ for instance, by accessing the computers from a remote location. IP addresses can also be faked or masked, hiding their true location.

South Korean media reported in May that North Korea was running an Internet warfare unit that tries to hack into American and South Korean military networks to gather confidential information and disrupt service. The Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported Friday that the North has between 500-1,000 hacking specialists. [ 3 ]

So it cant be proven that North Korea was the attacker at this time, but that is expected, they would have been poor hackers indeed if they had left traces back to them with computer addresses. Regardless of the source, there may be a positive gleaned from this attack, it may show the U.S. its weaknesses and vulnerabilities in its networks, and provided a free real time vigorous attack training episode. It may also reveal some of the attackers own weaknesses, methods and even strong points. The data may show us new strategies that we can use to defend from future attacks.

June 24,2009 WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates created a new military command dedicated to cyber security on Tuesday, reflecting the Obama administration's plans to centralize and elevate computer security as a major national-security issue.

The decision follows President Barack Obama's announcement last month that he will establish a new cyber-security office at the White House, whose chief will coordinate all government efforts to protect computer networks. The Pentagon initiative will reshape the military's efforts to protect networks from attacks by hackers, especially those from China and Russia. It also consolidates the largest concentration of cyber warriors and investigators in the government under one military command, exacerbating concerns of some experts who worry about military control of civilian computer systems.[ 4 ]

However this new command unit is only concerned with military networks, not the electrical grid ,communications grid ,or airtraffic control grid, or many other vital networks which seem pretty important to me. An attack that shuts down part of the power grid for weeks would be an economic disaster of the epic proportions. So what about those systems?

Ms. Leed, a Pentagon special assistant on cyber operations from 2005 to 2008, said the narrow focus could leave vital national networks still vulnerable to outside attacks and intrusions. "The question is whether the DoD protecting its own networks is sufficient to protect our national-security imperatives, and I would say no," she said. "The overwhelming majority of cyber traffic isn't on government networks." [ 4 ]

The protection of these networks then is solely  the responsibility of Dept of Homeland Security
 

Rod Beckstrom, former chief of the National Cyber Security Center, which is charged with coordinating cyber-security activities across the U.S. government, quit in March, warning in his resignation letter that the growing reliance on the NSA was a "bad strategy" that poses "threats to our democratic processes." Homeland Security officials said they are still responsible for protecting all civilian networks, though a department spokeswoman declined to speak specifically about the Cyber Command."It is the view in the White House that the Department of Homeland Security will continue to play an absolutely essential role in the protection of America's cyber infrastructure," said Rand Beers, who was nominated to be Homeland Security's undersecretary overseeing cybersecurity, at his confirmation hearing this month.[ 4 ]

By comparison, the Department of Homeland Security has 100 employees dedicated to civilian cyber security, with plans to reach 260 next year.

This is the gang of 100....they need more help and soon, for as of today they are the only ones who watch over our vital civilian networks. As for us, there are some things each one of us can do to keep our computers from becoming zombies. Having a firewall is critical for protection, along with a virus checker with up to date definitions.Dont leave your computer on 24/7 unattended, shut it down or unplug the net cable when not in use, if it isnt on the web it cant be attacked.Open no email from anyone you dont know, download no programs from unsecure sites.Dont let your computer become a zombie recruit.

                 Sources :
[ 1 ] Yahoo news on cyber attacks
[ 2 ] The Zombie Hunters
[ 3 ] huffington post on cyber attack
[ 4 ] wsj on new cyber command










 

No. I don't mean that there is anything surprising about tonight's revelation that it was the Vice President from the late administration who directed the CIA to conduct some activities without any notice at all to Congress, hardly news to anyone who watched the imperial presidency of the prior eight years, but why, as this was all burbling out earlier in the week, the party's national spokesman, Morning Joe, was so determined to somehow twist this, with the assistance of a dimwitted Democratic Congresswoman from Florida named Eshoo, into an attack on Leon Panetta.
.

Read more »

AG Eric Holder story:

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

It might start "a new round of partisan warfare."  Excuse me? When did the warfare stop? The Republican Party have done nothing but fight and argue, saying "no" to about everything the Democrats and President Barack Obama has done since taking office January 20, 2009.

And they will continue to do so until at least November 2010's election is over.

I'm betting if this story is true and if Holder appoints an investigater, it will only be after Obama gets his health care and energy plans passed and signed.  Those are the major initiatives he signed up for, along with getting our troops out of Iraq.  Once he's got that, he's made history; because we all know the economy will eventually come back around.  It may take a longer than normal but it 'will' end.  Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats have accomplished the things they set out to do.

Come to think about it, perhaps this 'threat' has been 'reported' on purpose.  Perhaps by threatening to investigate what really happened during the past 8 years, the Democrats are putting pressure on those fighting the health care bill and the energy bill, perhaps even some of Obama's foreign policy ideas?

Whatever the case, I sincerely hope an special prosecutor is hired, because our nation needs to find the truth and report it, punishing those that committed any crimes.  Until we do, we'll never be able to claim the moral high ground with other nations.

With the latest story coming out about former President Bush authorizing unreported secret surveillance activities -- ignoring the FISA laws, and somebody inserting a paragraph into the first threat assessment prepared by the CIA after the Sept. 11 attacks, which was used to justify the extraordinary intelligence measures -- just reenforces the reasons why we must get to the bottom of all these possible illegal intelligence actions and torturing.

Today's Wall Street Journal has a long article, Inside the Iranian Crackdown, which includes a lot of information about the Iranian Basij, members of which have appeared riding scooters and harassing Iranian demonstrators in countless youtubes from Teheran:

Iran's government says the Basij count some five million members. Independent analysts put the number closer to one million, out of an Iranian population of about 75 million.

Those numbers make the group the regime's largest and most wide-reaching network of security volunteers. Members, both men and women, slip easily between roles, from social worker to community spy.

The Basij don't wear uniforms. Men typically sport beards, and often wear loose-fitting shirts that fall untucked over their pants. Women members are usually covered in head-to-toe black chadors.

Rank-and-file members don't draw salaries, though there are perks to the job. They enjoy special consideration when competing for university admission or government jobs.

A Basij chapter operates out of every officially sanctioned institution, private or government owned. Ministries, universities, factories, schools, mosques and hospitals all house Basij units. Joining the Basij can be as easy as signing up. But members are carefully vetted. Indoctrination includes theology and ideology seminars, then military training.

My initial reaction was that it would be frightening to have such a force in this country. Then I ran across information on the American Protective League:

The American Protective League was a World War I-era private organization that along with federal police like the Bureau of Investigation worked in support of the anti German Empire movement and against anti-war citizens and organizations. Formed by A.M. Briggs, a wealthy Chicago businessman, at its height of power the APL had 250,000 members in 600 cities. Officially condoned by the Attorney General, the APL support to the Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the FBI. A private organization with no legal authority, APL members acted as vigilantes, allegedly violating the civil liberties of American citizens. The APL has been accused of having illegally detained citizens associated with progressive, labor, and pacifist movements. In 1918, APL documents showed that 10% of its efforts (the largest of any category) were focused on disrupting the activities of the I.W.W. "Wobblies" radical union movement. The APL burgled, vandalized, and harassed I.W.W. members and their offices. These activities were illegal, yet supported by the Wilson administration and the American establishment. President Wilson, despite some misgivings about their methods, deferred to the judgement of Attorney General Thomas Gregory and chose not to take any action to curtail their activities. The League disbanded in February of 1919.

APL members didn't let their semi-official status stop them from policing the populace:

The APL checked up on people who failed to buy Liberty Bonds. It spotted violators of food and gasoline regulations, rounded up draft evaders in New York, disrupted Socialist meetings in Cleveland, broke strikes, threatened union men with immediate induction into the army. The attorney general of the United States reported to Congress, "It is safe to say never in history has this country been so thoroughly policed." (emphasis added) Nor, he might have added, the training of the young so well regulated.

Update:

Home Office of the American Protective League

The New Everyman (h/t to amike)

by Megan English

The actual practices of APL investigations varied depending on the rank and position members held within the League. As a whole the League's actual practices included investigations into enemy aliens, draft dodgers, food hoarding, disloyal utterances, unions and their leaders, strikes and "radicals." The APL's investigations into food buying and the "unpatriotic activity" of food hoarding by foreign citizens were a source in which to keep all divisions nationwide busy. Neighbors were encouraged to spy on neighbors; families were pushed to spy on other members all because of the shortage of certain foods. Flour, sugar, beans, potatoes, etc, were scarce; all food was rationed in order to feed soldiers and other allied countries. Many investigations and reports went directly to the U.S. Food Administration; information included, the name of the person under investigation, their address, description of their house, phone number, job, personality, report of the questioned " unpatriotic activity", the source, and anything else considered important. This is an example of such a report.

Is it important? Yes it is. However these disclosures yesterday are old news. For example Spencer Ackerman's "big scoop" that the surveillance program was useless was written about in the NY Times 3 1/2 years ago.  (see link below).

What I want to see is an investigation and criminal charges brought. Wringing your hands and complaining that Bush was a naughty boy is pointless. What scares me more is that I see Obama wanting to do absolutely nothing. And it is not because he has enough on his plate.

All indications is that Obama wants to preserve the prerogatives of executive power even if he does not exercise all the abuses committed in the Bush Administration. I am giving Obama the benefit of the doubt because I think Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley make an excellent case that there is little difference between Bush and Obama on national security.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?pagewanted=all&ex=12951540
00&en=f3247d208f184898&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever
been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI
official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau.
"After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get
some frustration."

My favorite quote was this:

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips
on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the
officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand
to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material
continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new
bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised
field agents, said.

If you did not see his segment this last Friday, you should.
Here is a link to the segment. I especially liked his ending
remarks.

BILL MOYERS: Quality, affordable health care's on the
critical list in America. And so is the newspaper
business. So maybe it's not surprising that one of
the most powerful papers in the country attempted an
unholy alliance, trying to turn a profit from its
newsroom's coverage of the fight for health care
reform.

You may have missed the story because it broke on the
eve of the July 4th weekend. The publisher of THE
WASHINGTON POST, Katharine Weymouth - one of the
most powerful people in the nation's capital -
invited top officials from the White House, the
Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate,
off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform
with some of her reporters and editors covering the
story.

But she then invited CEOs and lobbyists from the
health care industry to come, too - providing
they fork over $25,000 a head, or a quarter of a
million if they want to sponsor a whole series of
these cozy little get-togethers. And what is the
inducement she offers them? Nothing less than -
and I'm quoting the invitation verbatim - "An
exclusive opportunity to participate in the health
care reform debate among the select few who will
actually get it done." The invitation reminds the
CEOs and lobbyists that they will be buying access to
"those powerful few in business and policy making who
are forwarding, legislating, and reporting on the
issues."

Remember, the invitation promises this private,
intimate, and off-the-record dinner is an extension
"of THE WASHINGTON POST brand of journalistic inquiry
into the issues, a unique opportunity for
stakeholders to hear and be heard."

Let that sink in. The "stakeholders" in health care
reform in this case do not include the rabble -
the folks across the country who actually need
quality health care but can't afford it. If any of
them showed up at the kitchen door on the night of
this little soiree, a bouncer would drop kick them
beyond the beltway.

In other words, before you can cross the threshold in
Washington to reach "the select few who will actually
get it done," you must first cross the palm of some
outstretched hand. The dinner was canceled after the
invite was leaked to the website politico.com -
by a health care lobbyist, of all people. But it was
enough to give us a glimpse into how things really
work in Washington. A clear insight into why there is
such a great disconnect between democracy and
government today, between Washington and the rest of
the country.

According to one poll after another, a majority of
Americans not only want a public option in health
care, they also think that growing inequality is bad
for the country, that corporations have too much
power over policy, that money in politics is the root
of all evil, and that working families and poor
communities need and deserve public support when the
market fails to generate shared prosperity. But when
the insiders in Washington finish tearing worthy
intentions apart and devouring flesh from bone, none
of these reforms happen. Oh, they say, "it's all
about compromise, all in the nature of the
give-and-take of representative democracy." That,
people, is bull - the basic nutrient of
Washington's high and mighty.

It's not about compromise. It's not about what the
public wants. It's about money, the golden ticket to
"the select few who actually get it done." And
nothing will change. Nothing. Until the money-lenders
are tossed out of the temple, and we tear down the
sign they've placed on government - the one that
reads: "For sale."

I'm Bill Moyers.

[Emphasis mine]

And that's the whole point. We need to throw the money changers out
on their ear. And the only way to do that.outside of an armed insurrection,
is to refuse to play their game.

C

Two tapes were sent to 'The Pajama Blogs' and reached me by mistake. I thought I might share parts of them with you. March 10, 2004 I WANT TURDTACO IN THIS HERE OFFICE PRONTO!!!!! So rang the message from the Oval Office. He was particularly worried about the state of things: AND I WANT TURD BLOSSEM IN HERE ALSO; Well it was rover who first came lapping in, pursing his lips and panting at the same time. Rover, I just went over some history here. You know what history is rover. History is a reiteration of what might have taken place at some time prior. But these days, there are video tapes and audio tapes. Yes sir Mr. President, but as you know we deny those just as well and it seems to work. We have Fox News right now... Turdblossem, now cut that out.  They've been atellin me that there are otherstations out there on the cable thingy that do not cut and splice like Fox and sometimes, I think you just leave their channel on in this oval office in order to shield me from reality. As a matter of fact, you have fixed so that I can't even CHANGE THE GODDAMN CHANNEL. Can't you at least get that Maytag repair guy in here to fix this? But Mr. President, Fox has not only promised me a job once we are finished but you can also....   SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN TO THESE PAST QUOTES I MADE THAT ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. QUOTES I MADE READING YOUR NOTES: "Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists." 10/27/01 "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order.  Nothing has changed, by the way.  When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."4/20/04 "...FISA is for long-term monitoring.  What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so?  I am -- I swore to uphold the laws.  Do I have the legal authority to do this?  And the answer is, absolutely.  As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress." 12/19/05  "When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines.  Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically.  The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses.  Our laws need to change to take these changes into account." 9/7/06 http://impeachforpeacemarshall.org/surveillance.htm   These quotations of my speechifications make me look bad everywhere BUT Fox. And this Hume guy aint gonna be on much longer. You know I always liked his deep deep voice, reminded me of gramps in the old days when I used to ride the pony.......but I digress... Oh, I remember writing those Mr. President. You know I got a lot of the materials from '24' and even Law & Order. Ah those were the days indeed Mr. President...we never had sex with those wiretaps.....hahaha..... SHUT THE FUCK UP TURDBLOSSEM. Jeeeeeeeeez Gonzo approaches the holy sepulcher with trepidation. Gonzo what the fuck is this then? Would you care to read this aloud to turdblossom: Title 50 - War and National Defense, Chapter 36 - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Subchapter I - Electronic Surveillance, sec. 1801.  Definitions (h) (4) "...with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."  sec. 1809.  Criminal sanctions (a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-- engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. Now you told me you went to law school and everything. I mean I put you on the goddamn Texas Supreme Court for Chrissakes. Where did this come from? But we researched that, Gonzo said with more trepidation. We researched this and gave you a 500 page memo and stuff. I never saw no 500 page memo... But sir, you told me you had no such time for such nonsense and to 'hone it down' as it were so I reduced it to 20 pages and then you.......... You know Gonzo, you are even dumber than you look. Now listen here Yoo just told me that 'they' are going to change the law, change a law... But I only just got here sir, I... YOO you idiot, John Yoo Oh...Gonzo was worried there for a second. I mean sometimes w just goes into this kind of haze kind of thing and speaks with his heavenly father and stuff and loses complete track of what is really happening. So I want you Gonzo to get your but over to the hospital. I mean it looks like we got a few hours and the laws that we are not following anyway are going to revert. Now Yoo said revert, so what I think he means is that these laws or AUTHORIZATIONS as he calls them aspire soon... You mean 'expire' do you not Mr. President... SHUT THE FUCK UP Now we have some Commie guy running the Justice Department. A commie in my administration and he said he aint gonna sign no more illegal papers. Ha!!! Who in the hell does he think he is talking to anyway. And beside Dicky just told me what was legal and what was not legal. What we need is the mighty penmanship of Ashcroft. He aint no commie. Get your ass down to that hospital with a pen and one of those extension documents and get that goddamanable Ashcroft to SIGN OFF AND I MEAN SIGN OFF RIGHT NOW. Yes sirree bob Mr. President. I am at your command...with that Gonzo turdtaco ran from the room as if on wings of ... well you get my drift. THE HOSPITAL Mueller, who also was rushing to the hospital, spoke by phone to the security detail protecting Ashcroft, ordering them not to allow Card or Gonzales to eject Comey from the hospital room. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864_2.html Gonzo arrived out of breath with the Card. And 'they' would not allow the two into the hospital room. The dynamic duo had to wait for Mueller to show up.The Attorney General of the United States lay in the intensive care unit, his gallbladder had just been removed the day before due a case of gallstone pancreatitis. Gonzo and good ole Andy Card were present at the boob coverer's bedside, in an attempt to give him their support--as well as a pen and some signature sheets. Deputy Attorney General Comey as well as FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III were also present. As was Mrs. Ashcroft. You are looking pretty good there General, Alberto began as Andy looked on with one of those pleasant smiles like he had just emptied his bowels a short time earlier, and oooooooooooh how good that felt. ((*$$*)))(**^^&%$$##@@!@##&&(  replied the boob wrapper. (Translated: Go fuck yourself you illegal alien) Why thank you General. Very kind of you to say so. *&*^&*%$#@ Ashcroft added. (Rough translation--well you really do not want to know, let me tell you) Now we kind of found ourselves in a discombobulation here General, why don't you tell em Andy. As the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I am telling both of your TO BACK OFF. We are here under the direct order of the President of the United States Director Mueller and... Fine, I warned you, and I want you to know that I am a witness here...pulling out his handy recorder and putting it on the water table...and this man is not compus Mentus... Well General, we are here to see that justice is done. You remember that fine statue of liberty and justice you had draped with that fine gown General...Well George W wanted us to come down and just see that you were ok and everything. And this here paper well papers were developed to keep that cover on our fine statue of justice and......... Who the fuck are you kidding Gonzo...Deputy Attorney General Comey spoke up. You think this is some kindergarten class on Fox News? This is reality and this man is sick and I have the order right here......SEE IT YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER......making me Acting Attorney General until Attorney General Ashcroft says otherwise....... Now boys, can't we all just get along? Andy liked to say that a lot. He never really knew what it meant but it was one of those happy expressions he would use all the time...and then give that wonderful smile that had gotten him to the place he now enjoyed. Fine. Go ahead Andy. BUT I REMIND YOU ONCE AGAIN AS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that I stand here as a witness to this ruse. With that Mueller sat down. Well General, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, we find ourselves in quite a mess here and... *&*&%$%#@#$%#  (Translated as I TOLD YOU NEVER TO CALL ME GENERAL YOU TWIT) I agree General, most heartedly. Did you hear that Director, he wishes to be heard and you are trying to cut off important communication here, Gonzo said as liason Attorney for the President....whatever that means. All of a sudden the corpse sat up, stunning everyone: I AM NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW; HE IS, pointing to Deputy Attorney General Comey. I kind of have received that statement loud and clear Gonzo and so did my recorder, exclaimed Mueller. And with that the 'meeting' kind of dissolved.

I've been been accused, on these very pages, of supporting torture (TPM member Steve Katz wants the USA to opt out of the Convention Against Torture)!  He did spell my name right.

My position has always been clear, I favor an investigation, when the time is right.

Well, get the kids, make the popcorn, get into your snuggies, "They're here."

Daniel Klaidman writes in Newsweek; Independent's Day: Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway.

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he (Holder) is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do.

"...leaning toward..."  Really.  Ponder this:

The night before (Holder), he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about..."

Let see, I'm pondering what may be one of the most important investigations in the history of our Republic and I'll invite Newsweek to my home for breakfast to...ponder.  I don't think so.

Holder fully understands the implications:

While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

"...negative impact on the president's agenda," I think not.  If all the media is talking about is, health care, what do we get, wall-to-wall Republican anti-health care propaganda.  The bill is DOA.

But, as the media can only handle one story at a time, barely, this will suck up more air time then Michael Jackson.  Meanwhile the heath care and energy bills will be written and dumped on Johnny Republican's desks in the middle of the night.  And, rightfully so.

What do we get?  Hopefully, the truth to what was one of the most heinous crimes against our Constitution, in history.

Hey, all you conspiracy theorists out there, don't you find it just slightly coincidental that this week, Obama extended Cheney's Secret Service protection (so we'll always know where he is?). Let us pray that someday they ask him for his passport.

So, let freedom ring.  May Bush and friends be treated, fair and balanced.  Pass the popcorn.  And, God bless the United States of America.

I was watching Andrea Mitchell interview Barney Frank on the TARP funds, and ended up sputtering and fuming over Frank's remarks. On one hand, they were blatantly honest, and on another they were understated beyond belief.

Read more »

Memo to Jenny and South Carolina: Dump him!

Memo to Politicians: Avoid C Street -- apt to be the political equivalent of belonging to KKK or Neo-Nazis.

Also understand how it works:  These good hearted men shower you with love and admiration. You are one of the elect --- Like King David and Nixon -- if you do it, it is right.  The leader tells you that he would understand even if you raped three young girls -- you, think golly I must be pure as driven snow -- all I'm doing is shagging my brother's wife and you blurt it out and get it off your conscience and feel better.  A little later four of your friends from the group come and ask you to vote the same way with them.  It occurs to you that the last time you saw those four together was at the group. Nothing is said about that.  Do I have to spell it out for you?  B * L* A*   * * * * 

Memo to Reporters:  Publish the list of those associated with C Street

Memo to Congress:  Start an investigation of cults.

Memo to Society at Large:  Imagine you are a power-mad admirer of Pol Pot.  Do you confine your tentacles to politicians only?

If you believe GM/"new" GM/"remnant" GM CEO Fritz Henderson that he intends to repay all government loans by 2015, then I have a brand-new 2009 Chevy Volt to sell you. Of course, with global warming denier Bob Lutz tapped to be GM's new marketing head, you wont' find a car like that on eBay or anywhere else.

In fact, contra GM's rushed claim, you won't find it on eBay at all. Not right now or in the near future. So, what WILL happen to those "green" cars Obama wants GM to sell? (Oh, and take note, at the first link, of how overvalued a price Team Obama has for GM, if you do the math on the loan value and the equity stake.)

So, between wrong announcements, "old" GM top brass touted for new jobs, and even "New" GM not expected to actually finish clearing bankruptcy for a full year or more, it's likely "new," aka "remnant," GM, will drift further into irrelevance.

Andrew Sullivan's Link to Levi Johnston's Entire Interview

I think Sarah has been told enough times to make it true (in her own mind at least) that God wants her to lead. Lead what... I think God has yet to open that door for Sarah, which is why she can't answer to it. Did this woman have a vision? Prophecy?

Is it just me or is "The Family" just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the political ambitions of messianic people dictating nearly every facet of public policy?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/1654263,CST-EDT-Jesse07.article

This article outlines in general form the argument of why we need both (a) a unified progressive coalition on the economy and (b) in particular, a second stimulus, including a massive bailout both of state/local governments and of homeowners facing foreclosure.   There is LOTS of discussion going on at elite levels, especially on the RW about a second stimulus, but even those supporting it, like Warren Buffett, are NOT necessarily going to support the right KIND of second stimulus, and the need for it NOW.

There are liberal/progressive economists here at TPM Cafe & its affiliates.   WHY DON'T WE HEAR MORE FROM BOTH COLUMNISTS AND DENIZENS ABOUT THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE AT TPM, AND OTHER GRASSROOTS PROGRESSIVE VENUES?   It seems to be yet another of the many hounds that don't bark in the landscape of US politics.

Here's a few NEW linx on the subject, or urgently relevant to it, in addition to the many posted last time:

http://www.newsnet5.com/money/19991494/detail.html
(States Using Stimulus $ Just to Stay Afloat)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56846L20090709

(Warren Buffett says second stimulus might be needed, current policy like 'half a viagra mixed w/ candy')

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56846L20090709
(Obama Administration Economist Laura D'Andrea Tyson says 2d Stimulus Needed)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709595712615003.html
(Wall St Journal on whether 2d Stimlus Is Needed -- reflecting Wall St's skepticism)   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinion/10krugman.html
KRUGMAN -- THE STIMULUS TRAP   http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/08/jobs-report-mortgages-unemployment-recession-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html
"BROWN MANURE NOT GREEN SHOOTS" -- Roubini Says Economy Hasn't Bottomed Out Yet, Predicts 11% Unemployment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070902568.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL ON STIMULUS -- recaps many of the skeptical arguments popular w/Wall St and GOP, but w/o dismissing idea
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/09/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5147716.shtml "The Dicey Politics of the Second Stimulus" -- News Article Summarizing Controversy & history

Whether I agree or disagrre with her stances, I appreciate Peggy Noonan as a thoughtful Repulican politician. She is a voice of intelligence on the Right, and as eloquent a speaker & writer as I've ever experienced. She has a great essay in today's WSJournal. Here's a brief excerpt:

She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

She then proceeds to dissemble thePalin mythology one step at a time. Here's a link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

With exceptions, most of our Senators and Representatives are working diligently to devise a healthcare reform that will meet the needs of Americans, including Americans without current health insurance. To appreciate this, it is important to step back for an appropriate perspective.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama touted healthcare reform as his highest priority. The current system was unmanageable - it devastated families, rendered businesses non-competitive in the global marketplace, and was devouring more and more of our GDP every year. Obama proposed to change the current system by instituting a strong public option that would reduce excessive costs through competition, and guarantee coverage for all Americans - coverage they could never lose.

As president, Obama has not changed his view, but his vision encountered a huge obstacle around the time of the election - an impending collapse of the American economy. His first priority, once in office, became the restoration of our economic health. With his urging, Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus package. Along with most economists, the President expected two results from this. The first was that an infusion of money would stimulate job creation over the next two years, slowing and ultimately reversing unemployment, and providing consumers with the wherewithal to re-energize businesses at the heart of our economic growth. This is good. The second would be a major increase in the federal deficit that would last for years. This is bad.

Faced with the unwelcome deficit component of the stimulus, the Congress, much of the public, and many economists have insisted that outside of the stimulus, it would be dangerous to further magnify the deficit in any large measure - in other words, anything else would have to be paid for.

Enter the public option for healthcare reform. Almost all healthcare experts conclude it would greatly reduce the growth of healthcare costs - an urgent necessity. However, the savings would accrue to consumers, while the costs would be charged to the government. Even though the savings would substantially outweigh the costs, they would not appear on the federal balance sheet. Some mechanism was therefore necessary to defray the costs so as not to further inflate the federal deficit.

Legislators have been scrambling to identify cost-saving measures, and many have been proposed. Even in aggregate, however, they would not fully pay a public option bill estimated in the trillion dollar range. This leaves only one other practical option to complete the balance - an increase in taxes.

Our representatives in Congress do not aspire to martyrdom. They understand that tax increases are never popular, even in prosperous times, and all the less in times of economic difficulty. Except when failure to enact increases would be potentially catastrophic for our nation's future, they would not even countenance tax increases during a recession. It is striking, therefore, that an enormous effort is now underway to find tax increases that can be imposed on those who can afford them, and which would suffice to cover the remaining costs of a public option. These include suggestions to tax high end health insurance benefits, to increase income taxes on higher bracket individuals, to impose "sin taxes" on alcohol or sugary drinks, and a variety of other measures.

The final mix is uncertain, but while not courting martyrdom, these Representatives and Senators are displaying a fortitude and moral integrity worthy of their office in their willingness, on this particular issue, to take political risks for the nation's benefit. They do not always deserve this accolade, and some don't deserve it now, but many do. In turn, they deserve our commendation, our support, and among those who can afford it, some of our tax dollars.

Not surprising:  John "Blue Dog" Barrow -- a conservative GOP-wannabee Democrat that usually votes the way his business donors tell him to vote -- signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi espoused the evils in the public-option part of the health-care reform proposal.   John Barrow is up for re-election in 2010. 

Georgia's 12th needs to find a REAL DEMOCRAT to run against Barrow and send the incumbent's 'blue butt' home where he will no longer enjoy the best health insurance plan taxpayers' money can buy. 

Rep. Paul Broun, MD  recently stated on the House floor that Canada and Great Britain do not value their citizens' lives and also that the public option portion of American health care reform "is gonna kill people."  Here is my letter to the ethically-challenged Republican doctor who touts his 'Christianity' every chance he gets:

Dear Congressman:

In a July 10, 2009 floor statement, you, Rep. Paul Broun, MD  not only said that Canada and Great Britain do not value their citizens' lives but also that the public option portion of American health care reform "is gonna kill people."  I think what you actually said about Canada and the UK was that the citizens of these allied countries "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society."   

Explain to me how that comment is (1) Christian? (2) ethical? (3) based in reality?
  
Stating that the public option will "kill people" is unsubstantiated.  Did you practice medicine based on sensationalism and deceit? 

As for Canada and the UK:  Both Canada and the UK rank number 6 in under-5 mortality rate ahead of the US, which ranks 8th.  The US ranks 34th in annual number of under-5 deaths; Canada being 2nd and the UK number 4.  Canadians and Brits have longer life expectancy than the US citizens.   Now which countries walk-the-talk and which country doesn't have "the appreciation of life" based on statistics.  A physician should be familiar with these data.

With all your anti-choice rhetoric, one would think the low infant mortality and high death rates of children under 5 would be of more concern to you than voicing Republican talking points and fear-mongering America's poor to put more record profits into the hands of those who fund your campaign. 

When you make public statements like this one, you shame your profession.  You shame your faith.  And you shame your constituents every time you open your mouth and lie to them.

Sincerely,
Constituent

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a member of the healthcare industry. The following thoughts, analysis, and conclusions are pretty much pulled out of my a--. Any resemblance between them and reality, living or dead, is likely coincidental. 

It seems to me that one of the main problems with healthcare is the whole notion that it is legitimate to profit off of the sickness of others. This philosophical question gets occasionally raised, and then only obliquely by Democrats, but I don't recall ever having seen it argued directly, forcefully, and consistently. I think that was the whole point behind the presidential debate question of whether healthcare is a privilege or a human right.

If healthcare is merely a privilege, then profit making is not only legitimate but, indeed, should be the prime motivating force behind the design and operation of our healthcare system/industry. Just as profit is the prime motivating force behind all other successful commercial industries. That is, if you believe Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' theory. But, if on the other hand, healthcare is a human right, is there any legitimate place for the usual profit making motivations?

In exploring this philosophical question we require a basic qualitative definition of profit. By profit, I mean those earnings above the cost of providing healthcare services and products. All costs of operating, including doctor and staff pay, and including certain non-operating costs such as reinvestment are not profit, they are costs. Profit is excess earnings paid to investors after all those other costs have been paid. Obviously, this definition can be gamed to include huge pay packages to executives, as was done by Health South, and which fall, none the less, under the definition of a legitimate operating cost. The only means which I can immediately think of to control that sort of abuse is either by regulation of executive compensation or by greatly increasing market competition - increasing market competition, though, can be highly problematic in healthcare. I think we should move the healthcare industry toward some low or non-profit model justified by the notion that healthcare is a human right. Let's begin with the low hanging fruit, the health insurance companies.

I think that private health insurance companies either shouldn't exist at all, leaving the government to insure everyone as a non-profit entity, or, they should be strongly regulated by some model of 'cost plus'. 'Cost plus' isn't the same as a pure non-profit model. It means that they can charge premiums high enough only to cover their legitimate operating costs plus some modest fixed profit margin. This was/is the model used to regulate many utility companies and for much of the same philosophical reasons I'm suggesting are true for the healthcare industry.

Attempts to remove as much (or all) of the profit motivation as is practical from the healthcare industry would predictably meet stiff opposition from conservatives, both Republican and Democratic, in congress. Yet, we as a nation have done something similar in principle, if not scope, before by the regulation of utility companies. I realize that this a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison because water and electric utilities usually owned monopolies within their local markets. AT&T owned a national monopoly on telephone service until 1984. AT&T was considered a utility and operated on a 'cost plus' basis, however, they didn't face any real competition. However, even with those specific differences, I think there are enough similarities to justify such an approach for our healthcare system. At the very least, what was done in the utility industry provides historical proof that some model which is not designed to maximize profit isn't somehow Marxist or un-American.

One of the problems with a pure non-profit models is the real issue of how to attract capital for financing innovation and capacity expansion. It may be possible to create a special low-risk government  bond, maybe, a health T-bill. Or, maybe, bonds would be issued directly by the healthcare companies, but guaranteed against default by the government, just like the FDIC does for savings accounts, in order to attract needed capital investment. I would not argue that this approach would be perfect or even the best approach. It leaves out equity market participation - however, I suspect that may be a net positive. I would argue that the criteria for evaluating any proposed new healthcare system should be whether it would be dramatically more efficient and effective, in terms of patient servicing, not in profit making, than is our current system.

 Our current healthcare system appears to operate without much local competition, especially for hospitals and doctors. That seems a practical market reality based on limited supply in many markets. Add to that quasi-monopoly market environment a customer base which very often is desperate to be serviced and typically in no position to negotiate price and we get a market formula which results in very high pricing. Utilities had/have cost control regulation to prevent just such an unfair market pricing environment.

Pharmaceutical and medical device suppliers seem to ride the gravy train inherent to any market where a third party pays for their products. One only need reference the automobile collision and bodywork market to see an example of insurance company involvement, IMO, resulting in outrageously high service pricing. No one would have auto bodywork performed if the payment was wholly out of pocket. The auto collision industry would be forced to drastically lower their prices. I'm not, for a second, suggesting that medical insurance is not required. The point of my post is that healthcare is a right, and therefore, must be both affordable and accessible.

The cost of health insurance must be made to come down without depending only on free-market forces. The cost of most other healthcare participants, such as doctors, hospitals, drug, and medical device suppliers can be made to come down via increased competition and increased buyer power. Two forces which those participants likely wouldn't want to see strengthened. Personally, I'm a skeptic regarding the savings which will be realized via health IT, or convincing Americans to improve their health habits.

 

P.S.

I've neglected to explicitly state why I believe that healthcare should be a right. I believe this becuase I feel that it's immoral to incidentally profit (in the coporate sense that I defined above) from the suffering of others. This is a notion which I also believe applies to the defense industry. The idea of removing profit motivation from the defense industry was advocated by Gen. Smedley Butler as a solution to unecessary war (by which, he meant, nearly all wars) in his famous, "War is a Racket" written way back in 1935.

Link: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm 

 

So much gloom around here. Cheney hit list, old fishwives' tales, people apologizing right and left, mostly left.

So what's yer ringtone? And what does it say, if anything, about your politics?

And if you don't have a cellphone, like Mr. Crankypants probably doesn't, how did you jigger the ringer thingie on the rotary dial phone by your bedside table? Or are you totally off the grid except for borrowed Internet at the laundromat on old Route 40.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting take on the Inspector Generals' Report  on Bush's Presidential Surveillance Program: 

The new Report on illegal spying is not a real investigation.

Glennwald writes:

...(1)  The IG Report is more notable for what it fails to address than for what it discloses, but that's the nature of IG Reports.  Most of the key players who authorized the illegal domestic spying -- David Addington, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, John Ashcroft, George Tenet -- simply refused to talk to the IGs or, in many cases, didn't even bother responding to their request.  The IG's have no power at all to compel them to do so; it's entirely optional.  That -- aside from the fact that they work within the Executive Branch and for the very agencies they are supposed to investigate -- is what makes IGs such an inadequate substitute for real oversight:  no matter how much integrity and independence they might have, they are extremely limited in what they can achieve.  

As any litigator will tell you, the lack of power to compel key witnesses to answer questions and produce documents severely hampers any ability to conduct a real investigation.  Yet, when they passed the FISA Amendments Act -- which legalized Bush's spying programs and immunized lawbreaking telecoms -- Democratic leaders kept pointing to the requirement of an IG Report to placate those complaining that they were whitewashing and legalizing Bush abuses.  But IGs are simply incapable, given their very limited powers and their institutional allegiances, of any real investigation of this sort.  What they were unable to disclose in this Report underscores how limited are their investigative abilities...

Greenwald is correct - the IGs report is not a real investigation. Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Card, Tenet, Feith, and Ashcroft did not cooperate with the inquiry. It's obvious that Executive Branch with its "look-forward with head stuck in dirt" mentality - adopted/enforced by Holder's DoJ - does not plan to investigate Bush's PSP. It's was Congressional dereliction of duty - gross negligence of Constitutionally-mandated oversight by both Republicans and Democrats - that permitted and enabled the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Congress has all the ammo it needs right now to launch a kick-ass investigation replete with subpoenas, contempt citations, and prosecution and imprisonment to those who think non-cooperation is an option. Congressional Republicans and the neocons will scream their heads off accusing the Democrats of "witch hunts" and endangering national security. The Democrats need to do this in order to rehabilitate itself and recover from its decade long self-castration.

No, I'm not saying that Jackson was craftily purchasing baby boys to raise as future mistresses because after two pedophile suits, he could no longer share his bed with young boys from the public sector.  (Particularly now that we know that he was not the biological father of any of his kids).
Jackson had a huge heart and tremendous integrity.  I know this because Campbell Brown tells me so night after night after night.  And Al Sharpton warns me that even if I do not believe it, I'd better keep my trap shut.
I have never heard of ANY parent raising their children shut off from other children.  MJ's children had no contact at all with other kids.
If the daddy were anyone except MJ, I would say the isolation was because a sexual predator was making sure little family secrets stayed in the family.  What goes on in Jackson's bedroom, stays in Jackson's bedroom.
But in this case,  Daddy is MJ.  And MJ would never DELIBERATELY stunt his children socially, during critical formative years.  He did it because he was so much more wonderful than you and me.  And the kids aren't social freaks in need of intense counseling.  They are lucky!  They were bought and paid for by Michael Jackson!  
My problem is NOT Michael Jackson.  Jackson was what he was.  
But by the time he purchased (I mean adopted) his second baby boy,  MJ was heavily addicted, had no wife, and had gone through two trials for sexually abusing little boys. Although he was never convicted, vast amounts of money was paid to both accusers.
So my question is, WHO signed off on handing the third baby boy to a drug addict with two children in his care, who were not being raised to mesh normally into society?  Even if there was no sexual abuse whatsoever, would a man in this condition make an acceptable father?
Were there case workers?  Did they investigate to see that a drug addict, with a history of pedophile suits,  rolling around Vegas in a wheelchair would provide an optimal environment to raise a new baby boy? 
Is this America?  
Aren't there child protection laws in America?  
Or are babies of surrogate mothers now commodities?  ANYONE in any condition can buy one.
We're only hearing about MJ's kids because he's a hi profile kinda guy.  What about the guys who aren't hi profile?  Is there stuff going on?  
Right now, are women being paid to provide babies that will be raised toward prostitution?
Are there laws in place to prevent this?
Should MJ's third adoption, in particular, be investigated?
And why doesn't the American media have the guts to ask this?

When will the majority recognize that its promoting socialist policies? Careful on how health care laws are structured that take our liberties away.

Historical purchasing power of US dollar thru 2004 (American Institute for Economic Research)

In response to my previous post, several commenters insisted that rapid movement in oil prices must be the result of speculation, or manipulation by speculators. I found the Taibbi piece on Goldman Sachs very damning, but while I am certain that the speculation has an effect (and that futures markets were rigged), I still attribute the bulk of the movement in oil prices to fundamental supply and demand.

Nate Hagens, an editor of the Energy Depletion clearinghouse The Oil Drum, also addressed the debate over speculation vs demand:

CFTC - Futures Position Limits on Energy?

The value of fiat currencies erodes over time, while remaining high quality energy increases in strategic value, even if not recognized in monetary terms. Historically, based of course on historic comparisons, commodities were the ugly stepchild in investment portfolios. As long as energy and resources were cheap, more long term gearing/profits were to be had from the vanilla 'derivatives': stocks and bonds (these are derivatives of our real capital: natural, built, social and human that underpins them), than from the commodities themselves. But as the world, in recent decades, was flooded not only with liquidity, but an order of magnitude (or more) increase in notional credit, relaxed oversight rules, relaxed lending standards, higher leverage, etc., those digits with the highest velocity have had to seek a home. Their doing so culminated in 2007-8 via a dramatic commodity market rally, (within which, oils kiss of $147 last July grabbed the most attention). What really happened in the ensuing 9 months was not a sharp drop in commodity demand, but a global margin call of epic proportions - all sorts of players were caught long and short (mostly long) had to pare down positions in almost all asset classes (US treasuries being notable exception). During the 5 years ended July 2008, the SP500 and crude oil had an R^2 of -.29, for the 7 months after: R^2 of .97! (Daily closes, graph here) The point of this is that oil was not in a speculative bubble, unless you amend that statement to: "oil was one of many instruments in a fiat liquidity bubble, but it was the most important commodity to the global economy so the media paid most attention to it". And to those who are adamant that speculators were responsible for oils rise last year: coal tripled in the same period and is not traded on the NYMEX....

Note: It seems that there is some sort of coal trading on the Nymex.

Speculators are generally ignored unless either of the two unassailable American entitlements: rising stocks and cheap oil, are not on trend, and a witch-hunt for bad guys ensues. As we are mired in a deepening recession, the roots of which lie in the generation long replacement of tangible things with paper and digits, the logical human reaction to oil moving back from $40 to $70 is to blame someone, in order that it retreat some and not act as economic headwind. (The same thinking mans logic used to request temporary withdrawals from the national emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce oil from $70.) The blame it seems, will again fall on speculators, (note: technically the majority of participants in our economic system should now be defined as speculators -we are buying/spending natural resources on margin with a downpayment of belief). As we have been writing on these pages for years, oil supply has maxed out, so any stabilization in demand will naturally result in rising prices. Couple that with many investors concerned about the inflationary impacts of quantitative easing, and there is a demand for ETFs, futures and derivatives representing real-not-derived-from-thin-air) assets, or the digital entries that legally control real assets. Recent liquidity dislocations arising from the linkage between the natural gas ETF, UNG, and natural gas futures have also heightened concern about position limits, and today UNGs administrator announced that no new shares will be created. In the end the demand for paper natural gas is higher than the demand for real natural gas. An odd situation, but the blame shouldn't be on the hedge funds, but on who designed the rules they follow. (On a deeper level, the blame is on all of us, for sleepwalking into this situation).

Another editor, Gail Tverberg (or Gail the Actuary) posted this chart on the recent lack of correlation between long future positions and oil-future prices:

Which, as Ellen commented, might explain why the largest oil trader was caught gaming the market last week. The traders have all been caught being too long.

Heard on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
Hartford Connecticut is poor. Two years ago, it's kids scored among the lowest in the nation on performance tests. Connecticut also has some of the richest communities in the country. As a result, the state has the widest performance gap of all the states among its students.

One district in Hartford did a massive overhaul of its schools. With no new money, it redesigned its systems to include 4 separate 'academies' within each school. The campus that was profiled had the Freshman Academy, the Law Academy, the Green Academy and the Nursing Academy. Except for the Freshman Academy which serves as an introduction to high school, each provides the basic high school curriculum as well as focusing on its own core area of study. For the first time in a long, long time, 2008/2009's test scores began moving upward.

The kids who were interviewed by the NewsHour reporter sang the praises of their school saying that, for the first time, they believe they have a shot at attending college.
When the stimulus came along, the 4 principals of the school were elated. They intended to hire a school nurse, a counselor, a health teacher, a math teacher as well as raising salaries across the school in order to entice better teachers to come to their system.

I believe any reasonable person can agree--an increase in college attendance and graduation would, more than almost any other development, serve to bring Connecticut [or any other state] out of its economic doldrums and jump-start the economy. It's too bad the governor of Connecticut cannot be counted among the reasonable people of the world.

True to form, Jodi Rell cut all programs the stimulus would affect by the exact amount of the expected infusion from the Federal Government. What do you want to bet she refunded $300.00 to each of her constituents?
Goodbye, new money--hello, status quo. And so long, prospects of bringing in new teachers, raising salaries, adding support staff. In other words, so much for creating new jobs. Gee, thanks, Governor Rell.

I guess she's looking out for her and her neighbor's kids. After all--we can't have just any riff-raff in those poor towns going to good schools and getting into college. What if the rich children can't get into those good universities because their poorer counterparts make better grades than they do? And, what will those rich kids do for jobs in such an Alice-In- Wonderland world?

Of course, another possibility is that this Republican Governor has joined forces with Rush Limbaugh and simply wants the stimulus to fail. To hell with the country, to hell with her own kids' future if we can see to it that Obama falls flat on his face and we can elect Sarah Palin in 2012.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, of President Obama's integrity. But the time is now surely apposite to ask why he appointed so many political Zionists to key posts in his administration. Zionism is a worldwide movement, originating in the 19th century, that sought to establish and develop a Jewish nation in Palestine. Since 1948 its function has been to support the state of Israel at the expense of the indigenous peoples of Palestine.  This, therefore, is very clearly a political movement; not an altruistic movement; not a humanitarian movement, not a movement for justice or for human rights - but a political movement.

 

In democratic America, there is complete freedom of choice to support who we want and to express whatever views we hold, provided they do not incite violence or work against the security of the state. However, it is more than coincidence that Israel should have such a powerful political lobby within the US administration - and it is germane to ask how and why this disproportionate representation occurred.

 

Could it be solely attributable to the power of AIPAC, an unelected political lobby that claims something in the region of maybe just 100,000 members out of an electorate of over 300 million? That seems unlikely. But whatever the truth, there would seem to have been forces at work that were, and presumably are, undemocratic and a possible threat to society.

 

Unfortunately, there can be no other conclusion other than the current Administration is unrepresentative of the American electorate as a whole and that that means implementing a foreign policy - such as the appeasement of an extremist Israeli government - that is disadvantageous not only to America, but to the world.

When my factory shut down I went to school. Had no idea what to take so I got into Criminal Justice and Government/Politics. I chose that major because, after watching endless Law and Order reruns, it seemed feasible..fruit of the poisonous tree and whatnot.

Along the way I met many people. I volunteered for many political campaigned and interned for many elected officials. Did I make a difference on policy issues? Maybe. Was I personally fulfilled? Sure. But where did it really get me.

Fast forward to today. My grandmother, who helped raise me during my parents' divorce, has terminal cancer. Two months to live is the prognosis. This is a saint of a woman. One of her last wishes: to have just a moment with my cousin, the youngest grandson, who is currently in prison.

Because of the people I met during my education, it took three emails and two phone calls to make a one hour visit happen week after next.

My point is, sometimes things do happen for a reason. Maybe it's god, maybe it's karma, or maybe it's just dumb luck. But I'm feeling really good about the circle of life right about now.

During a series of email and telephone exchanges Matthew Degn relayed to www.regimeofterror.com his vast array of experiences working with intelligence issues relating to the current and former situation in Iraq. Among his responsibilities during his years in Iraq Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq's Ministry of Interior. Degn, currently working on a book about his experiences in Iraq (personal website here), continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein's regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorism are incorrect.

Degn is currently the Director of the Intelligence Studies Program and a professor at American Military University currently a professor at American Military University whose testimony about events in Iraq has been cited by NPR, ABC News, the Washington Post and elsewhere. According to his American Military University bio Degn (pronounced Dayne) also:

"has extensive experience in the Middle East, serving most recently as a senior intelligence/policy advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior in Baghdad." He also "he was the senior civilian advisor in the creation of the Iraqi Counter-terrorism Agency, mentored Iraqi senior government intelligence officials at the Deputy Minister level, and witnessed the inner workings of the Iraqi government at the highest levels." "Professor Degn has also been involved in the screening and interrogation process within Iraq. He served at Abu Ghraib prison and was among the last Americans in the prison facility before its closing. He witnessed the harmful effects the infamous prison scandal had on U.S. foreign policy and the interrogation process. While in different prison facilities he has interviewed members of Al Qaida, Jaysh-al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army), Badr Corps, Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi insurgents, and members of other terrorist entities from Iraq and the surrounding region. Moreover, he has experience as a senior counter-terrorism analyst in Washington D.C. and in the military. Professor Degn is the author of numerous essays and other writings with subjects ranging from foreign policy and violent militias to terrorist methodologies, private security companies in war, and the use of intelligence within the Middle East."

In addition to the hundreds of detainees listed in his American Military University bio Degn participated in the interrogations of members of the Abu Nidal organization and Ba'ath party officials at Camp Cropper, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Former regime's links to al Qaeda
When asked about recent media reports citing Saddam Hussein's denial to the FBI about links to al Qaeda Degn viewed these reports as...continued here.

William K. Wolfrum released this statement to his supporters at 3 p.m.

"My friends, due to the current whirlwind of controversy surrounding me, I find it necessary to speak out once and for all.

I am an honest, hard-working man with strong convictions. Nonetheless, I find it necessary to alert people to one important fact - I mean no offense to anyone.

I fully understand that many people have taken umbrage with my stance on gay marriage issues. I have made it clear that my deeply held convictions make it impossible for me to support gay marriage. These same convictions have led me to fight for constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage, not allowing gays to congregate, vote or be anywhere near children. I also support forcibly relocating all homosexuals and their allies to the vast expanses of Wyoming.

But these are just my beliefs. I mean no offense.

I also understand that many have been outraged with my stances regarding the African-American community. But I am a strict constitutionalist who believes that the U.S. Constitution - in its original form - is the greatest document in the history of mankind and should be followed explicitly, just like the Bible. So my beliefs that blacks should only count as 60 percent of a human and that slavery should be allowed are based on historical interests and love of country.

But just know I mean no offense.

Also, some liberal interest groups and pro-immigration organizations have taken me to task for what they call my "radical" beliefs in regard to Mexico. However, recent studies have shown that a strong minority of Americans believe that Mexico should be domed and then gassed. My beliefs on this issue are all based on national and economic security, and such so-called "radical" actions would improve the lives of all real Americans.

So you must know that I mean no offense.

There are myriad other controversies that have been created by my many vociferous detractors. My belief that all women who have an abortion or miscarry should be executed, for instance. Or my belief that the Muslim world would cooperate better with civilized humanity if Islamic nations such as Iran were put on a steady diet of tactical nuclear weapons. Or my belief that Scientology is the one true religion and all that have differing religious views should be exterminated with malice. Or that Adolf Hitler, for all his purported flaws, was a leader of great vision and artistic ability.

But, my friends, we live in a free country. I believe that fact is often ignored by those who send me death threats. They are infringing on my First Amendment right to speak about my beliefs. I am being censored for holding alternative views, and this is as un-American an act as can be perpetrated.

I thank all of you for standing by me during these difficult times where I am being victimized for my beliefs. But I will defend myself using any means necessary from those that would take away my ability to believe as I chose. No offense.

Thank you for your time and I have retained counsel on this matter."

-WKW

Surely, today's revelations demonstrate that America is no longer a nation of laws, but only of men. The President, unable to get his Attorney General to authorize a program that was almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment, simply changes the process overnight and has his own lawyer authorize the program. Later, he makes that same lawyer his new Attorney General so that he will never be crossed again. Apparently, wiretapping Americans phones and data mining all of our financial accounts wasn't enough, he authorized an even more questionable program that actually (!) got a rise out of a few Democrats when they learned that they had not been briefed on it (as the law requires). Further, if the intelligence estimate from the CIA doesn't justify spying on your own citizens, just have a political hack in the White House add a paragraph to the report (this enemy will probably attack inside the US again).

No matter how bad it was, our country could recover from all of it if only we had a self-correcting mechanism in place: an opposition party that would stand on the side of truth. Instead, we have a Constitutional law professor as President who is OK with wiretapping Americans as long as their is minimal oversight and who is dead set against any investigations into illegal activity. And that's just fine with Congress. What gives?

Did the Decider wiretap enough phones to get sufficient dirt on everyone that he could pull off history's greatest blackmail scheme? Are the Democrats afraid that they will see jail time themselves as accessories to crimes?

The truth will set you free. Burying your head in the sand and denial never will.

Here is access to the report released 6/10/09. President's Surveillance Program or here

Normally, I'm not a big fan of protest theatrics, to my mind, Code Pink frequently does more harm than good to the cause, but I have to approve of ACT-UP's chaining themselves to the Capitol Rotunda today.

What's going on here is that during the campaign, Barack Obama promised to lift the ban on funding needle exchange programs, which:

• Do not encourage drug use.
• Reduce AIDS transmission.
• Reduce the cost to society.
• Provide an entry point with addicts for counseling.

The problem is that the White House submitted a budget to Congress still contained the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs.

So this wasn't even a matter of his not fighting for the program, it's a matter of him submitting language reauthorizing a program that he explicitly campaigned against in his budget.

A president's budget is purely advisory. Congress can, and does, amend it, or ignore it, as they see fit, but he is unwilling to even leave out a bit of language authorizing a program he claims to oppose.

I'm with John Aravosis's take on this

1. The candidate promised to lift the ban.
2. The White House Web site reaffirmed the president's commitment to lifting the ban.
3. The White House Web site no longer reaffirms his commitment to lifting the ban.
4. The president now refuses to lift the ban.
5. The president actually affirmatively makes things worse by administratively supporting [and] defending the ban.
6. The spokesman reiterates the president's support for lifting the ban, some day, once Congress gets around to it.

There is a pattern to all this, whether it's his sucking up to homophobic screeds "reformed homosexual" Donnie McKlurkin, using legal arguments equating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest, refusing to take administrative actions to even modestly impede the anti-gay witch hunt in the military, and now affirmatively submitting anti-gay legislation to Congress.

Either there is some real homophobia here, or there has been a political calculus made that appealing to homophobia is a political win, because the opposition wants gay people dead.

At best, it's no different than the prosecutors in and around Baltimore who will routinely demand more severe sentences in plea bargains for black defendants, because they know that they have a better chance to convict a black man, even in front of a black jury.

I believe that this action has been taken because it can be seen as a gay issue, not in spite of it.

This is dog-whistle gay bashing, and it is quite deliberate.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

During the dark days of the Bush era, I was one of millions who looked to Obama as a hope for the future.  However, I remember when Obama voted for the telecom immunity bill.  Up to that point I had been regularly contributing to his campaign, but I never did again after that, and I wrote his campaign a letter about the issue.  However, I forgave him, and I even was fortunate enough to attend his inauguration.

Dune is one of the few books I have read multiple times.  To briefly summarize; Dune is a book about galactic political intrigue, and is set in the distant future.  The evil Baron Harkonnen plots to control the planet Arrakis.  He conquers the Atreides family and installs one of his two nephews as the ruler of the planet.  He chooses the brutal Rabban to take control of Arrakis and thus begins a reign of terror.  The Baron plans to wait until the inhabitants have suffered greatly to the point of breaking and he will then have Rabban executed and install Feyd to take over as Ruler.  He hopes Feyd will be welcomed as the Savior of Arrakis. However, Feyd is in fact even more sadistic than Rabban, just more refined.  He is a surgeon rather than a meat cutter.  In this situation, Paul Atreides finds himself struggling to survive after his family is defeated by the Harkonnens.  He is exiled to the desert where he gathers the natives and returns to defeat the Harkonnens and become the true savior of the planet Arrakis. Good defeats Evil.

Around the time of the telecom bill vote, I happened to catch Dune on television for the hundredth time.  I remember having a conversation about this with my family.  My mind made a connection between Bush and Obama with regard to the Rabban, Feyd, and Paul relationship.

As we know, Bush and his evil "Uncle" Cheney had spent quite an effort in establishing sweeping new authoritarian powers for the President.  These powers would not just disappear into thin air after the election.  The next US President would find him or herself in a new office with new powers over the US population that are unprecedented in our history.  This is a very tempting situation for anyone.  As the old saying goes, power corrupts.  My hope was that Barack Obama would reverse the Bush/Cheney unitary executive powers, but I also realized there was a great risk he would not when he voted for telecom immunity.

President Obama has made some disturbing choices regarding personal liberty and government secrecy.  Obama's Preventive Detention proposal goes beyond anything Bush ever publicly proposed.  We should all be nervous about the future.  Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I hope Mr. Obama changes course on these important issues.

I hope we elected a Paul and not a Feyd...

After establishing that we pay twice as much for health care as most countries, why exactly should health reform cost *MORE*???

It's a question Bob Somerby at DailyHowler keeps asking, and it's a good one.

I've been hearing for 10 years how medical records will save us billions. What else are our inefficiences? Lack of competition? Drug development costs?

But I really want to know why if we're already twice as expensive as the rest of the world in healthcare, and we're reforming the system, why it can't cost less. Do we owe someone something?

Apparently Morgan Stanley has discovered the Wall Street
philosopher stone and can now turn garbage into gold.

Morgan Stanley plans to repackage a downgraded
collateralized debt obligation backed by leveraged loans
into new securities with AAA ratings in the first transaction
of its kind, said two people familiar with the sale.

Didn't this blow up in their faces a few months back ??

C

Obamabots are constantly proposing feeble-minded "best-case scenarios" to explain and justify why Obama has sold us all out, and what can you expect from those morons?

Modest economic growth beginning in 2011?

Harharharhar!!!

So I guess it's up to us in the reality-based blogging community to provide Obama's little idiots with a best-case scenario which isn't quite so pathetic, beginning with the revolutionary gwarp gravity engine!

It's smaller than a peanut, more powerful than a locomotive! Zero emissions! Cheap to build! Lasts forever!

By 2011, real wages in the United States will increase by 7000 percent, based on the gwarp gravity engine! You and I will gwarp to distant stars at a price of pennies per parsec!

GWARP!!!

Faster than light!

And death shall have no dominion!

Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Feel free to continue the discussion concerning whether either the Valley Swimming Club or the poster are demonstrating bigotry in this post, inasmuch as Mr. Thomas demonstrated true Texas valor when he turned off comments in his post.

I am a born mediator. I don't know if this is a curse or a blessing. I can see both sides of most issues, and have few beliefs that are set in concrete. I put myself in the other people's shoes, try to look at it from their perspective and often come to a compromise in my own mind. On any given subject I start out feeling one way, then as I get more information my feelings "develop," sometimes in the most unexpected direction. I guess to some, this makes me wishy washy, but I consider it realistic. I would rather change my position than defend something I no longer find defensible.

I also am usually slow to anger (my husband would dispute this claim, but he knows all my launch codes  and uses them far too regularly, so he doesn't count.) I think the mediator/slow to anger things are related, something to do with being able to understand another's point of view making it less likely that you'll flame out...we'd have to ask Thera about that.

So, anyway, for quite some time now, I've been working up what my son calls "a case of the ass"  ...a situation where you find yourself so pissed off you can barely think. When I start to feel one of these episodes coming on, my default reaction is to think about all the positives involved, which usually defuses my anger and then I can proceed with a rational discussion with myself. 

That strategy isn't working this time. In fact, I'm having such a hard time coming up with positives that I'm bringing it to you guys, so you can (as Rachel would say) "talk me down."

So here's my problem. "US." Not individuals, but the collective "we" that make up America. There are plenty of good people in this country. If I ever doubted that, being here at TPM would have shown me differently. We are radically different in our thinking sometimes, but there is no doubt that many really good people post here. And so it is in the larger population. But as a whole? Our country? We're a mess.  Much of it is the fallout from the previous administration, but some of it we've been bringing on ourselves for a long time.

My "case of the ass" started out as a mishmash of thoughts about the country circling the drain financially and ethically, wandered through the minefields of racism and religion, and, after "breathing" as Missy suggested last night, seems to have settled on what it means to be a Patriotic American. (BTW for those of you who already have trouble sleeping, going to bed with a half started rant on your blog entry page DOES NOT contribute to better sleep!)

To some, being a "Patriotic American" is nothing more than the bumper sticker philosophy of "America: Love it or leave it."  In order to be patriotic, you just have to accept and defend everything "she" says or does. Attack Iraq just because we want to? No problem. Torture? If it gets us what we want, why not? Allow financial institutions to rape, pillage and plunder our financial futures (as well as the rest of the world's,) then have the taxpayers pay their way out of bankruptcy to the tune of billions, slap them on the wrist, then allow them to continue business as usual? No problem. Stand by and watch as millions go without affordable health care, children living in abject poverty, our educational standards going down the toilet because it is just too expensive to educate poor/minority children? No problem. Allow lobbyists to "own" our elected officials? No problem. Vilify a black candidate for President as a terrorist, Muslim, probably not even a citizen? No problem. Hope his Presidency fails? Hell yes! California going down the tubes...oh well..."You don't want to pay higher taxes? We'll show you what small government looks like and see how well you like it, meanwhile so many are going to suffer. Why should we politicians have to work together to make your lives easier? We have our jobs, our health insurance...Suckers!" (Watch out you rest of America...you are following in our footsteps!) There are just so many issues lately that really have me mad.

It's all gotten me to wondering just exactly what it is that we Americans have to be so proud of (Outside of liberating a continent, but hey, that is getting to be pretty ancient history to be resting on THOSE laurels these days.)  Where did the arrogance of the last administration come from? Why is this Congress (the best chance we've had for progressive movement in decades) taking it's sweet time giving ANY indication it is going to make meaningful change, even though it was handed the mandate to do so? Certainly none of the above behavior makes me feel proud, and I can add much much more to the list...In fact, I was having a hard time coming up with much we should be proud of.

And then it hit me. What we have to be proud of is that we don't HAVE to accept or agree with everything she (America) says and does to love her. We have the RIGHT, no, the OBLIGATION to speak up when we see her behaving badly.  Sticking to the bumper sticker mentality..."America: change it or lose it." Much like with raising our children, if we love them (substitute America) we have the obligation to correct their behavior and guide them into being responsible citizens. There are very few places in the world where this is true. In spite of everything wrong with our country, we are FREE.

So yeah, the country is pretty much FUBAR'd at the moment. It is almost impossible not to be EXTREMELY pissed off at what our leaders are doing right now. It is almost impossible to not to be EXTREMELY pissed off at what many of our fellow Americans are thinking, saying and doing right now. But we are FREE to speak our minds. We are FREE to use our speech to attempt to change hearts and minds. We are FREE to attempt to change our country's course. We are FREE to become the compassionate world leaders we are capable of being. And using that freedom makes us Patriotic Americans. Accepting what we have now is not patriotic. It's just stupid.

Well...I feel better. I think I talked myself down. Thanks for listening.

 



 

As Chappelle or Chris Rock might put it

WHERE THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

This fine 'clip' is from Drudge. And they do not call it Drudge for nothin. They have played the actual video of this mishap.  Our president slips on the step and reaches back at the same time in order to help another woman down the steps. The French President is smiling at the mishap. NOT WHERE THE WHITE WOMEN AT.  http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907100022


Oh well, where did this kind of racist crap come from anyway?

Democracy in America was one hell of a read. Probably seven times in the last five years or so, I have picked it up and read it from cover to cover. Some places there are more underlined lines than those I left alone.  It is back as my bathroom read. You have to put yourself into the year 1848 to appreciate lines like this:

 

...my hatred is concentrated against those who, after a thousand years of equality, introduced slavery into the world again. Whatever efforts the Americans of the South make to maintain slavery, they will not forever succeed. Slavery is limited to one point on the globe and attacked by Christianity as unjust and by political economy as fatal; slavery, amid the democratic liberty and enlightenment of our age is an institution that cannot last. Either slave or master will put an end to it. In either case great misfortunes are to be anticipated...(363)

 

God protect me from trying, as certain American writers do try to justify the principle of Negro slavery; I am only saying that all those who formerly accepted this terrible principle are not now equally free to get rid of it.

 

Any intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars and perhaps in the extermination of one or other of the two races. (360)

 

Western Europe had abolished slavery.  Twelve years or so later, the Tsar abolishes it...well sort of. And America is a result of the enlightenment in Western Europe. For Tocqueville, THE END IS NEAR. QED he is predicting civil wars not just a civil war.

 

Tocqueville warns the South that even if they were victorious in their attempt to break the union, they will end up in other wars with the 'negro race' and the North will not come to their aid. (358)

 

And even though folks like Scalia and Sessions might feel that the eyes of the rest of the world have nothing to do with us, Tocqueville is saying it is idiotic to forget your roots America. Western European Thought alone will not countenance this sin.

 

But what is to happen when emancipation occurs?

 

To give a man liberty but to leave him in ignominious misery, what was that but to prepare a leader for some future slave rebellion. Morover it had long been noticed that the presence of a free Negro vaguely disturbs the minds of those no free, infecting them with some glimmering notion of their rights. In most cases the Americans of the South have deprived the masters of the right to emancipate. (362)

 

I know I am jumping around a bit, but Tocqueville is jumping around. Because he is having as much trouble coming to grips with the enormity of the problem of race in America. Slavery is just on of the issues. In other words, abolish slavery and you will still have slavery, just in another form.  Just as it did in Tsarist Russia and in America.

 

He even sites a model for one possible outcome, and that model is Spain. Eventually the 'moors'just kind of gave up and left for their countries of origin. (358)

 

He also speaks of racial mixing.

 

There are parts of the United States where Europeans and Negro blood are so crossed that one cannot find a man who is either completely white or completely black; when that point has been reached, one can really say that the races are mixed or rather that there is a third race derived from these two but no precisely one or the other. (356)

 

This just became of interest to me because of the class structure among the African Americans over the last century or so where the 'lighter' blacks created their own special caste or class. But as far as Southern Whites, no such class was admitted... You are 25% black? Then you are Black. Are you 8% Black? Then you are Black. That's it. End of discussion.

 

And you look at Germany in the first half of the 20th century, writing all these studies on the European Jews. Once you reached some percentage of being Jewish, you were Jewish. And they got very technical about it in terms of whether or not the grandparent of Jewis Descent was male or female. And those ideas changed over time. 

 

By abolishing the principle of servitude, the Americans make slaves free.

Perhaps what follows would be hard to understand unless I quote an example, and I will choose that of New York. In 1788 the state of New York forbade the sale of slaves in its territory. That was a roundabout way of prohibiting importation. Henceforth only the birth rate increased the Negro population. Eight years later a more decisive measure was taken, and it was declared that from July 4, 1799 all children born of slave parents should be free. That closed all means of increase; though there are still some salves one may say that slavery does not exist.(350)

 

See, we have to remember that slavery was abolished in the North OVER TIME.  And people were not holding hands and singing: 'We Are The World' either.

 

Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.

 

So the Negro is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart; they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extend; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle. (343)

 

Well now I may let loose my disdain for the liars and hypocrites:

 

Daily Beast:

Thirty-eight-year-old Audra Shay's campaign to become the next chairman of the Young Republicans went from obscure to infamous over the past week, after The Daily Beast revealed details of posts of her Facebook account. Specifically, a thread where one of her friends posts that ""Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist... Muslim is on there side [sic]... need to take this country back from all of these mad coons... and illegals," and Shay responds eight minutes later with: "You tell em Eric! lol."

"This is an outrage and I CANNOT believe this nation has him as our leader! It makes me sick!" She posted a few minutes later: "My disdain for Obama is directly proportionate for his disdain of this country."

Taken by themselves, the exchanges on Shay's page might be dismissed as an isolated ugly incident.  But there's a pattern emerging from the fringe of the GOP grassroots. Three weeks ago, former South Carolina State Election Director and Richland County GOP Chairman Rusty DePass "joked" on his Facebook page that first lady Michelle Obama was descended from a gorilla which had gone missing from a local zoo. Days later, Tennessee state legislative aide Sherri Goforth emailed out an image labeled "Historical Keepsake"--showing august portraits of all the presidents of the United States, ending with a pair of googly-eyes peering out from a black background to symbolize President Obama. When confronted, the aide to State Senator Diane Black said only that she regretted sending the image to the wrong email list and from her government address. She was "reprimanded" by her supervisors but not otherwise punished (a forced furlough at Memphis's National Civil Rights Museum would have been an inspired penalty). And of course, all this has taken place after Chip Saltzman's bid to be RNC Chairman was derailed by his decision to mail out a parody CD featuring the song "Barack the Magic Negro." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692407982802911.html#mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

And our own friends at Cafe have discussed the pool incident at length. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cjames/2009/07/why-guilty-white-liberals-feel.php#comment-3522650

But be sure to read Jonnienohands' comment in that blog. Remember everyone is on the alert for a liberal that may sound racist. As though we, and I mean me, get a racist thought from time to time...

You see a liberal understands his or her shortfalls. Understands that things must change because we are all a part of the system that perpetrates injustice.

The South would point out the deficiencies of the North with regard to their racial and racist policies. This in an attempt to cover up their own sins.

Neoboho gave me this gem called Mississippi Goddam..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAYVaHEMK0I

Nina Simone gives voice to some of her problems with the North.

Racism is not only a disease of the South. But I believe it is an inextricable disease of the Republican Party.

My last blogs on Sessions and Steve King would complete this gig. Steve Katz & Old Golden Decoy referred me to sources in my Sessions piece.

I intend to get back to Tocqueville several times this summer on other subjects. And has an interesting take on Native Americans and Alexis detested Andrew Jackson. And for good reason.

(The tome from which I quote is Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, translated by George Lawrence, Harper & Row, 1966 NYNY)

The Tree

As the third day ended, Olivia said: It is good.
 
While reviewing her files she listened to her collection of French songs, sipping on cognac.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksiFrib7vh0&feature=related
 
Trenet, my true love...
 
She supped on some crackers and roe, from the south of Russia, dreaming of a day when she would never need another 'letter of instruction'. Hell, she would be writing those documents and signing with a flair:
 
THE DECIDER
 
Completing her feeding for the night, she settled back upon her pillow.
 
She dreamt of Tory. Too bad, she thought...
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Warren came tumbling in as usual. What in the HELL is this, then? Not only hung over from his business trip to Detroit, as usual, but he dropped his pile of papers all over the spotless floor, as usual.
 
He looked around. He could not believe this. That old tree that he found out had been dead for years in the corner, well it was sprouting 'buds'.   All over its limbs.
 
AND THE LIGHT.  I mean the sun shone in like he had never seen it before. He reached into his pocket and pulled out his shades. Wow? He immediately went to the couch where he kept a little hair of the dog in his favorite.......couch. WHAT THE F... IS THIS THEN?
 
A divan and easy chair now replaced his favorite couch. Many a nap on that old couch. He felt so at home in it. He even felt it carried some of the same delightful smells of home.

Flowers......Jesus Christ Almighty. (Blessing himself, he kind of fell on the floor to retrieve his papers)
 
And who is the party to whom I am currently speaking?
 
He looked up from the floor first gazing at those purple high heels, up those long legs with nylons kind of webbed like his favorite video....and finally from the rack to those eyes.  Uh, who am I. I mean who are you my Lady of the early Morn?
 
Why I am Ms. Peony to you. And from the looks of ya, I would guess you are Warren of the Mighty Junkets.
 
Warren of the mighty what?  Standing up too abruptly just brought the nausea back. Spinning a little, he bowed courteously.
 
I am Warren Tooney, of Levinson, Nebraska. Pleased to meet your esteemed personage.
 
Now, what exactly are yoooooooooo doing? Olivia sung. At least it sure sounded to him like singing.
 
Uh..uh..uh......
 
Come now Warren, your file gives me the distinct impression of a man with a BS at Harvard and an MBA at..at...Princeton.
 
BS at Yale actually, but ya got the Princeton right.  Say, I do not mean to be rude, but I do have things to do Ms. Penny and I must get this bunch of crap in order and turned into five copies.
 
MOLLY, MOLLY.
 
Yes Ms. Peony?
 
Two seconds, pretty good there Molly. Warren suddenly realized he had thought out loud.
 
Molly, who the frick frack is Molly? Oh the new girl. Yes of course. Funny I thought her first name was Bon Bon or some such...thought Warren.
 
Molly please take those papers from this rummy, put them in order and make six copies...
 
ER...five is plenty...I mean I don't wish to be no bother nor nothing...Warren found if he fell into the language of Fess on Gunsmoke, women liked him better and would leave him alone. I mean he sure liked women and everything, but at work he attempted affability, but could never really ring true like Frank...
 
We will take it from here Warren. Now you wish notebooks or covers of any kind?
 
Oh, you mean like Axel? Geeeez...let me think....YES, yes yes yes.  Frank will like that.
 
And Warren, would you like us to check the math this time? Olivia inquired.
 
Now you may leave.
 
What the f..., then he thought, you know, nobody helps me in this godforsaken place. I mean I bring in about thirty percent of gross around here and Frannie does not know shit and never will....What a fine idea.
 
He decided to comply orally. Thank you so much. Oh and thank you Molly.
 
As Warren turned to leave Olivia suddenly remarked:  How about a nice double espresso and a French Bling?
 
Espresso, what the...suddenly he smiled. He never smiled on Thursdays but it came almost naturally. Why my Lady of the Morn. That would be fantastic.
 
Well you go back to your office and we shall bring you your breakfast. BUT YOU WILL NEVER EAT IN HERE AGAIN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU WILL NEVER COME INTO THIS ROOM AGAIN. UNDERSTOOD?
 
What, well if I need a copy...
 
You know where Molly's desk is, right across from The Room.  If you ever need anything you have that fannie buzz Molly. All right?
 
Why yes, yes of course.  Now he found himself really smiling.
 
Warren actually whistled as he skipped to his office.
 
Frank looked out his window onto the office floor and there was Warren skippin with his suns on. What the f....is this then?
 
Frank opened his office door, intent on catching up with Warren but was distracted by Susan Uppington's loud gossiping whisper, if one could call it a whisper, as Susan stood over Frank's secretary's desk.

Odd, isn't it, how Art just disappeared yesterday...Art in Accounting?  One minute he was there, the next minute his desk was cleared of all his junk, even that unflattering picture of his wife.  You know, the picture that we all thought was of their son?  And his favorite mug that he used as a pencil cup, the one that he said his wife brought back from Paris - the one with the boobs on it? - but what wife would bring a mug like that home to her hubby, I wanna know, and where in hell would Art's wife get the money to be going off to fancy France, I wanna know, and...

Good morning, Susan, shouldn't you be working on that project I gave you the other day?  We have a deadline, remember, Frank said in passing.  And then, instead of heading towards Warren's office, he veered towards The Room instead.  The strong smell of espresso was too damn enticing.

Frank nearly collided with Bonny as she suddenly opened the door to The Room and came out bearing a tray of espresso and French Bling.  French Bling, what the.....?

Frank moved out of the way to let Bonny exit, and then strode into The Room.
 
Good morning, Frank.  Care for some espresso?  Olivia asked sweetly.

Somewhat distracted by her purple heels and net stockings, Frank nodded his head in the negative and then immersed himself in a deep study of the different coffee flavors next to the coffee machine.  Hmmm, House Blend, Hazelnut, French Vanilla, Extra Robust Dark, Secretary's Secret Family Blend....what the...?

He reached a hand out to pick up the little flavored cup of Secretary's Secret Family Blend, squinting to be sure he was reading the name right, but in a surprise move, Olivia suddenly grabbed his hand. 

Oh, Frank, I doubt you'd care for that flavor, it's really not your cup of tea, heh heh....I see you as being more the Extra Robust Dark type, myself.  Secretary's Secret Family Blend is more of a, well, a ladies' coffee, don't ya know?  For, er, those times of the month when some really strong caffeine can come in handy, don't ya know -

Blushing to his roots, and completely unnerved by Olivia's hand on his, Frank stammered, Oh, oh, Miss Peony, say no more, say no more, Jeesus! (blessing himself).
 
Olivia let go of his hand and proceeded to make him a cup of Extra Robust Dark, managing somehow - twice, no less! - to rub her hip against his in the process. 

Um, Miss Peony, I just want to say that -

You really will enjoy this flavor, Frank, I just know you will.  It will wake you right up and have you standing at attention in no time.

Frank released a heavy sigh.  He was grateful when Olivia finally handed him his mug of steaming coffee, giving him something to do with his hands.

Speaking of attention, she continued, I've noticed that nosy Susan Uppington keeps wandering in here to The Room all day, even though I've expressly asked that employees afford Molly and I some privacy while we work in here.  She seems to be intent upon stirring up some kind of controversy.  What kind, I haven't a clue, as I'm not at all an office gossip, myself.  But she keeps asking all these odd questions and poking her nose in where it doesn't really seem to belong, if you get my meaning, Frank.  I don't quite know how to deal with her, do you?

Frank couldn't help but notice how Olivia's hands were busy stroking and fondling one of the cups of Secretary's Secret Family Blend as she spoke.  How very odd it made him feel.  He suddenly wished to be gone from The Room in a hurry.

If' you'll excuse me, Miss Peony, I must get back to my office, I'm expecting a call from HQ.

With that, Frank sped towards the door, nearly colliding with none other than Susan Uppington.

Susan, I believe Miss Peony has asked you repeatedly not to enter The Room anymore.

But--

No worries, Frank, I have this situation covered, Olivia blithely stepped in.

Nodding, Frank left The Room, but not before noticing for the first time as turned his head that the tree in the corner was budding some kind of odd flowers that seemed to give off an indistinguishable scent.  What the f....?  Well, it's not the only odd thing around here, he thought to himself as he left the two women alone in The Room with both relief and a sense of dread.

Susan, what brings you to my inner sanctum yet again today? 

You know, this room USED to be for everybody, you know...and I would've gone to that Molly person first but she's away from her desk, so I thought I'd just come on in and help myself to some of that espresso.  The smell of it is all over the office, it's making everyone crave strong coffee now, you know.
 
Olivia nodded but didn't smile.  I'm afraid the espresso machine is, er, out of commission for the rest of the day.  I seem to have broken a little widget off the front of it and for the life of me I just can't seem to stick it back on.  And I'm usually so good with these things.....one of my many talents, actually.  However, I've called a service tech and he should be here tomorrow.

The look of sheer disappointment on Susan Uppington's somewhat piggish face was just enough to make Olivia's day.  However, if it's strong coffee you crave, I have JUST the thing.  And with that, Olivia proceeded to make Susan a cup of Secretary's Secret Family Blend. 

Oh!  That DOES smell strong.  In fact, it smells almost TOO strong! Susan cried, wrinkling her pig-like nose.
 
I'll add some Half and Half for you, then, Olivia said sweetly with a smile.  As Susan began sipping at the hot, strong brew, Oliva continued, You know, though, that this is the last time you'll be allowed here in The Room.  I've declared it strictly off limits to personnel, barring Molly and Frank, of course, but even Frank keeps his visits to a minimum.  But then, Frank is a GOOD person, and he appreciates that rules are rules.  He doesn't wander around the office, from desk to desk, whispering and gossiping like, er, some of the people around here.
 
Susan gulped rather loudly.

Coffee too hot for you?  Too strong?  Perhaps you should sit down, Susan, right here on the divan.  Olivia led her carefully to the divan, noticing as she did that Susan seemed to be rather shaky on her feet all of a sudden.

I suddenly feel so DIZZY, gasped Susan.  She turned her head and only then noticed the tree in the corner of the room was not only blooming flowers, but the leaves seemed to be visibly GROWING right in front of her.  Yes, not only GROWING but MOVING TOWARDS HER.
 
OMG, do you see that? (blesses herself).  That, that plant!  It's moving, it's coming to GET me!

Susan dropped her near-empty coffee mug on the floor and tried to stand up, but somehow her legs would not allow it.  And just then, Bonny entered the room, carrying a stack of paperwork.

Molly, Susan seems to have taken ill of a sudden.  I think perhaps you should drive her home.  Go get her purse from her desk, get her address from her license, and get her home and into bed posthaste.  Here, you can give me that paperwork while you go.  Go!

Bonny quickly complied and hurried back to The Room with Susan Uppington's purse and car keys.  Olivia gave her cab money for the ride back to the office.  It was, she felt, the least she could do.

The two women proceeded to carefully help Susan out of the office and into her car.

Take care of the poor dear, will you Molly?

And with that, Olivia went back to The Room, sat on the divan with her feet propped up on the ottoman, and proceeded to read the latest report that was Bonny's latest copy job.  Midway through reading, with a slight chuckle at her latest find, she hummed a few bars of La Mer to herself, smiling with secret satisfaction. Olivia glanced up at the tree in the corner, its leaves as normal as ever, its flowers just beginning to bud.   And Olivia saw it and thought to herself here at the end of this fourth day:  It is good.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Room
Where something lurks so evil?
Yet we remain in the dark
The Room
And yet, the room lures
Us into its foyer

The Room
So spotless and clean
Yet forbidding and dark
Somehow
The Room
Ah yes, the room lures
us into its power

Peony
What has she done
What is she doing even now?
Peony
She's a strange one, and how

The Room
It's a grand mystery
With no answers in sight
And yet
The Room
And yet, the room lures
Us into its foyer
We're under it's power!

(To be continued....)


 

Blunderdick has ridden into DonDi's post Breaking** Possible Assassination Squad Ran by Cheney** where Don presents an analysis that Cheney's alleged assassination squads may be linked to the CIA lying to Congress that has hit the news. Stratofrog pens Blunderdick into the comments complete with K.A.N.A.R.D., Transylvania Avenue, and Rentagun Papers (among other satirical plays). Fbomb You-Betcha (Palin) makes an appearance as Blunderdick's driver.

Thank you to TPM media for providing a copy of this:

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2922322 
Talk about must-see TV!  Tell your friends, everybody, will ya?

Another theme running thoughout the report of the Inspector Generals report on the Presidential Surveillance Program (PSP), available at Secrecy News, is that while many intelligence community officials described the warrantless wiretapping program as helpful and reasurring,  nobody could actuall cite any specific cases in which the illicitly obtained information contributed to a counterterrorism success.

PSP "played a generally limited role in FBI's overall counterterrorism efforts," the Justice Department IG concluded.

The CIA IG said "much of the PSP reproting was vague or without concext, which led analysts and targetting officers to rely more heavily on ohter informaiton sources and analytic tools which were more easily accessd. and timely than PSP."

In sum, the report concludes
 

Most IC [Intelligence Community] officials interviewed by the PSP IG Group had difficulty citing specific instances where PSP reporting had directly contributed to counterterrorism successes. Although it was difficult for a variety of reasons already discussed to independenty identify instances where PSP reporting contributed to sucessful counterterrorism efforts, there are several cases identified by IC officials and IC documentation where PSP reporting may have contributed to counterterrorism success. These cases cannot be discussed in this unclassified report."

So the alleged success of warrantless wiretapping program is both highly conditional ("may have contributed") and and wholly secret.

No, Not the House of Commons and the House of Representatives.

    There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served.
    Jane Jacobs.

Sometimes it is better not to keep a promise, but I said this little series would have four parts and for parts it shall have.  So far, in my account of unintended consequences of progressive political reforms of a century or so ago, I've taken a look at ballot reforms like the Secret Ballot, Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, and the direct election of Senators.  Let me close with something completely different-zoning and city planning ordinances, which date from about 1916.  Let me begin with some visual aids and a question.  Here are two houses, built roughly the same time.  Both were built for the same upper middle social class-houses to be operated by the family without live-in help.





Here is the question: Which is the American house and how can you tell?  

There are, of course, lots of differences, but the one to which I'd like to draw attention is that the upper house, which is from Maida Vale, part of Greater London is a double house, while the lower, is a single house, is in the North Brookline neighborhood, part of Greater Boston.  You'll have to take my word for it that the individual units in the double house are roughly the size of the Brookline single-what the unit lacks in breadth it makes up for in depth.   The garages in Maida Vale are add-ons, as well.  In back, are gardens--modest by our exurban standards, but large enough to enjoy an evening's calm and with ample puttering space.  As you can perhaps tell, each half of the double house is individually owned, and the owners have made their own decisions as what to do about matters like painting.  How odd...yet it isn't odd at all in the English context.

One finds these double houses all over England: indeed, all over Western Europe.  One finds them in American cities of the 19th century as well: and not just in cities.  We have a handful of them in my town, dating to the early 19th century.  We also have triple deckers dating to the same period-an easy walk to the factories constructed about the same time.

Briefly put:

    Traditional zoning has [recently] proven less than popular in many cities. Zoning typically segregates land uses into three main categories - residential, commercial, and industrial. Thus, if a section of a city is zoned residential, then no commercial uses are allowed in the area so a grocery store cannot be built within a housing area. While zoning has served to protect property values and has enhanced the use of the automobile, it has created less than appealing cities.
    Zoning:  Residential, Commercial, or Industrial?  By Matt Rosenberg, About.com

I won't bore you with all the details, but zoning regulations go beyond this simple three part division; establishing among other things, criteria for number of units of occupancy, number of unrelated persons living together, minimum lot size, and maximum "footprint" of the property on the lot.  New York City's discussion of Zoning, from its earliest comprehensive plan to today, is very good.  I recommend clicking through to it.

As was the case with other political reforms of this era, city planning and its tools were created with the best of intentions.  But as was the case so often, the best intentions were those of a specific class of reformers.  In this instance, economic interests (of course) allied with aesthetic interests (The City Beautiful Movement), to create a specific vision of what a city should look like and how it should "work".   While I don't think anyone would argue for the creation of a City Ugly Movement, the idea of beauty being in the eye of the beholder may apply here.

Regardless...good intentions do go awry.  It would be fairly easy to defend any of these propositions, and I shall, if anyone wants me to:

1.     Zoning practices have led to far greater economic segregation than would have been the case otherwise, and economic segregation will be far harder to eradicate than racial segregation.
2.     Economic segregation has had baleful social consequences, not the least of which are a lack of cross/class empathy and educational inequality.
3.     Zoning has increased reliance on the automobile and increased the carbon footprint of American Urban areas...it aids and abets global warming.
4.     Zoning makes communities less resilient in times of economic disturbance.  If one's economic circumstances change and one finds one's self unable to support the lifestyle of an upper class suburb, one can't remain in the community-everyone is upper class, to move to cheaper digs means leaving one's community and one's social institutions-churches, schools, and the like.
5.     Urban sprawl now occupies some of the most fertile farmland in the United States, especially east of the Mississippi.  Cities developed where they did for two primary reasons-water for transportation and arable croplands.
   

Et Cetera, Et Cetera.  Anyhow, reformers today are working to reverse some of byproducts of zoning ideas of one hundred years ago.  Disciples of Jane Jacobs (who was anathema to planners like Lewis Mumford) advocate a New Urbanism.   Paradoxically, the new interest in liveable cities continues to displace the poor through gentrification.  A yuppy/dinky city would be as uninteresting to me as contemporary suburbs are.  Those of you who are interested in these ideas might want to check out James Howard Kunstler's blog.

Thanks for your patience, and I return you to Sarah Palin or whatever else fancies your tickle.

Barack Obama's recent appointment of Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health should be uncontroversial. After all, Collins led the Human Genome Project, and he did it ahead of schedule and under budget. His own landmark scientific research led to the discovery of genes for cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, among others. He is by all accounts a likable guy. The trifecta he offers -- a great administrator, a great scientist, a great personality -- is darn near unheard of.

So why are there scattered grumblings from scientists about this new appointment, with one scientist fretting that we're seeing the continuation of George W. Bush's "theocracy"? Well, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. Although he believes in evolution and opposes intelligent design theory, he's an evangelical all the same. Perhaps most relevantly, he has been loud and proud about his belief that religious faith can be reconciled with science. He's the guy that evangelicals cite when they want to prove they are scientifically serious.

Now I, for one, am not an evangelical. I'm one of those heretical liberal Christians. And I can understand why atheist scientists might lift an eyebrow when a fellow scientist -- a renowned one at that -- goes around talking about God. But my appeal to them is this: get over it.

We have a White House that seems concerned with science. It just appointed one of the preeminent public scientists of our generation to a key post. And everything in Collins's background suggests he'll approach his work with intellectual honesty, without letting religious beliefs interfere with his scientific work. Can't we just call it a victory and leave it at that?

Crossposted at the What's the Matter with Kansas? film blog.

Such a situation might be described by one of its proponents like this:

Obama is being hyper-pragmatic.  The reason Obama is avoiding reforms on transparency, gay rights, etc. is to avoid divisive political battles until health care reform is accomplished.  He realizes that many presidents have tried to unseat the entrenched private insurance system and failed in spectacular fashion.  Obama recognizes the paramount importance of health care reform, to individuals and to the country's overall economic health, and has decided to fix his sights on health care, picking his battles with the strategy of a chess player until he accomplishes that near-impossible goal.

 The reason is that Obama and Axelrod have a basic map of where Obama's presidency should go.  He's going to ride in on the endearing gloss of his remarkable character and his racial barrier-shattering, undeniably historic election.  Of course, some people will never like Barack Obama, but we do know his favorability ratings thus far in are uncommonly high.  He will use this to his advantage, passing health care and economic reform in his first year.  Like Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, the popularity of Obama's reforms will win him the long-term loyalty of large voting blocs.  The economy will begin to recover some time before his reelection, whether it's true or not he'll get credit for it, and his influence will be safe for the rest of his presidency.  The later part of his administration will be remembered for the stream of progressive reforms he had promised during the campaign.  He was only waiting to make those reforms until he had political space to maneuver.  If he had acted too quickly on other reforms, his presidency would have been much less effective.

I live in Iowa City, a university town that is supposed to be the most liberal community in the state of Iowa. The comment boards in the local paper are dominated by hard right Palin-loving Republicans that live in town and surrounding communities. They manage to have considerable sway in county and city politics far beyond their numbers. They are representative of Palin's support, they are not going away and they are getting more radical and angry by the day. I don't think national politicians or pundits have a real understanding of where this base is coming from but if you look at your local community closely, for example at the building trades, you may get a clue.

When I dig into the background of those folks I find that they either own established small businesses or they aspire to owning a business like Joe the Plumber. What they have in common is a single minded focus on self-enrichment and a tendency to scapegoat anyone else for keeping them from achieving some imagined level of wealth.

As someone who built a small business from scratch I can understand to some extent how they get to that point. When you spend 10-12 hours a day building a business and everything city hall does seems to slow you down it is too easy to get into the frame of mind that everyone else is trying to leach off your hard work and initiative. I had enough perspective to understand that my success depended to a large degree on the greater success of the community.

But if your ONLY priority is self-interest then that attitude becomes viscous and usually racist.

Understand that percentage-wise, rural communities depend upon self-employment more than urban communities. And understand that established small businesses in rural communities are often de-facto monopolies and that is accelerating with the recession and the increase in energy prices.

These folks have alot of resources to push their priorities in local and regional politics and also as consumers for media advertisers. They are not used to actual competition in the marketplace, they are used to getting their way.  And whether they own a business or imagine themselves to be a business like Joe, they identify with raw corporate power. It is called corporatism.

As I meditate on Robert Reich's latest blog, I think back to
growing up in the 50s and 60's. Imported products were
rare. Nearly everything was made in the good old USofA.

The cars and trucks, TV's and radios, clothes, shoes, washers
and dryers. Even the plumbing in your house and the pumps
if you had a well.

Your bicycle, sled, balls and bats and marbles. The music you
listened to on the radio and TV programs. Sinks, stoves and
Bar BQ grills. The furniture in you house and the furnace that
heated it in the winter and the fans (or if you were very well off
AC) in the summer.

I remember my grandfather showing up once driving a VW micro
buss. He had a small Japanese TV that would run off the car
battery. Looked nifty but I wondered why anyone would want to
watch TV in a car.

What changed ?? Or rather what didn't change. As the imports
were progressing, American products were not or not very fast.
By the 1970s American car companies were still making 1950s
cars but with a different wrapper while the imports were getting
better. Better gas millage, better handling, longer lasting.

Import electronics where becoming or rather had become transistorized -
solid state but American electronics were still vacuum tube.

American clothes still looked frumpy and imported clothes were new and now.

In short American industry was still stuck in the past. Where as the
American consumer had moved on. American industry was still
trying to sell propeller airplanes in a rocket ship world.

It will take a very long time for this country to catch up, if we can.

C

If we had any doubts financial players intend to reinstall the same, corrupt crapshoot that tanked last summer, American International Group at least partially dispels them by continuing to reward its own high-rolling croupiers.

The company - a derivatives-soaked nightmare when it came begging for public rescue last year - is adding some spit of insult to the bargain by seeking a government benediction for this new bonus payout, amounting to almost $2.5 million. That's chickenfeed, of course, compared to previous bonuses. And it's not in the same league as the taxpayer-funded bailout package that saved AIG's bacon a few months ago - almost $144 billion.

Earlier this year, AIG paid more than $160 million in retention bonuses to employees of the unit that wrote those doomed derivative contracts. Many employees returned the money, but the episode sparked a national furor of executive pay that's still simmering.

Yep... that AIG. And all this gall from a flailing company that just may sport zero equity value.

Read more »

BEACH PALIN BINGO

[borrowed liberally from the classic Bullsh*t Bingo game]

How to play: read or listen to news reports that mention Sarah Palin. Check off a block each time you hear that word or expression used, and when you have five in a row, you've won Beach Palin Bingo!

Play Bingo

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1268/bingo.png

This letter is complete and utter bullshit. The blue dogs give a number of reasons for opposing the public option or lists of things that have to be in the final legislation before they sign on.  These things are not only (1) impossible, and (2) unnecessary, they (3) guarantee that these legislators do not want to see this legislation passed.   The "wish list" is as follows: 

• 1.  Deficit neutrality.  Seriously?  Do any of these fucking retards know what an externality is?  Further, as we all know, that will be impossible.  The point of reforming health care and the public option is that it will be cheaper for the country -overall- to have government involvement in the health-care market because it's dysfunctional.  That will cost money, and it will add to our deficits.  The policy call is that the country as a whole is better off with a public health-care option than without it.  
• 2.  Delivery system reform.  To the extent that this paragraph is not opaque, it's nonsensical. Stating that we can't "add consumers to a broken system is the bloody problem in the first place."  Thus the public plan--voila, new system.  And I have no idea what "value-based purchasing" means in the health care market, but when your kid needs stitches, you don't comparison shop.  If it means letting the gov negotiate with Pharma over drug prices, then yes, that should be in there.  But somehow I don't think that that's what they're talking about.

• 3. Small business protections.  The letter cites "high and unstable costs" for small businesses.  Single payer would be the solution to that problem.  Again, I'm sure that that's not what they mean.  And again, if there is always a public option (which will be cheaper provided that these idiots don't get ahold of the draft), how will that not drive prices down?

• 4.  Rural health equity.  See public option, supra.  I have no idea what that means, but there is going to be some disparity between rural and city hospitals.  Getting primary care doctors to those areas is a different problem, and one that costs money--another reason their first objection is so disingenuous.

• 5.  Bipartisanship. Seriously?  "Yes--let's solve the healthcare problem with one part failed ideology, and two parts batshit crazy.  We'll call it bipartisanship"  Ladies and gentlemen, your modern republican party.

Oh, man the ads write themselves.  "Congressman X has a gold-plated health plan.  Here's what he thinks you should have."    

Simply put: Because it's hush money.

I have no doubt that the folks at Change.org and The Bilerico Project, The Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada, GLSEN, The Trevor Project, and Michael Rogers of PageOneQ.com are and were sincere in their efforts to get Rockstar's CEO and founder, Russell Goldencould Weiner, to disavow the anti-gay statements made by his father, our favorite radio blowhard, Michael Savage.

But while I don't doubt the sincerity of those groups, I do doubt Weiner's.

Why? Because I'm a firm believer in the adage, the nut doesn't fall far from the tree.

To catch you up to speed, a number of gay rights groups have called for a boycott of Rockstar after it was "discovered" that the company's CEO, Weiner, is Savage's son, and that Savage's wife, Janet, is also an officer.

Russel sent his lawyers after those sites, threatening to sue them for defamation if they continued to assert that Michael Savage had anything to do with the creation of the company.

That's in spite of early Rockstar Web site statements in which Russell credited his mom and dad with helping develop the formula for the drink. So maybe Savage didn't help found the company, but Russell is apparently saying he did help create the product. Pick nits, much?

Here's why I say the groups should return any contribution made by Weiner or Rockstar:

Remember, recently the gubernatorial campaign of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome returned a $25,000 donation Weiner made after an LGBT activist reminded Newsome of Weiner's views on gays.

And when he was asked about it, Weiner said he made the doantion because he's friends with Newsome and, most tellingly, he thought Newsome would be "good for business."

And that, my friends, is the bottom line. It's all about business.

Russell Weiner is no fool. You have to look carefully at yesterday's press release and study the language he uses in his statement (the bolding is mine):

"It has recently come to ROCKSTAR's attention that there might be a misconception about our company's policy and my personal support for LGBT rights," said Weiner. "We apologize for that misunderstanding, and want to make clear today that our company fully supports our LGBT employees and our LGBT customers."

"Some have erroneously associated our company with offensive language directed at LGBT people, specifically statements coming from Michael Savage, who is not and has never been a shareholder or officer of ROCKSTAR Energy Drink. On behalf of our company and directors, including myself and CFO Janet Weiner, I would like to take this opportunity to disavow any offensive statements directed toward LGBT people, including statements from Michael Savage. ROCKSTAR assures our customers and the general public that our brand will never be associated with any language that does not affirm the essential dignity of every person in our diverse national community."

Notice how he phrases the "disavowal:" "any" offensive statements. That's tantamount to saying, I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said. No acknowledgment that the statement was, in fact, offensive, just apologizing if you took it that way.

Secondly, it's all about the business: the Rockstar brand will never be associated with offensive comments. That means Weiner could go on the radio tomorrow and continue his father's rants on the "Gay mafia," and preface it all by saying, "I'm speaking for myself, not on behalf of Rockstar."

Why didn't he say, neither I, Janet Weiner, nor the Rockstar brand will ever be associated ...?" Because that's not how he or his mother feel.

So I urge these groups to stand back for a few days, really read what Weiner said, and hopefully come to the realization that any contributions from Rockstar are made with unclean hands.

Say "no!" to the hush money.

Keep the faith.

by Raquel Brown, TMC MediaWire Blogger

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, narrowly passed in the U.S. House of Representatives at the end of June. The ACES bill seeks to mitigate climate change via emission reductions, investments in energy technology, creation of clean energy jobs, and rigid standards for energy efficiency. Check out Grist for a valuable breakdown of the act.

Read more »

[Our title comes with a hat tip from "Babylon 5," where it appeared as a line of dialog]
Someday you will not be able to set off fireworks or shoot a rifle or grill meat on a barbecue -- either at all, or more likely only if you are in conformance with strict new carbon caps.
Smart technology will mean that our personal uses of energy will be monitored. Average Americans already create many tons of carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons just from breathing and excreting but mostly from using technology, like gasoline engines. 
When it becomes clear, as NASA scientist James Hansen has said, that in the near future the planet's ecological survival will depend on drastically reduced carbon emissions, humankind will be forced to do something about it. Voluntary restraints will not work. Market restraints will work to some extent (a carbon tax, for example). 
So what may very well become necessary is a world in which each individual is not only taught and encouraged to live a vital, low-carbon lifestyle, but also a world in which to some extent carbon emissions are tracked right down to the household and personal level.
So if you turn on a light switch, your household will add to its carbon emissions output, consistent with the (hopefully very diminished) amount of carbon your local power provider emits to produce that power. At some point, you may exceed your permitted individual level. Maybe your level will be higher or lower than average, depending on medical need or where, precisely, you live. But you will have a limit. 
And when you exceed it, there will be some kind of penalty. Monetary, ideally, but in a world gone totally haywire it might go beyond that. And then we'd have more people playing posse comitatus games with the government and their neighbors. Hiding their outputs. Flipping the bird as they helped drag down the ecosystem to an eventual heat death.
But it won't just be carbons and hydrocarbons. It'll be thermal emissions. Any engine or electronic device, including your cell phone, that produces heat will be tagged and measured, as well. 
[That, by the way, is why nuclear fission power plants aren't other than a short-term fix. Sure, they put out very few air pollutants, if properly operated and maintained. But -- not even considering radioactive waste storage -- most of these plants use a hammer-to-kill-a-fly approach to produce power, boiling pressurized water to drive turbines. And that creates huge amounts of heat, which has to be taken up by the atmosphere and biosphere.]
Someday we'll probably have enormous sunshades flying in fixed orbit between Earth and Sun, giant Venetian blinds to screen out too  much heat. We'll try other more earth-bound remedies on a global engineering scale. We'll try small solutions, making machines and processes more energy efficient and earth friendly. We'll try to curb consumption in part by encouraging population control. 
But none of it will work unless all of it adds up to too much. And that will stress the cultures of this world. And that will lead to resistance. And that will slow our reforms.
Stay tuned. We've got a long way to go to save the planet so we can save ourselves.

The former Speaker, author and possible presidential candidate tells Al-Jazeera that he dooes not support calls for preemptive bombing of Iran. He favors covert operations to sabotage the country's only gas refinery. The goal, Gingrich explained in an on-camera interview, would be to produce "a gasoline-led crisis" in the country which would then led to regime change. "It's in America's interest to have a responsibile Iranian government," he non-sequitired.

"Which you can precipate by provoking a gas crisis with black ops sabotage? asked incredulous interlocutor Avi Lewis.

Newt pivoted away with another Gingrichian sound byte, crunchy to the ear and vapid to the core, recommending "the Reagan strategy in Eastern Europe" for Iran, another non-sequitir.

Gingrich refers the Reagan administration's position of ideological confrontation with the Soviet bloc countries in the 1980s. That stratagy was based on the popularity of the United States in those countries derived in large part on its role in defeating Nazi Germany and supporting the free countries of Western Europe. The U.S. has not such reservoir of goodwill in Iran, thanks to the CIA's 1953 coup and U.S. support for the autocratic Shah until his overthrow in 1979. Also, Reagan never threatened to launch black operations to deny gasoline to the Polish people.

The group of "Blue Dog" Democrats sent this letter to Nancy Pelosi yesterday demanding changes to the Health Care bill currently being worked in the House:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/07/blue-dogs-we-cant-support-health-care-reform-without-significant-changes.php?page=1&ref=fpblg
In this they actually demand "Bipartisanship" and state that "The American Public is looking for us to work together, regardless of party affiliation, to pass comprehensive health care reform".
Now, I'm completely over this idea that even though the American people in the last two election cycles have overwelmingly chosen to put Democrats in office in both houses of Congress that Democrats are supposed to allow the minority party which has absolutely no desire to meet in the middle on this or any bill like it to water it down to the point it no longer does was the American People need it to do.  Simply put just like the stimulus package, Republicans want to change the bill but then won't vote for it anyway; so what's the point?
This country NEEDS a public option if not full Universal Coverage and needs it fast!  Families are drowning in medical premium costs that may or may not actually cover us if God forbid we suffer from a catastrophic illness or injury.  If I wasn't spending over 10K a year just in premiums for my family; I would almost certainly be stimulating the economy with a lot more spending and so would you and again that's just my premium (I'm an independent contractor).
Blue Dogs, I know you think that you are securing your votes in your conservative districts back home but health care is an issue that you need to rise above getting reelected and consider that we are in a unique position where we can finally make this happen in our country and if this Congress can save the American People from this Health Care monster we are currently facing then it will be an historic Congress.  Over 75% of the American People want a Public option; don't let the small percent of partisans that would never support the bill to control the agenda and more importantly to water down a bill that is worthless if if doesn't get us the coverage that we so desperately need.
Sincerely,John Hodson

In Rolling Stone's The Great American Bubble Machine, Matt Taibbi accuses Goldman Sachs of inflating and exploiting a great many economic bubbles, including the commodity market for oil, which, he claimed, crippled the average consumer by driving up the price of fuels for driving and heating. I have no doubt that Goldman Sachs did their best to profit from commodities, but I wonder if Taibbi has fallen for a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

In line with Peak Oil theory, James Hamilton of Econbrowser believed that increasing demand vs peaking supply was at the core of the price increases. AFAIK, Hamilton has not yet responded to the Taibbi article, but about a year ago, in response to persistent debate about whether speculation could or would drive prices higher, he posted this article by Scott Irwin, who holds the Laurence J. Norton Chair of Agricultural Marketing at the University of Illinois.

Index Funds and Commodity Prices... Here We Go Again by Scott Irwin

[Start with] the non-controversial observation that a very large pool of speculative money has been invested in different types of commodity derivatives over the last several years. The controversial part is [the conclusion] that money flows of this size must have resulted in significant upward pressure on commodity prices, which in turn drove up energy and food prices to consumers throughout the world. This argument is conceptually flawed and reflects a fundamental and basic misunderstanding of how commodity futures and related derivatives markets actually work.
...
The first and most fundamental error ... is to equate money inflows into futures and derivatives markets with demand, at least as economists define the term. Investment dollars flowing into either the long or short side of futures or derivative markets is not the same thing as demand for physical commodities. My esteemed predecessor at the University of Illinois, Tom Hieronymus , put it this way, "for every long there is a short, for everyone who thinks the price is going up there is someone who thinks it is going down, and for everyone who trades with the flow of the market, there is someone trading against it." These are zero-sum markets where all money flows must by definition net to zero. It makes as much logical sense to call the long positions of index funds new "demand" as it does to call the positions of the short side of the same contracts new "supply."
...
[The] second error is to argue that index fund investors artificially raise both futures and cash commodity prices when they only participate in futures and related derivatives markets. In the very short-run, from minutes to a few days at most, commodity prices typically are discovered in futures markets and price changes are passed from futures to cash markets. This is sensible because trading can be conducted more quickly and cheaply in futures compared to cash markets. However, equilibrium prices are ultimately determined in cash markets where buying and selling of physical commodities must reflect fundamental supply and demand forces. This is precisely why all commodity futures contracts have some type of delivery or cash settlement system to tie futures and cash market prices together.
...
A third error ... is an unrealistic understanding of the trading activities of hedgers and speculators. In the standard story, hedgers are benign risk-avoiders and speculators are potentially harmful risk-seekers. This ignores nearly a century of research by Holbrook Working, Roger Gray, Tom Hieronymus, Anne Peck, and others, showing that the behavior of hedgers and speculators is actually better described as a continuum between pure risk avoidance and pure speculation. Nearly all commercial firms labeled as "hedgers" speculate on price direction and/or relative price movements, some frequently, others not as frequently. In the parlance of modern financial economics, this is described as hedgers "taking a view on the market." Just last week, when commenting on new survey results of swap dealers and index traders , the CFTC stated that, "The current data received by the CFTC classifies positions by entity (commercial versus noncommercial) and not by trading activity (speculation versus hedging). These trader classifications have grown less precise over time, as both groups may be engaging in hedging and speculative activity."
...
What all this means is that the entry of index funds into commodity futures markets did not disturb a textbook equilibrium of pure risk-avoiding hedgers and pure risk-seeking speculators, but instead the funds entered a dynamic and ever changing "game" between commercial firms and speculators with various motivations and strategies. Since commercial firms have the considerable advantage of information gleaned from their far-flung cash market operations, they have traditionally dominated commodity futures markets and speculators have tended to be at a disadvantage. (If you are skeptical, I recommend reading the classic study by Michael Hartzmark about who wins and loses in futures markets.) In this light, entry of large index fund speculators has the potential to improve competition in commodity futures and derivatives markets, particularly as index funds become smarter about moving in and out of their positions.

In plain language, a commenter notes:

Folks, if you buy a futures contract at twice the price of the commodity and you can never sell it to someone else, you will receive delivery on your doorstep of what ever the commodity is and you will pay twice the price for the commodity. Not a smart move.

So as I read this, peak oilers would not claim that the futures market was not manipulated, but they would argue that the actual prices were rising more due to demand than to speculation in the futures market.

Obama is popular but the world's view of the U.S is largely unchanged, according the worldpublicopinion.org poll released by Pew yesterday."Surely Obama cannot be expected to change global opinion in just six months," says Tom Schaller. "Considering how much damage George W. Bush did to global attitudes toward the United States, if there's any chance for these numbers to improve, Obama's global popularity is a start."

Yes, but in some places, the position of the United States is so isolated it is hard to see how Obama' actions can have much effect. The scary numbers in the poll came from Pakistan where 10 percent of the people think that the United States role in the world is "mainly positive" versus 62 percent who think it is "mainly negative." There's not much Obama can do about this  precarious position.

So the geniuses at AIG Financial Products are back for more. Remember, these are the people who are responsible, not only for the bulk of AIG's 100 billion in losses in 2008, but arguably also for the meltdown of the world economy as a whole. AIG's assets are now worth less than 100 billion and their debt to the tax-payer around 173 billion, so no one is pretending that this is anything but a direct transfer from the tax-payer to the worst group of traders in the history of mankind.

The pending payout to the AIG FP amounts to $ 235 million. This is apparently not a new deal, it's the same old story coming back to haunt us once again:

 

The pending $235 million in retention bonuses at AIG's financial products unit, whose woes were largely responsible for forcing AIG to the brink of bankruptcy court last year, are part of roughly $450 million in retention bonuses for that unit that AIG has previously disclosed. AIG agreed in early 2008 to make those payments, months before it received a government bailout. The first installment of those payments was made late last year, after the bailout.

The second installment came due in March, and it was the preparations to make those payments that set off the prior controversy. The next installment of payments to the financial products unit employees is not due to be paid for months. AIG has argued that it is obligated to make these payments, and that keeping employees in their jobs is crucial to avoiding additional losses on trades that the unit still has in place and is trying to wind down.

The justification for these retention bonuses is then two-fold: (1) we can't just rip up these contracts, and (2) these particular people are uniquely qualified to wind down the outstanding positions.

Now, this discussion has already been had, but just a couple of points. As regards (1), there is intrinsic value to respecting contracts in most situations, though the general principle of "respect a contract unless one of the parties has destroyed the world economy" seems a workable one without throwing all contractual commitments into doubt. As regards (2), it is a valid point if they are uniquely qualified. And that is not necessarily the case. Most of these trades are being unwound at par or close to par*, which requires no special knowledge or ability. A pug in an armchair could do that for you for, say, 100 bucks an hour...

And even if they are uniquely qualified to unwind this clusterfuck of their own making, have they no shame? Remember, the uniquely qualified Myron Scholes of LTCM fame took $250.000 a year to unwind his mess. He didn't ask for a bonus. These AIG people are true monsters.

* I should source this claim, but I can't find it (perhaps Naked Capitalism or Zero Hedge). If someone has a source or evidence to the contrary, it would be welcome. 

NYT Dealbook on the AIG bonus story.

In the middle of a quagmire, it's easy to create whatever facts you want. For the last 8 years we've been in a panicked haze over 9/11. Even so-called liberals are dazed and confused, fed little bits of disinformation to toss morals overboard. False choices abound - "Indefinite Detention? Or health care?" It's like we're channeling Tom Tomorrow.

Fortunately we have a few bloggers and news organizations that are rising to the task of cutting through the muck and mire, but it's not easy - they're sidelined, they're not mainstream, they're "not serious ™". Dan Froomkin, fired from the Washington Post because he asks tough questions of both parties. Glenn Greenwald, keeping up on torture week after week. Marcie Wheeler (EmptyWheel), following court cases and legal briefs in detail to piece togehther the story behind the story. And oddly enough, there's still a news syndicate, McClatchy, that's maintaining some credibility on tough journalism.

How badly are we lied to? Well, here's Nancy Youssef at McClatchy pointing out that one of those horried Gitmo terrorists was actually trying to help us counteract the Taliban, and far from being picked up on a battlefield, he was picked up during questioning at the gate leaving a US military base after briefing commanders on positive actions they could take. Now, after 6 years of wrongful detainment and mistreatment, he's back in Afghanistan doing what he always does, advising the government. Armed and dangerous? The worst of the worst? Would you be afraid of this man moving in next door? We've been hustled. Tom Lasseter describes the hugely flawed process by which we frequently picked up the wrong guys.

But it gets worse - Wakil is now presented as having "returned to terrorism". After never having done anything wrong, trying to help us defuse tensions, 6 years of wrongful detention, returning to help the government (our ally) in Afghanistan, these motherfuckers have the gall to present him as a poster child of irredentist terrorist behavior, the supposed reason why we have to keep all those other innocent and unconvicted/untried inmates stuck in Guantanamo. And it works. The debate is not over "why don't we release harmless innocent people?" It's over, "oh my, wherever can we find in this vast world to safely place these Lex Luthors and Hannibal Lectors?". (Presumed answer: chained inside caves of ice at the North Pole) They have us pissing ourselves in fear, tromping on our own Constitution because they've found an effective boogieman. Liberals and Conservatives, we're all buying into this "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense after 8 years of media programming.

How ridiculous is this? As far as we know, aside from two World Trade Center + Pentagon attacks killing fewer than 3000 people, there has not been a single successful radical Islamist attack in the United States ever. In perspective, in 1993 we had 24 thousand murders and 1.9 million violent crimes; in 2007 we had 17 thousand murders and 1.4 million violent crimes. There are 43,000 auto deaths a year with 2 million permanent injuries. We've had a white supremacist bombing of the FBI, abortion center bombings by white radicals, crack gang epidemics, an unsolved anthrax terror campaign almost certainly not by Muslims...  But one crime with airplanes by 20 people 8 years ago killing 3000 people has reshaped our psyches beyond recognition.

And for the 1993 WTC attack, we convicted most of the people involved, including the ringleader, in a court of law. And Greenwald notes, we just convicted someone of abetting terrorism in a US Court of Law. This is another pack of lies, that we need to create separate military tribunals to bypass protections for the accused, that our civilian courts aren't good enough.  And Marcie tops it off by noting that our military tribunal convictions are likely illegal because the crime of "material support for terrorism" isn't a properly defined crime in the venue of the tribunals. So much for the lie that tribunals are the only way to handle our problems.

This follows the earlier myth pushed by the Conservatives to show Liberals were weak on terror - that the only proper response was military, invasion of independent countries to protect our rights, rather than the careful international police work that's cracked down on mob and terrorist activity for years, whether the Medellin cartel or the IRA or ETA or the PLO or Russian Mafia. Suddenly that wasn't good enough anymore, even though other countries have suffered horrendous terrorist attacks as great as 9/11, and didn't have to suspend the rights of man and invade their neighbors. But funny thing is, that notion is no longer even on the table - it became a joke about weak ol' Al Gore and then weak ol' John Kerry, thinking that mere laws and police enforcement could deter the Hannibal Lecters of the world - they hate us for our freedoms, nothing will stand in the way, not even good cops Bruce Willis/John McClane and Sgt. Al Powell, not even their SWAT teams.

It used to be that we considered our strong morals on the battlefield and off helped protect our troops, that when we came into town they would know we were the good guys, whether they were enemy combatants or innocent civilian bystanders. The assumption was that we don't commit atrocities, that we're known for acts of impromptu kindness. Admittedly, this is hugely questionable historically, and largely destroyed in Vietnam through horrific actions against civilians. But now it's even worse - we've turned our supposed reputation into a PR curse - we have to violate our own principles of transparency and access to information to keep our troops safe!!! If we do have any Hannibal Lecters, they must be protected and covered up, or else people will think we have Hannibal Lecters!!! My, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. As if we're fooling anyone but ourselves.

Oddly, the general we've all come to love to hate, Gen. Petraeus, noted we should release the suppressed pictures from Abu Ghraib to "lance this boil". But that message went nowhere - instead, the official word is out that releasing those pictures will endanger the troops, even though the rumors likely have the photos worse than they are, and even though Petraeus is one high profile figure who disagrees with this slam dunk assessment. The President himself is against releasing these photos, even though he's all for using pictures of the Iranian woman Neda, killed in protests, as a symbol to rile and rouse the citizen troops, potentially to harm that country's police. Premeditated abuse of prisoners on our watch? Cover up the photos. Random death in a melee somewhere "over there"? Let 'em fly, ain't democracy great?

Another successful lie is that our abuse debate is not over "How many detainees did we kill via torture and abuse and at a minimum willful negligence?" (Correct answer: well over 100). Instead it's over whether waterboarding is torture or not, and even that version is watered down (sorry) to infer a few seconds once or twice, rather than the repeated useless but sadistic administering over a period of months, trying to get intelligence blood out of people who more and more physically looked and acted like withered, extinguished turnips.

The Uyghurs held at Gitmo were not engaged in hostilities against us or anyone else. They were only training against the Chinese, who via Deng Xiao Peng had occupied Xinjiang/East Turkestan in 1949, about the time he mowed over Tibet as well, allowing China to expand their defensive/offensive position against Russia and India. So how's it going with that democracy in Xinjiang? Well, as Nick Bequelin explains, in 2002 as our post-9/11 freakout was picking up steam and our newfound friendship with China blossomed (after downing our spy plane  and returning it dismantled in boxes just a year before), the Chinese decided to start burning Uyghur books, switch all teaching from Uyghur to Mandarin, banning of Uyghur burial rites, and push full steam ahead with importing more and more Han Chinese into Xinjiang, now giving them now 40% in the region. Latest word? The Chinese will now raze the center of ancient Kashgar, one of the great outposts on the Silk Road and part of the Great Game.

Remember when we complained about the Taliban blowing up ancient statues at Bamyan? Remember how we complained only a few weeks ago about repression of rights and democracy in Iran? Remember how we keep telling Israelis to stop the settlements in the West Bank? Apparently book burning and language suppression is no longer a big concern. Apparently the President has come down with a case of crickets. Chirp chirp, chirp chirp.

But it's not just the President's silence on critical moral issues - it's his active sustainment of long bandied lies while pretending to be different, to be planning a new way forward. His Justice Department is now defending not releasing Cheney's testimony even though Cheney's own lawyer already leaked it for political purposes. His CIA is stonewalling on coming forward with a less-redacted version of their IG report, now saying "Wait till Summer's Over".  In the Al-Haramain case in Vaughan Walker's court, the defendent in requesting summary judgment can bandy about the contrast and hypocrisy between Obama & Holder's campaign/approval statements and the actions of the government now in defending illegal wiretapping outside of FISA approval.  [Even more hypocritical because in Holder's private practice he was defending Chiquita's decade-long funding of both right- and left-wing terrorist squads in South America].

And for those who think the abuse has stopped, the wiretapping/warrentless surveillance continues. And the abuse at Guantanamo continues. Many people even think all the Uyghurs are sunning in Bermuda now. Problem solved. And for those on the left who have trouble accepting the full inference of these developments, any of these revelations are only temporary occurrences since Obama's in office such a short time, or just the work of a few bad eggs, not administration policy. Of course the original Abu Ghraib atrocities were blamed on a few bad eggs as well. And the Valerie Plame leaks were just from some disgruntled White House employee, until the time came to invoke executive privilege over VP/Presidential offices managing the whole affair.

Our media now takes the view that the words "torture" and "terrorism" only apply to acts that others do. When the US does it, it's some kind of misstep on the road to a greater cause. US bombs wipe out a village? Just a misstep - we're really winning hearts and minds.  Enough so that we're upping our troop levels in Afghanistan to show our commitment and how well things are under control. A hundred or more detainees die in our custody, with everything from shackle marks to kicked in kidneys? "Boys (and girls) will be boys (and girls)". And don't even contemplate referring to orders from above - just a few renegades. "America does not torture", as declared meaninglessly by our last 2 Presidents, meaningless because you won't catch them within a mile of a concrete definition of torture.

One of the early Artifical Intelligence exercises involved a black box. If you submitted a question to the box and you couldn't distinguish the answer as coming from a human or a machine, then you have an effective expression of ïntelligence, whether "real" or "artificial". In fact the whole purpose of the exercise was to sidestep the prejudicial labeling of real vs. artificial, and look for objective measures.

In our case, we have a closed off system of government that we rarely get a glimpse into, but when we ask questions, and mistrust the responses and dig deeper, the behavior we observe seems consistent over the past years - it would be hard to conclude that there's been an administration change. Certainly from TV we all know the good cop/bad cop routine. "You see my partner, he has a bad attitude, but if you cooperate with me..." But Greenwald has already noted that Obama's willing to abide by the rules only when he gets the results he wants, and if not? Perhaps a signing statement of his own to refuse a Congressional directive, perhaps an Executive Order proclaiming Preventive Detention 4-evuh, perhaps vetoing the Intelligence Authorization if it doesn't rubberstamp the same flawed CIA-Congress briefing system, perhaps further claims of executive privilege over who visits the White House or health care discussions.

It's time for us to stop being hoodwinked and to accept we have a problem with our government, whoever we think is behind the wheel. It's careening down nervous breakdown lane, to quote the FarSide, and to date we as a people seem like complacent kids playing spot the license tag and auto bingo in the backseat, not noticing the guardrails on the cliffs we keep running into nor the pedestrians we've flattened on the way. We're stuck in a box, and it's time we start thinking our way out of it.  

[Note: any references not explicity made most likely refer to blog postings by Marcie and Glenn - a perusal through their recent archives will most likely hit gold]

PS - some contend that we're holding on to Uyghurs "for their own good", rather than succumbing to Republican off-the-wall freaked-out-on-terror talking points at home (we *can't* let them on US territory, where they would defile our soil and threaten our children and the American Way by their very superhuman evil presence) and bowing to Chinese pressure abroad (oops, guess those US government bonds do have hefty strings attached). But there have been several US communities that have made strong pitches to bring the Uyghurs to their communities and protect them and integrate them. And as I've noted, these folks would easily blend in with large diverse university campuses. In short, the "concern" is nonsense. We run safe houses for battered women, witness protection programs, we reintegrate prisoners into society every day. We spend billions to fly detainees around the world to torture them through "extraordinary rendition", but we can't manage to settle a few innocent detainees on American soil without a hoopla? We are screwed up.  And for those search engines out there, alt spelling, Uighur, Uighur, Uighur.

PPS - And how is it in 2009 we've come to somehow holding the word of the CIA sacrosanct? I mean, come on - their mission is lies and deception, spying and secrecy. I understand that - how come Congress doesn't?





 

 

 

Contrary to what Pudd'nhead says, "countless" others have not resigned and her definition of "honor" seems to be atypical and nonstandard:

"And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

In the last 50 years only 33 governors have resigned:

• 15 resigned in order to accept a presidential appointment
• 11 resigned because they were elected or appointed to Congress or VP
• 3 resigned due to scandal
• 2 resigned after being tried and convicted of felonies
• 1 due to illness
• 1 resigned in order to prepare his fourth run at the presidency

In the last 50 years, no sitting governor resigned because of too many ethics complaints, or because "life is too short", or to avoid being a "dead fish", or to help someone else's election campaign, or because they're a "lame duck", or even to "advance in a different direction".

Governors who resigned 1959-2009

Name	State	Party	Term Resigned	Reason
Raul H Castro	AZ	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Ambassador to Argentina
Patrick Joseph Lucey	WI	D/I	2	Presidential Appointment - Ambassador to Mexico
Richard Francis Kneip	SD	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Ambassador to Singapore
Christine Todd Whitman	NJ	R	2	Presidential Appointment - EPA Administrator
Michael Okerlund Leavitt	UT	R	3	Presidential Appointment - EPA Administrator
Otto Kerner	IL	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Federal Judge
Mike Johanns	NE	R	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of Agriculture
Abraham Alexander Ribicoff	CT	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of HEW
Kathleen Sebelius	KS	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of HHS
Janet Napolitano	AZ	D	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of Homeland Security
Tom Ridge	PA	R	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of Homeland Security
George Wilcken Romney	MI	R	3	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of HUD
Dirk Kempthorne	ID	R	2	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of Interior
Cecil Dale Andrus	ID	D	1	Presidential Appointment - Secretary of Interior
John Arthur Love	CO	R	3	Presidential Appointment - Director of the Office of Energy Policy
Michael Newbold Castle	DE	R	2	Elected US Congress - House
James Caleb Boggs	DE	R	2	Elected US Congress - Senate
Harold Everett Hughes	IA	D	3	Elected US Congress - Senate
Edmund Sixtus Muskie	ME	D	2	Elected US Congress - Senate
George V Voinovich	OH	R	2	Elected US Congress - Senate
Spiro Theodore Agnew	MD	R	1	Elected US Vice-President
Albert Benjamin Chandler	KY	D	1	Appointed to US Senate
Wendell Richard Anderson	MN	D	2	Appointed to US Senate
Edwin Leard Mechem	NM	R	4	Appointed to US Senate
Donald Stuart Russell	SC	D	1	Appointed to US Senate
John Joseph Hickey	WY	D	1	Appointed to US Senate
John G Rowland	CT	R	3	Scandal (ethics)
James E McGreevey	NJ	D	1	Scandal (sex)
Eliot Spitzer	NY	D	1	Scandal (sex)
Harold Guy Hunt	AL	R	2	Resigned after felony conviction
J Fife Symington III	AZ	R	2	Resigned after felony conviction
Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller	NY	R	4	To prepare for 1976 presidential bid
Ella T Grasso	CT	D	2	Illness
Pudd'nhead Palin	AK	R	1	Bad Hair Day

So, Mike Allen from the Politico decided to join all the "old media" types from the White House press corps and eat free Obama-cue on the Fourth of July. And, go along with the old media hands from the press corps and not tell anybody.

Guess Politico staff can't break old WaPost habits of selling access. And, folks, it's not just the business side, it's the editorial side that sells access, too. Just in different ways.

WASILLA - Outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has dropped another bombshell that will likely again shake her supporters to the core. Palin announced today that she is resigning the Presidency of the United States as of Jan. 24, 2012. Palin said the bad press she will likely receive has made it impossible for her to fulfill the job she expects to win.

"This is not politics as usual," said a smirking Palin. "I know there are plenty of real Americans out there who will help me win the 2012 Presidential election. And while I'm proud to serve, I'm afraid the negative press and potty-mouthed attacks from bloggers will force me to resign, effective shortly after I expect to win, roughly 45 months from now."

While most political pundits have questioned whether Palin is making the right decision in abandoning the White House nearly four years before she anticipates being elected President, The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol called the move "Pure genius by an amazing super maverick."

"I'll tell you what, once again, we see that Sarah Palin knows what America is all about," said Kristol. "Her pre-quitting of the Presidency will long be look forward to as a brilliant time in American history."

For her part, Palin said that she would look into other ways to serve the American public, such as serving as the center square on a revamped production of the game show "Hollywood Squares." Palin is also expected to begin hawking flakes of her skin on QVC later this month.

"I belong to America, you betcha," said Palin. "And for just three easy payments of $19.99, real Americans can own a part of me."

Palin is also expected to publish her first book later this month, as well. The book, tentatively titled "Sarah's Book of Baby Names" will include such Palin-esque names as Thump, Splat, Flap, Monkeybars, Norbert, Plug and Schwing!

Palin added that she wanted to thank those that will be campaigning for her in the future.

"For those of you that will be working hard to help me become President so that I can quit, well God Bless ya," said Palin. "Your hard work is vital and appreciated. I couldn't pre-quit the presidency if it weren't for all the hard work that you'll all eventually be doing."

In the end, Palin made it crystal clear why she was willing to give up the nation's biggest office before she actually won it.

"It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but this isn't what anyone had in mind for me," said Palin. "If I have learned one thing: Life is about choices!"

-WKW

We may be about to see the lid blow off of another  Dick Cheney black operation from his star chamber. Back in March ,New York Times  Seymour Hersh  stated that Dick Cheney may have set up and orchestrated an "Executive Assassination Ring" . Here is part of that  statement

Hersh:  "Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us.

Complete statement and audio here Great Conversation Event (University of Minnesota)

Today Sam Stein over at Huffington Post reported some further developments

The revelation from seven Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that they were misled about a critical CIA program has sparked a debate that touches on the most sensitive areas of national security policy. What program, exactly, was being kept secret?
                                   ***

And in a conversation with the Huffington Post, Rep. Anna Eshoo,(D-Calif.), one of the letter's signatories, said that Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years

She is indicating that waterboarding had been stopped back during the Bush administration and that whatever this program was, it was stopped recently , after Panetta became CIA director and found out about it.He stopped it the next day , or in effect immediately after the shock wore off.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney      Huffpo Sam Stein

 
Whatever Panetta told them about stunned them.Shocking to even these lawmakers who have seen and heard just about everything, that indicates something extraordinary

Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified . program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans." A Republican committee member told Who Runs Gov's Greg Sargent it was something they hadn't heard before.

This is something they had not heard before, so this also indicates it was something other than Water boarding  and torture. If we take what Seymour Hearst has stated  ,who has always been reliable investigative reporter, and the statements that Stein has reported it looks like Cheney may have actually had a hit squad and used it .

EBB

When is one sure that retreat is the best option?     Could it be the sun and moon have aligned to pull me away from resolution.    I feel that to go offshore now would actually end up leaving me high and dry.    I could wait for the full moon and walk back up the beach.  I could just lie there in the tall rye grass above the storm bank with the other flotsam.   I could try and hide, dwindle away like the sand during a wind storm; nothing left but a pedestal under my feet.    I subside within; I founder.    I am lost.   I have no answer.   My little tide book tells me when to rise and when to wane, but what of those other orbits, how do they influence the rising and falling of our little seas?   Will your tears raise the flood and then swamp each into the ocean as all recede into its retreat.    I might just try and tide myself over in this little dinghy of mine.  Now all I really need is an anchor and its long chain to keep from being swept far out to sea; withdrawing off the edge of your world.

I am not sure what it is I love about the sea.    Not the rocking ground swelling waves, they make me sick with their slowly rolling my ship from side to side.   The salt?  That must be it, the salt.   We all must have a little sodium to keep our tears flowing.    The sand?  The waves on the beach rock the sand back and forth grinding into uniform grains; soft under bare summer feet; warm between our toes. 

  

I pull back, retire, give way, give ground, can you not see I have lost foresight in my hasty defeat?    I watch and wait.   You have asked me to examine this shell for some creature .   I am soon to become the crab like hermit. See here my brittle claws.   I hardly need to feel your flesh.   I will simply withdraw, the tide has left me apon this narrow stretch of what was once the love of my life.   Nigh untouchable, wrapped in seaweed; no more a face; darkness. Oceanas, please roll and pitch me to sleep. Rock me back and forth in this shallow pool. The stars both above and below tell me, be still and becalmed; the storm is yet to rage.

Storm, oh my storm! Button down; batten down; the waves began to roar along the shoal; the crushing crash of the hull; all hands abandon ship. Now my beach is strewn with tangled rigging, split spars, and sail torn. Which has failed? What is that naked form all white and puffy floating face down, sliding up, then down, with each wave. I reach down, roll it over, only to see that gulls have already had the soft tasty eyes. Oh please! Give me back my eyes.

Land ho!   

How is it I have again and again sailed too close to those shoals? With full sail I dared each gale.  To weather, round the point, almost without fail. I have foundered, sunk both captain and crew. Wrecked again and again, but why? Why have I continued to sail these desperate waters; never wide enough and never deep enough to navigate safely. Where is my harbor? Again and again I put to sea without you. I sit below in my cabin rocking, up and down, each ground swell making me more sick.   

Wherefore my first mate?  

Mutiny? 

  

Hanging there among the gallows. Who swings there? A long tailed jeager perches on its left shoulder, its beak tugging the swollen black tongue, the body pitches with the ship, swings into view, only then do I behold. I see now.  It was I !

No tongue, eyes gone, what other organ might I spare?    These hands that write and plot, what should I do without them?   Would I spare you all my suffering?   l know not why but I must share.   It is an unwritten rule!   I can no more put down this pen then ask the wind to stop it's howl or to beg the sun stay an extra hour past night fall. I am sure, I am not sure. What I search for is a pilot to guide me out of this precarious port. I have eyes still but I am blind, and my tongue too; I have her still, but being tied up has been forced to utter only base commands and orders course.   Feeling from this pen marked paper only.   

 

Does it appear I again and again grope for the receding?   Even though listing I am on a long reach for refuge. Would you lie here with me?   Could it be you are my sanctuary? I am not looking for another solitude. Share? What a strange word. I need an explanation. Life offers first its cradle then its end only; the in-between are ours to make as we dare.  I dare you!  

  

Another page.  Another search into my retreating soul. Each time I get lost in the pain of my past but closer and closer does my orbit align with truth. Should I continue to share? What is the point you ask and what joy could there be in bringing you the reader to tear? If I touch you where you dared not touch yourself, you tell me if there is, in the end, any difference. Yes, you tell me. 

 

I still reach and reach for reason regardless of the day or night.   I can not let these impressions be. I am both the father and mother of these memories. I am both brother and sister fighting  forever over recollections.   While it appears I give myself nothing but bothersome isolation; I give you freely: page after page of options.  

 

I give to you safe harbor while I ebb and ebb.

I spent parts of the last two weeks researching the census and the political battles surrounding it as the 2010 count approaches. I focused on the biggest and most recent controversy: the anonymous hold on Robert Groves, President Obama's nominee to lead the Census Bureau, preparing to write a post on the reason for the hold. But earlier today Roll Call revealed the senators who had placed holds on the nomination and reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would like to bring Groves up for a vote as early as this week.

The story changed instantly, but I went after the new story. This evening Reid's office confirmed to me that the senator will file for cloture, bringing Groves to a vote as early as Monday evening, and I broke the news here.

If false and misleading ads from the private for profit health insurance companies and their cohorts were debated objectively by responsible journalists, the healthcare reform debate would be over. If Congress follows the will of the people and the facts that are readily available on the internet from reputable objective organizations, the healthcare debate would be over.

Follow my healthcare tweets at http://twitter.com/EgbertoWillies

Video

Fact:
It is mathematically impossible for a for profit private insurer to be less expensive than a public not for profit insurance giving the same benefits. It is for this reason why insurers are fighting the public option. They must convince you that basic arithmetic does not apply here. Of course it does.

Fact:
Medicare's administrative cost is between a low of 2 percent and a high of 6 percent. Private for profit insurance ranges from 16 percent to over 30% in administrative costs. In other words for every thousand dollars you pay in premiums 300 of those dollars go into the pockets of shareholders, overpaid executives, advertising and other costs. Those are dollars that could have been used to lower healthcare costs.

Fact:
US Healthcare as % of GDP: 15.3%
Canada Healthcare as % of GDP: 10%

Fact:
US Per Capita Cost of Healthcare: $6714.00
Canada Per Capita Cost of Healthcare: $3,678.00

Fact:
Government Spending on Healthcare Per Capita is 23% higher in the US than Canada.

Fact:
Canadian health outcomes are better than ours.

Basic Statistics U.S. Canada
Life Expectancy (Male)74.8    77.4
Life Expectancy (Female)           80.1    82.4
Infant Mortality/1000 live births   6.8     5.3
Obesity Rate (Male)                31.1    17.0
Obesity Rate (Female)              32.2    19.0
HC spending as % of GDP (2005)     16.0%   10.4%

Fact:
Accusations by for profit health insurers and their cohorts stating that government will take over healthcare delivery are false. It is a fact that for profit insurance today tells you which doctor you can see. It is a fact that for profit insurance tells you what medical procedure you can have. It is a fact that for profit insurance tells you which hospital you can use. It is a fact that for profit insurance tells your doctor which drugs you may be prescribed. It is a fact that for profit insurance selectively rescind your coverage if they can find away to qualify your medical condition as pre-existing. It is a fact that for profit insurance will not insure those with pre-existing conditions.

If we stick to the facts healthcare reform will be realized

Links:
Most People Support Public Option
CBS/New York Times Poll
Quinnipiac Poll

Cost of Administering Healthcare in US Versus Canada Versus All Countries
The New England Journal Of Medicine
OECD Health Data 2009
World Health Organization Core Health Indicators

Arlen Specter's latest attack on Joe Sestak is pretty lame. Specter is calling Sestak a hypocrite for first saying that Specter is an opportunistic politician when he didn't declare his political affiliatiation until he left the Navy. More recently, Sestak responded:

"Like Colin Powell (who was also registered as an Independent while he served), I believe that military officers should be nonpartisan," Sestak said. "I'm proud that I was an Independent during my 35 years in the Navy, and I was proud to register as a Democrat as soon as I retired from active duty."

Sestak is right here. It's not unusual for soldiers to stay as far away from politics as they can while they are in the service. Former four-star General Richard Meyers is a good example. Journalists can be this way too. Former Washington Post editor Len Downie has stated that he didn't vote because he's an objective journalist. I don't want to get into the objectivity discussion here. The point is that professionals who have to deal with politicians feel they can do their job better by not officially declaring sides. Makes sense.

Several posters (thanks Greg Greene) have pointed out that OFA's website now does permit one to express support for a public option.  This is a new option--my post was based on my experience with OFA last week.  So, I retract the post, but not the point that we have to be on our toes about expressing our support for public option, a point that Synchronicity makes very well in the comment to my original post.

According to Doc Gurley, an Internist, doctors may opt to quit some of their patients under a pay-for-performance scheme. This happen to me for reasons other than not doing what my doctor told me I needed to do to keep myself healthy. My doctor fired me as a patient because he said he was returning to do research at UCSF Medical school.  When he told me the this I was depressed. I felt like I had developed and was developing a good patient-doctor relationship with him. I had to start all over with another primary care physician. Having a primary care physician  is a very big deal to me because I think I have a slight case of iatrophobia.

Today I have a primary care physician and I would hate to think he could fire me under this scheme.

      Most of the human race lives in misery. We are told--it may or may not be true--that the resources of the land will be insufficient to correct this, even if inequity of distribution should be radically reduced or disappear. But most of the earth--the World-Ocean--is unknown, its resources virtually untapped. The development of the oceans may well be the most urgent of all material needs; but the ocean cannot be civilized without world peace. Until the land is civilized, the sea will remain as it is.

      On the sea we travel as on deserts, wishing only to cross to the destination. On the sea we fish and fight battles. On the sea, then, we are hunters and gatherers, sometimes warriors: the most primitive stage of social evolution. We carry our industrial-age artifacts there to do our stone-age work, tools too advanced for such primitive enterprise. Our fishing fleets take fish that are too small with nets that are too fine, for mature fish have become scarce. Much-hunted whales are endangered. Life forms are disappearing. The seas are ever more polluted with our leavings.

      In a few places near the shore we farm kelp, farm shellfish, raise fish. In a few places we drill for oil and collect manganese nodules. Scientists have unraveled mysteries of the seabed and comprehend something of ocean layers, currents and ecologies. And politicians and entrepreneurs have begun to think of potential riches.

      The World-Ocean covers seventy-one percent of the earth's surface; but ocean is not only surface; it is volume, layer upon layer. All this tremendous three-dimensional space awaits mankind's civilizing hand. What wonders, what agriculture, husbandry, minerals, sources of power, will be found or created there? In this frontier things yet undreamed of will be done. Whales, dolphins and myriad other creatures await domestication. We will discover or create food plants. Imagine a field, ready for harvest, whose volume is one thousand or ten thousand or one hundred thousand cubic kilometers. We will come to understand and use the minerals of the depths. Great volumes will be set aside as nature reserves. No doubt some people will make the sea their home.

      At present, these vast areas and enormous volumes remain effectively outside our world. International law has it that, beyond territorial limits ("the Area" in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), the seas are the common heritage of all mankind; but mankind is hard put to it to claim such a heritage, for no sovereign body yet speaks for mankind with an authoritative voice. The International Seabed Authority, struggling to establish a practical jurisdiction, must seek the acquiescence of powerful states for the regulations it is able to promulgate. The U.N.'s sovereignty over the sea is weak, indeed does not exist, for the U.N. is not a government. Civilization has not come to the World-Ocean because the nations cannot agree on the way it is to arrive there. In these days, the sea is not developed, but despoiled. There is so far no coherent plan to make it an integral part of our world, no plan to civilize it. For that matter, so far as most of the world can see, there appears to be no plan to finish civilizing the land. There exists a hope or a wish, while the rulers use the marvels of science for the most evil and barbarous of practices.

      The problem of the undeveloped World-Ocean is one with the problem of the land. The world is the world.

      We need coherent world order. Mankind is trapped in a shifting, warring anarchy of independent states. There is one mankind; but this oneness has not yet crystallized in a sovereign institution that can effectively unite and govern mankind's diverse elements. That is why the oceans, and the land too, remain uncivilized. Without such sovereignty, "the common heritage of all mankind" is only a string of words, and the potential of the World-Ocean remains unknown and unrealizable. Without a peaceful, integrated world our race, on land and sea, will surely continue its present decline, its murderous wars.

      Every war is fratricidal!

      The existence of independent sovereign units gives rise to conflict. Several thousand years of tragic experience has proved that a single nation or group of nations cannot impose lasting peace, much less peace with justice; nor can persuasion, exhortation, or the simple need for it cause it to appear.

      Nothing can occur unless the conditions for its occurrence exist. A pot of water will not boil without heat, however long one waits. A pile of bricks will not become a house without a builder and a plan. And a house built on sand will not withstand the storm, whatever the real estate agent may claim. The world will have peace only when the conditions for peace are established.

      The minimum condition for world peace is this: that all the nations unite in ceding key elements of their sovereignty to a central sovereign Institution. This is what the most powerful nations have thus far refused to do, what the founding members of the United Nations Organization rejected. Peace has not come, not because the human race is incapable of it, but because the leaders of the nations have been unwilling to do what is required for it to exist.

      There have been two relatively serious moves toward peace, each after a ruinous war. The League of Nations would probably have failed even without the fatal decision of the United States, whose legislature rejected what its President had promoted and in large measure created. The United Nations Organization, with all its imperfections, has sometimes prevailed; has created numerous functioning world institutions and ameliorated or solved a number of vexing problems. Much greater than the League, it is admirable as a move toward what is needed; but the U.N. is doomed to failure in its present form, a central institution without sovereignty. It has not established world peace because it cannot.

      The United Nations Organization is like a one-armed pianist. It may perform brilliantly, but its repertoire is very limited.

      The sense that the world is one, that all mankind is a single, complex, diverse and beautiful thing, has grown ever more prominent. Protests against "globalization" arise, not out of a rejection of the fundamental oneness of the human race, but rather out of a terrible disappointment, on realizing that the people who arrogate to themselves the control of the world belong to the same bands that made fortunes on the slave trade and stole whole countries and their resources, not caring about the injustice and the misery their actions created. The protests turn out to be protests against the violation of the oneness of mankind, against the ongoing attempts to divide mankind into ruling and subject nations, races, and classes, against the contemptuous and murderous arrogance of those who claim the right to rule.

      If the horrors and disasters of two World Wars have brought us only to this place, we cannot realistically expect the world's present leaders to create the conditions for peace, although it is within their power to do it. It appears that more suffering is required.

      Events will finally force the nations to accomplish it. Some at least of the people who are alive today--or if not they, then their children or grandchildren--will see the beginning of the longed-for universal peace, the inevitable next step in human evolution. When it comes, the resources and wealth of the earth will no longer be sucked up for war and the satisfaction of greed at the expense of most of humanity. When it comes, the undiscovered material and spiritual resources of the earth will gradually reveal themselves. The whole planet will be our home.  The civilizing of the World-Ocean will take place.

      It is a terrible pity that we do not have this already and that suffering will, for now, only increase.

Well thank god. Roland Burris isn't going to run for reelection. It's not such big news since his polling indicated he had a steep climb to retain the senate seat. That leaves Mark Kirk as the probably Republican contender and who knows for the Democrats. Maybe Chris Kennedy? We'll see.

I actually had a crazy thought today: What about Illinois Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart? You may recall Dart as that Sheriff from around Chicago who got fed up with evicting people from their houses. Yup, that's the guy I'm talking about. In the process he also stood up to banks who had been critical of him for not enforcing the law. In short, Dart disagreed.

So basically, this sheriff stands up to banks, he's a Democrat, he's popular, and he's a law abiding citizen. That's a pretty rare combination in Chicago and Illinois and a pretty appealing resume these days.

Woman Jumps from State Office Building in Juneau

This was just tweeted from the Juneau Empire.

Not to make light, but it is extremely strange to have people suicid-ing in the middle of summer in Alaska.

I hope to start a discussion about tax policy on the local level--county and city/town/village. My first few posts concerned this topic, and I think it should get more play. After all, "all politics is local [attributed Thomas O'Neill, Sr., Tip O'Neill's father]."

I have been teaching a course on tax ethics (no giggling, please), to graduate students for a few years now. One unit deals with how a professional's public expounding of any particular tax policy impacts his or her ethical requirements to the client. While thinking about this topic, I distilled tax policy to this formula--not particularly insightful, but nevertheless ignored by many politicians:

Public Expenditures = revenue + deficit.

I review some elementary algebra, to the effect that one equation with three variables has an infinite number of solutions. Then I break down the variables as follows:

• The deficit equals the amount politically expedient at the time. For state and local situations, the deficit is set by law to equal zero.
• Revenue equals the sum of tax revenue plus fees (and federal or state aid).

I break down tax revenue in terms of public policy regarding the allocation of the tax burden over society.

• Finally, public expenditures are a matter of political compromise and expediency.

Applying these rules, local expenditures must equal local revenues. That's so simple that it seems like a waste of time to type it all out, but it's ignored by politician after politician. I will resume from this point in the next day or so.

--Dean L. Surkin

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

By Erin Ferns

Enfranchising America's least represented citizens is as simple as following the law: that's the message Project Vote and a coalition of voting rights groups sent today as they filed lawsuits against Indiana and New Mexico for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Read more »

Is anyone else having a problem viewing blogs and comments.  A few blogs end above the advertisement and there is no way to rec or comment.  The entire right side is white - no avatar, no profile no nothing.  Today I found this problems on Rowan's blog and DD's Wabbit blog, but not DD's fish blog.  These are the only ones so far.  I sent a note to Al a while back but haven't heard anything back.  Just wondering if anyone knows what is going on.

Thanks.

The current political atmosphere is terrible for Democrats.  It's slowly draining the excitement out of Obama's presidency and dragging down his popularity.  We have crucially important legislation on the horizon, and yet Obama's favorability rating is declining steadily.  Fox News ratings are at an all-time high, and pop-conservatism books dominate bestseller lists.  All of this is means Republicans have managed to sow seeds of doubt in Obama's agenda.  It jeopardizes lives and direly needed improvements to our government. 

The problem is this: while there's plenty of talking and planning for upcoming reforms, Obama and Congressional Democrats have actually done very little reforming lately.  They have done little to control the news agenda. There are committee meetings, recesses, and endless negotiations, but only one chamber has passed environmental legislation, and none have dealt with health care.  Key proposals on the economy and a Supreme Court nomination lie in waiting.  Iran faces a credible threat to its regime, and Congress is powerless to control it.  To make the political atmosphere even more disconcerting, Obama continues to avoid reforms on civil liberties, transparency, and gay rights.

 So, for the last few weeks, Democrats have been in limbo, promising major change, but taking a long time to actually carry it out.  They have done little to steal the headlines and punch back at Republicans.  Of course, Democrats are at an inherent disadvantage because they are proposing to change the status quo in a major way, and in this intermediary period Republicans have found success by relentlessly assailing their proposals and instilling as much fear and uncertainty in them as possible.  Quite simply, it's just easier to whip up doubt and insecurity rather than confidence and positivity- especially when the future is uncertain and little progress is happening.

 Part of this is that Republicans know almost all reporters are intellectually anemic.  They have masterfully gamed the media and manipulated the news agenda. Ridiculous attacks, which also sometimes come from Democrats, are not counter-argued by journalists to such an extent as to give a fair picture of reality.  This lets Republicans run wild, using deception and sophism, blurting out soundbites with the expectation that they will be splashed across headlines or repeated several times on Hannity.  Even on neutral TV networks and newspapers, the way such attacks are reported is not journalistically impassioned, and as a result they get away with it.  The Republican constant stream of attack strategy works in down times like these, when Democrats are on the defensive.  An attack on one of Obama's plans for epic reform is worth twice as much as praise.

Obama and Democrats, here's what you need to do.  Go on the offensive.  Don't go so far as to sacrifice the dignity and prestige of the presidency, but keep in mind that hitting first is always more effective than returning fire, even if the reasoning is sound.  Take some attention away from the painstaking negotiation process and talk about an issue that will give people a sense of optimism about his agenda.  Take some shots at Republicans, portray them as callous and misanthropic for ignoring the suffering going on in this country.  Create the illusion that Democrats are in control of the ball and they have big, bright plans for the future, and Republicans are helplessly flailing curmudgeons.  Give more campaign-style speeches and town-hall meetings, and get people excited.

well here I am again. My last blog got me in a lot of trouble. I said a couple things that were took the wrong way by my better half(who is a very special woman to me). I am writing this one in hopes that I can get out of the dog house ( no air conditioning in the dog house its hot).

 Now it never accured to me that when your living with a woman that it was wrong to call a nother woman very special. I do now . In a way Im glad I was talking to a woman it would have been a little strange if I would have been talking to say dick day becouse I would have called him a special friend. I dont know if that would have had the same effect or not? I think all the people I talk to are special here and around my house.

 next part that got me in trouble was asking for a fishing partner. Well I have one when our scedules work out . She goes fishing with me and we have a nice time she even baits her own hook. How lucky can I be(well I do have to take the fish of her line lol).

 I really didnt think I did anything wrong but like the title of this blog I'm just a stupid man.

 Hope everybody is having a nice day.

Standard wisdom says if you want less of something, tax it. There's another part of the tax equation that's standardly overlooked. Real estate is the one class of assets which we're taxed on merely for holding. Keep a closet full of gold bars, no tax (not unless and until you go to sell them at a profit) - not on the gold bars. But there's a yearly tax on the closet, if it's part of a building you own! Government has every incentive to encourage wealth to be put into real estate instead of other asset classes, because government collects a yearly tax just on the part of your total assets which is real estate.

The real estate bubble, thus, was in reality (whether or not planned as such) a way for governments to increase total tax revenue, even while making a big show of "cutting taxes."

This also suggests that what we want more of, we should encourage government to tax. If the tax potential is large enough, government will damn sure figure out a way to see that we get more of whatever the taxes are on. Those who want more religion, for example, should encourage government to tax it.

Stop.

Take a breath.  That's it ... there you go.  It's all right, you'll be okay.  Ahh, I know.  But do you have an idea of what else I know?  Relax for a moment and I'll tell you all about it.  Now that you've stopped, you really do have the time to listen.

Can you hear me?  I'm letting my thoughts flow into your mind, accepting yours in return.  What a magical, mystical tour we're on.  Yes, it makes me laugh, too.  Even as I cry to understand your needs, even as I anguish over all of your wants.  We're hand in hand and heart to heart.  Wait.  Please wait.

Where did you go?  Did I frighten you?  I'm sorry, perhaps it's too much all at once - maybe you're overwhelmed.  The feeling is often mutual, as all things are.  Let's both look at the sky while we contemplate the ground beneath our feet.  Such an odd way to consider what we have never truly believed.  The in-between is hugely infinitesimal while at the same time it waits for us to gather steam.  Building ... growing.

Can you hear me?  I really don't know anymore.  I still feel you, I'm still listening.  The volume is fading but the spirit is breathing.  Perhaps that's what I hear ... the silent resurgence of your soul.     

Leaf at half-mast on the Gaffney Peach

After the second outbreak of serial killing in the little town of Gaffney, South Carolina, the leaf on the Gaffney Peach was once again lowered to half-mast, as a sign of "respect."

A lively debate among members of the Gaffney Town Council preceded this decision.

"It's bad enough that thing looks like a giant butt," said Roland Meriwether, proprietor of Meriwether Peach Farms LTD...

"...but can we really afford to bring in a 100-foot crane from Atlanta to "lower the leaf" every time some serial killer runs amok in our little town?"

"Besides," Mr. Meriwether continued, "it don't even look "half-mast" to me. It looks wilted! Is that the kind of message we want to send? "Serial killing wilts our peaches!" I won't even be able to sell my peaches on a pig farm!"

At the time, Mr. Meriwether was laughed down by most of the residents of Gaffney as just another tax-dodging redneck Republican son-of-a-bitch, but within a few months his homely wisdom was confirmed by an influx of serial killers from all over the world, and the leaf on the Gaffney Peach went up and down as fast as...

"Copulating jack-rabbits," said Mr. Meriwether, and this time nobody was laughing.

When Tom Tancredo stood up in a coffee shop in Iowa and told the two dozen or so collected diners that he believed the U.S. should respond to an attack by Islamic extremists by bombing Mecca, it wasn't just the surrealistic ramblings of a politician with no concern of human life. It was also a perfect example of just how far America has fallen from the path laid out by the Founding Fathers.

It was but a few months more than 230 years ago that Gen. George Washington made a decision at Drakes Farm in New Jersey that would help shape the ideal to so many that the United States was the greatest nation on Earth.

During the American Revolution, there was a battle of American against British and Hessian soldiers. The Americans were forced to retreat, and left seven wounded soldiers on the field of battle. One of them, Lt. William Kelly offered to surrender to the British. His offer was refused.

When the British took over the field after the battle, they brutally murdered each of the wounded American soldiers.

When word of this reached Gen. Washington, he stood firm and made it clear to his men - we will not do this to them. "We are fighting for a cause. And our cause demands we behave with honor."

As the war continued and the tide turned, Americans took more and more German and British prisoners of war. And they were all treated respectfully and humanely. Gen. Washington's words were heeded, and Americans were honorable in their treatment of POWs.

The nation was in peril, the ink on the Declaration of Independence was not yet dry, and Americans fought for their very survival against the most fierce armies on the planet. And America won. And did so with honor.

In the end, nearly 25 percent of the Germans who fell in to American hands on the field of battle chose to stay in the new nation. This story is well retold at NPR's podcast "Krulwich on Science" with Robert Krulwich and historian David Hackett Fisher.

Click here to head over to NPR to download the podcast, and listen for yourself about the America that Washington and his fellow founders fought for more than two centuries ago. And compare it to the blood-thirsty, torturing, paranoid and fearful nation the U.S. is today.

"We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience," Washington has been quoted as saying.

It is time we look back and remember we were once an honorable nation.

(Author's Note: I wrote this almost two years ago, but with President Obama pondering indefinite detention for some at Gitmo, I felt it had pertinence today, as well. Thanks - WKW)

--WKW

Crossposted at Williamkwolfrum.com

The feud between Congress and the CIA is back in the news. Today the House will take up an intelligence authorization bill that would do away with the administration's right to dictate the terms of how Congress is briefed on intelligence matters. Predictably, President Obama has threatened to veto a bill in that form.

Panetta vs. Congressional Oversight of Intel Community -- On June 24, CIA Director Leon Panetta testified before the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX). According to CQ Politics (7/9/09), a couple of days later 7 Democrats on the Committee wrote a letter to Panetta asking him to " "correct" his statement from May 15 that "it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress." The article quoted a CIA spokesman who said "Panetta stood by his May remarks and believes Congress must be kept fully informed."

Dems vs Repubs -- Rep. Reyes wrote a letter on Wednesday to the Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), telling him, to quote Politico (7/8/09):

. . . that he had obtained information that there were serious problems with the CIA's briefing of lawmakers and that the CIA "affirmatively lied to" lawmakers.

"These notifications have led me to conclude this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to," Reyes wrote in his letter.

. . . Later, Reyes issued a more conciliatory statement that framed Panetta's alleged admission as an attempt to reform the agency, beginning:

"I appreciate Director Panetta's recent efforts to bring issues to the Committee's attention that, for some reason, had not been previously conveyed, and to make certain that the Committee is fully and currently briefed on all intelligence activities. I understand his direction to be that the Agency does not and will not lie to Congress, and he has set a high standard for truth in reporting to Congress."

The authorization bill that expands its oversight of the intelligence community, including the National Security Agency and the ODNI, was reported out of committee on June 18. Certain lesser officials would be subject to Senate confirmation, and would require videotaping of arrested detainees. According to the Washington Post (6/20/09), to quote:

The bill also would end the statutory authority of the executive branch to limit briefings on classified, covert action to the "Gang of Eight," the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the House and Senate senior leadership.

Together these measures, Democrats say, represent an attempt to make the intelligence agencies more accountable to Congress. In recent years, controversies including disclosures of the NSA's warrantless surveillance program and the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques have led to calls for greater oversight.

Bonus Backgrounders:

• "2010 Intelligence Authorization Pending," is by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (6/18/09).


• "Ending the Gang of Eight," is by emptywheel (6/15/09).
  


• "Congressional Access to National Security Information," is by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (6/10/09).


• "The Hill's Campfire Games on Intelligence Briefings," is by emptywheel (6/5/09).


• "CIA: Congress shouldn't get records of our crimes," is by emptywheel (5/31/09).


• "What Pelosi, Rockefeller & Harman Could have done," is by bmaz at emptywheel (5/27/09).


• "CIA Briefers regularly mislead Hill intelligence panels, ex-spy charges," is by Jeff Stein at Spy Talk-CQ Politics (5/26/09).


• "The terrorism intelligence and briefing schedule," is by emptywheel (5/16/09). Timeline period covered by documents/details: 9/21/01 -- 3/19/03.

Stay tuned, folks, because there will certainly be a lot more conversation about these separation of powers questions.

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

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics congress cia national intelligence

                                                                                           

Jeff Sessions

Elmer Fudd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKp3Nj7lXhM&feature=related



Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions
III (born December 24, 1946) is the junior United States Senator from Alabama. He is a
member of the Republican Party, and the new
ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Beauregard. I mean you cannot make this shit up. Really!!!!!

But let us examine this man's record and his words.

THE PROSECUTOR

Beauregard was a civil rights attorney. Did you know that? Well I did not.

Actually he was a civil rights prosecuting attorney.

The Hinterland Gazette:

Still, there's more throwback theater on Sessions. He had unsuccessfully prosecuted
three civil rights workers, known as the "Marion Three," including Albert Turner, who
was a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on a case of election
fraud for the 1984 election. http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2009/05/senator-jeff-sessions-who-has-shady.html

That's right, Beauregard did everything in his power to prosecute those seeking civil rights in this country; well in Alabama
anyway.  Not really part of my
country.  But I digress.

He investigated and investigated and investigated and out of 1.7 million votes, HE FOUND 14 THAT LOOK THUTHPITHIOUS. 
Of course, they had all been cast by Black People in Alabama.

Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a
conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU ) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired."
Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down
the throats of people."

 

Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white
civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting
rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to
him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was
sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a
phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings....

Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving
the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he
"used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of
them were "pot smokers."

And after carefully reviewing Sessions' record, Republicans in Washington took appropriate measures to limit his influence gave him an extremely
influential position in the Senate. It'll be...enlightening...to hear
conservatives defend the move, or, better yet, excuse it on the grounds that
the GOP's only giving these views special prominence for about a year and a
half.  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/senator-who-praised-segregationist-judges-will-lead-opposition-to-obama-nominees.php

So basically, Elmer loved calling those who were for freedom and justice and the American Way, "Communists".

A site called Snitch found this tidbit right out of Beauregard's own mouth:

Well, I think what we tried to do is give the taxpayers the best return on their dollar. There are more drug cases
than you can prosecute, good cases, and so we just demanded a lot of our
prosecutors and ask[ed] them to move those cases and try them effectively, and
I think they did a good job of that.

The federal sentencing guidelines set some mandatory minimums and they also set ranges in every case within which a
judge must sentence. And all I ask[ed] our lawyers to do was to be honest, to
present the evidence they have, and ask the judge to sentence appropriately
within the guidelines, and they were narrow. It was likely to be 24 to 30
months. If a judge likes you, he'd give you 24 months. If he didn't, he gave
you 30. But the guidelines were pretty narrow. Sometimes, the sentences were
tough. You'd have a 25-year-old who's been selling for a long time getting 15
to 18 years in jail, pretty tough sentences. But as they say, if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime. ... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/procon/sessions.html

2.5 million of our citizens (x-citizens now of course) in prison, 5.5 million more on parole/probation.  If
Beauregard had his way, we could turn that up a notch. I mean this guy desired more bang for his prison buck.

How about twenty-five million in prison? He could have cleaned up this country. Boy that would put the white majority in power, would it not?

THE BIRTHER

Besides being a Bircher, Beauregard is also a birther. Let us take a walk back to December of last year when he wrote a letter to the Electoral College:

Citizen Wells (12/30/08):

We are contacting you now. Congress meets on January 8, 2008
to count and validate the Electoral College Votes. We are asking you carry out your oath of office and request proof of eligibility from Obama, a candidate who is not a natural born citizen and probably is an illegal alien. I am certain this is within the realm of your "jurisdiction." http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/senator-jeff-sessions-alabama-us-constitution-hall-of-shame-obama-not-eligible-us-congress-electoral-college-votes-obama%E2%80%99s-eligibility-must-be-challenged-al-senator/

The Birth Certificate may be found in a number of places, but it may be found here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html

They used to spend more time showing this document on Cable News, but it got tiring, I guess.  Please book mark this
for future disputes.  Or, even better,
PRINT THE FRICKING THING OUT and always carry a copy with you so that when some
poor uneducated fool brings up the subject, you can say:

Well that is all well and good, but.....

And then shove the fricking thing up the idiot's ..........

THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 Boston.com (9/23/06):

``I don't know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/23/congress_in_dark_on_terror_program/

Twenty years ago, this racist prick tried to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  Can we guess how he would
rule on unwarranted wire-taps?

Finally, if you care,  who are Elmer's top 'contributors'?  http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003062

What a thurprithe!!. Big corporate pigs. But one funny note. He contributes ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN!!! HAHHAHAHA. I do not know why that strikes me as sooooooooo
funny.