Les Enragés.org

What caused the 2008 Economic Collapse?

2011-10-28T15:58:00.004-04:00

And without Keynesian intervention,
how can we rationally hope to avoid a second,
much worse collapse?

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
~ John Kenneth Galbraith

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
~ John Maynard Keynes

In this video clip Alan Greenspan pretty much admits that the cause of the financial system collapse in 2008 was his ignoring that Keynes truism. Quite a blind spot considering that the most wickedest of men were also his best friends!

"Political economy came into being as a natural result of the expansion of trade, and with its appearance elementary, unscientific huckstering was replaced by a developed system of licensed fraud, an entire science of enrichment."
~ Engels, Outlines of Political Economy (1844)

"A developed system of fraud" -- aka banksterism.

TAGS: Economics, Banksters, Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand

Solidarity Forever

2011-09-05T09:11:00.003-04:00

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor,
and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."

~Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America

TAGS: Labor Day, Abraham Lincoln, American Values

RIP Jack Layton

2011-08-23T16:55:00.003-04:00

Canadian political satire show This Hour Has 22 Minutes had Jack Layton on last spring, doing a faux cooking show. Host Geri Hall suggests an improvement to the recipe. "A little NDP magic?" No problem. The Right Honorable Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition goes into an impromptu rendition of "Legalize It."

"I don't think the Conservatives would ever put that in there."

TAGS: Jack Layton, NDP Magic, Legalize it!!

Happy Rapture Day

2011-05-21T21:13:00.004-04:00

Man, won't it be good when all the fundies are gone? I'd be particularly happy if one of them was my landlord, so I could go without paying rent.

A little entertainment, not sure exactly of the connection but I love the way this choir imitates a storm with their hands and feet.

TAGS: Rapture, Fundamentalist Freakuencies

Remember: On this day in 1970

2011-05-04T14:44:00.004-04:00

Those who cannot learn from history
are doomed to repeat it.
-- George Santayana --

How many more? My heart goes out to the families of the victims, and I hope that someday the truth will be revealed and America will wake up to the horrors imposed upon them by the Powers That Be and the Military Industrial Complex. Only by confronting the ugliest truths will we ever make a better society.

Please visit the Kent State Truth Tribunal, kept alive by Allison Krause's sister Laurel and others, and show your support.

TAGS: Kent State Massacre, Military Industrial Complex

Orwellian, Kafka-esque, You Name It

2011-04-27T09:22:00.006-04:00

This one is so nuts it jolted my long-numb outrage nerve back to life.

From the New York Times: Guantanamo Detainees' Lawyers Can't Use Wikileaks Files

So here's what the government's been arguing:
-People locked up in Guantanamo, some for almost a decade now, are there because they are "the worst of the worst" Al-Qaeda terrorists.
-We could prove it, but it would risk giving away state secrets that would aid and abet the terrorist cause.
-That's why we can't have such niceties as civil trials and, you know, silly things like evidence and so on.
-But they are really, REALLY bad men. Trust us.

However, the files that have been leaked reveal that the government long ago determined that:
-The majority of detainees were sent to Guantanamo for no reason at all.
-Many were innocents rounded up in Afghanistan because the US offered large rewards.
-Some were mere children, others senile old men.

Now they're saying that the detainees' lawyers can't even look at the leaked documents because they remain classified.
They're public knowledge now, but they're still, you know, top secret. Hush hush. Loose lips and all that.

So even if a document is out there that shows that US military "intelligence" (*snort*) found out 8 years ago that your client is completely innocent of whatever he's been accused of, (if they've even bothered accusing him of anything) you can't use that document to have him released.

If you think this kind of government over-reach will never be applied to you because you're an American citizen or not brown, could I just drop a couple of names? Jose Padilla. Bradley Manning.

I could comment at length on how batshit crazy this really is, and how much of a threat to democracy and human rights, but I think in this case the facts speak for themselves. I will however award this story the coveted Les Enragés Maximum Bullshit Award.

TAGS: The Security State, Batshit Crazy
No seriously, these people are nucking futz
Welcome to Amerika, land of the ~~free~~

Slow Reactor Reactions

2011-03-30T13:25:00.006-04:00

Sometimes a headline says it all, like this one from the BBC.

Japan to Scrap Stricken Nuclear Reactors

OK, it's been nearly 3 weeks since the Fuckyoushima power plant was damaged by the earthquake and tidal wave. Every day has brought worse news of loss of cooling, explosions, reactor vessel breaches, workers fleeing the site, workers being brought back to a control room that doesn't seem to be in control of anything, workers being sent to hospital, environmental contamination.. .. ...

So NOW they announce that they're going to decommission 4 of the 6 reactors at the Fuckyoushima site?!? What this says is that up until now the effort has been to save the plant, not the people or the environment around it. Sure, it's worth $BILLIONS, but hasn't it been evident almost from the start that things were not recoverable? And that's using information that the company TEPCO that runs it has deemed to release - all of it as seen through rose-coloured glasses.

Some day in the future it's going to come to light that the environmental impact of this disaster was made many times worse by TEPCO's lying and managing things as if their efforts could miraculously save their investment. I guess they have to say that to appease the stockholders. But when that information does become available, the lawsuits are going to sink the power corporation. Anybody want to hazard a guess as to how much a twenty mile exclusion zone is worth? Over 600 sq. mi. of real estate in Japan? Holy shit!! I imagine it's way more than even a nuclear power plant is worth. (though with most of the buildings already flattened it's worth a lot less than it was before the tsunami. still..)

I imagine there are executives at TEPCO right now ruing the Japanese tradition of Seppuku - ritual self-disembowelment. If anyone in the history of that nation ever deserved such a punishment, it would be them. You can almost hear the snick snick of little knives being sharpened.

TAGS: Fuckyoushima, Tsunami aftermath, Nuclear disaster, Seppuku

Practical Suggestions

2011-02-17T02:00:00.004-05:00

..For Reducing Federal Spending

Rachel Maddow opened tonight's show with a piece on Republicans' eagerness to reduce the number of federal employees.

Fair enough, tough times require tough measures.

Let's start with this: Maybe 20 or 30 Republican Senators could relinquish their high-paying jobs, along with 40 or 50 in the House of Representatives. Not only would a heap of money be saved, but things would start getting done. They're all for efficiency, right? This move would free up more money than laying of hundreds of mid-level workers.

Better yet, it has been proposed that PrezBO increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to eleven to help balance the court. What he should do instead is ask for the resignations of some of them. I nominate Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts to return to the private sector they love so much. I'm pretty sure that 5 justices could do just as good a job or better than the current 9.

Then fire all the grads from the Regent so-called "university" who were hired illegally anyway by Monica Goodling a few years ago. I haven't noticed any increase in the amount of justice that's been produced in that department since they were put on the payroll, so they can't be adding much value.

Finally, if there are still Secret Service personnel on the payroll protecting Bush, Cheney, Rummy or any of those criminal conspirators, for gawdsake lay them off!

Obama Demands Egypt Respect Human Rights

2011-02-08T21:03:00.008-05:00

...That the USA Totally Disrespects

Hypocrite much?

U.S. demands immediate end to Egypt's emergency law

"The United States on Tuesday set out four steps Cairo must take to end Egypt's crisis, telling its ally to stop harassing protesters and immediately repeal an emergency law allowing detention without charge."

This news story comes on a day that a vote was held to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. Among other things the Act has allowed detention without charge. Some inmates at Guantanamo are still being detained even though it is acknowledged that they are never going to be charged and that there is no credible evidence upon which to base a charge. AND the US government has said that they will continue to hold some detainees even if they are cleared of all charges in a court of law. So how could it get any worse than that?

THIS JUST IN: The vote, which required a 2/3 majority under a special house rule, FAILED, with a 277-148 result. You can bet it will pass when voted on again using the usual process.

Sic semper tyranni.

Here's a New Meme

2011-01-26T18:51:00.006-05:00

Here's a meme that progressives should make use of. It just occurred to me, and I'd like to pass it on.

Being born rich has no intrinsic value; it is in no way productive, useful or desirable. Most rich people contribute far less to society than do ordinary factory workers, bus drivers and janitors. Therefore, living off of ancestral wealth made by Daddy, Grand-dad, or Great-great-great to the nth degree going back to pre-Civil War plantation days is no more ethical than living off of welfare. In many cases it's far less ethical. So here's the meme:

Let's start calling that condition Ancestral Welfare, and bring up the term every time people who were actually brought up by nannies complain about "The Nanny State." The term goes hand-in-hand with the already familiar terms Class Warfare and Corporate Welfare, and is intimately connected to both.

Class warfare couldn't exist if it weren't for the scions of the last generation living off of the avails of their parents. And most of those inheritances are in trust funds tied into holdings of corporate stock.

Nobody with an ounce of sense believes that prominent heirs like Rush Limbaugh or Charles Krauthammer's points of view are anything but self-serving. The idol bloated bloviaters have not only stolen America's wealth, they've also dominated any conversation concerning wealth. So whether you're talking about social benefits, education, health care, or the structure of the tax system, you'll always get only the opinions of those who can well afford those things without any help from government.

What is the solution? Start taxing capital gains at a rate at least as high as that levied against money that is actually earned. And set the estate tax to something that promotes the American ideal of all men being created equal instead of eroding it.

The estate tax should be 0% for the 1st $1 million, and 99% for anything above that. If you are survived by a wife and six kids you'd be allowed to leave a legacy worth $7,000,000. That's not too shabby when you think about it.

Anybody who can't turn a million dollar inheritance into a pretty comfortable life has demonstrated an inability to compete in any kind of economy, especially a capitalist one. With $1 million you could buy a nice house or a platinum education or you could open a small business. In fact you could probably do any two of those things with $1 million and have considerable change left over. So anyone who says their children can't make it unless they get a billion dumped in their lap is really implying that their children are drooling idiots, fit only for wasting away in a hammock.

~~~~~~~~

On a more general note, it is lamentable that the so-called 'left' in America can't come up with counters to the memes put out by The Powers That Be, even when they're staring them in the face. If you're going to change the way things are going, or even halt the slide into modern feudalism the first step is going to be to change the tenor of the conversation. If you fight the battle on the other side's terms you don't have a chance.

TAGS: Capitalism, Leads to, Oligarchy, Every. Bloody. Time.

A few words for Sarah Palin

2011-01-16T23:00:00.006-05:00

Honey, if you insist on thinking that Jesus is talking to you, could you please just listen when he tells you to STFU?

TAGS: Sarah Palin, Queen of the Dumbasses, Bigot, Hypocrite

TGIF is another way to spell GIFT

2010-11-12T13:16:00.003-05:00

A favorite song from a gifted group.
Enjoy the weekend folks, and don't forget:
Don't get too drunk until AFTER you leave work.

TAGS: The Staple Singers, I'll Take You There

GOP Platform in Song and Dance

2010-10-02T14:21:00.004-04:00

OK, so there wasn't really any dancing. Disappointed? Not nearly as much as you will be if the GOP keep their promises.

TAGS: Roy Zimmerman
GOP, Organized Crime

How much is too much?

2010-09-24T17:00:00.001-04:00

For Gawd's sake, this kind of thing pisses me off, and if it doesn't piss you off I submit that there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

A little tidbit from Robert Reich at the Huffington Post: The Super Rich Get Richer, Everyone Else Gets Poorer, and the Democrats Punt

"Charles and David Koch, the energy magnates who are pouring vast sums of money into Republican coffers and sponsoring tea partiers all over America, each gained $5.5 billion of wealth over the past year. Each is now worth $21.5 billion."

Let me put that in perspective for those of you who aren't already pissed off enough just by that blunt factoid. $21.5 BILLION is a shitload of money. More than you'll see in your lifetime, I would wager. I'll even give you odds.

The median American household earns something just above $50,000 per year. That's HOUSEHOLD, not person. Nowadays most families can't get by without two wage earners, and unless they're both lucky enough to have full-time jobs with benefits, this could actually mean the earnings from 3 or even 4 part-time "McJobs."

So sticking with that number, how many households does it take to earn 21.5 BILLION in a year? That would be 2.15 X10^10 divided by 5X10^4, which works out to an astonishing 430,000 households. Almost half a million FAMILIES!!

Let's take into account now that the average household is just above 3.1 persons (Astonishingly low! Back in the '70s it was around 4.5. I guess people simply can't afford to have 4 or 5 kids anymore.) You're now talking about the money that 1,333,000 people of median income live on, enough people to populate a city the size of Dallas, Texas. Which by the way is ninth on the list of largest cities in the US. If you take the worth of both Koch brothers as your starting point, you're somewhere between the size of Chicago and Houston, which are 3rd and 4th respectively.

The Republican party and a significant number of Democrats, Blue Dog and otherwise, don't want the Bush tax cuts to expire. Obama wants to extend them only for people who make less than $250,000 per annum. That's fewer than 2% of the population. Putting that into perspective, someone making a cool quarter of a million a year gets a paycheck of nearly $10,000 every two weeks -- which is about equal to someone working for $10/hr makes in 6 months at 40hrs/wk.

One comment at the HuffPo post asked a simple, pointed question; "How much inequality in wealth can a democracy tolerate?" I of course can't quantify that as easily as I can compare the Koch's wealth to the rest of the country. But I do know this -- the tolerable level has long been passed. America's system of government is a sham, a democracy in name only -- a demock-racy. It should be revolting enough to cause a revolution. The fact that it hasn't is cause for concern.

Mercenaries Afraid of Disclosure Laws

2010-08-30T14:00:00.004-04:00

Billion-dollar Whiny Ass Titty Babies!

Defense companies and other major industries are hoping to block disclosure of their own fraudulent or substandard performance in federal contracts, despite a mandate this year by Congress that such potentially embarrassing information be released to the public. Sensitive to concerns raised by the companies, the White House has delayed enacting the little-known disclosure provision while it studies the issue, officials said.

When, if ever, is the White House going to be sensitive to the concerns of the taxpaying public? And do you suppose that studying the issue is going to take...oh, I don't know...maybe into and beyond their second term? The good news: PresBO has himself become an expert on Fraudulent or Substandard Performance issues. So much so that he could create a cabinet-level position out of it.

The thing is, when people wearing body armor and brandishing automatic weapons perform in any the consequences usually result in a bunch of innocent people being killed, America's reputation being even further ravaged, and stated* policy objectives being moved even further away from any chance of completion.

(* - as opposed to the real clandestine objectives of world domination and endless war, perpetuating the profits of the mercenaries)

Just one example of how the Blackwater/Xe thugs-r-us boys spread cheer and the Good Will of the American People is seen in this recent story from Peshawar, Pakistan. This brings the meaning of fraudulent and substandard to a new level.

The residents are mainly concerned about Blackwater's reputation as a ruthless, unbridled private army whose employees face multiple charges of murder, child prostitution and weapons smuggling in Iraq.

'Sometimes, these guys stand in the streets and behave rudely with the passers-by, sometimes they point guns at people without provocation' said Imtiaz Gul, an engineer, whose home is a few hundred metres from the US contractor's base on Chanar Road in University Town.

'Who rules our streets, the Pakistani government or the Americans? They have created a state within the state.'

Receiving tens of BILLIONS of fiat dollars from ~~Chinese lenders~~ the federal government, you would think that these civilization-destroying savages would feel some obligation to at least pretend to do the job that they were payed to do. You would be wrong. They are in a class with the Mongol hordes of Atilla the Hun, blithely unconcerned with the devastation they bring with them everywhere they operate. And as I recall about the Huns, they seem to have done sufficient damage to bring Europe into the Dark Ages -- from which it took over a thousand years to recover.

Sunshine Lollipops and Rainbows

2010-08-04T16:49:00.006-04:00

Wow, so much good news lately that I may have to put my cynicism on a shelf for a while - where it can keep company with my now-out-of-date pessimism. First of all the gulf is pretty much cleaned up now according to BP and the US government. Even PresBO himself agrees. Sure they've lied to us about this from the get-go, but I'm sure we can trust them this time.

PresBO also announced that troop withdrawal from Iraq was going to be on schedule, exactly as promised. Except that 50,000 troops will still be there, but thats OK! They're 'transitional!!' Please ignore the Blackwater/Xe mercenaries who will also remain behind sucking up US tax dollars to enrich the old Cheney cabal. Anyway the country has been turned into a stable and prosperous bastion of democracy, so mission accomplished there too. I haven't felt this good since I found out that waterboarding wasn't really torture, just a 'little splash of water.'

So come on join in everybody, "Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.."

TAGS: Unreality Based Community, Optimism, To the Point, of Gullibility

Open Thread for Jenn

2010-06-24T22:10:00.003-04:00

See? We do respond when a request is made.

RIP Dennis Hopper

2010-05-29T20:50:00.000-04:00

I'm just now hearing that actor Dennis Hopper has died. The first time I remember seeing him was as Billy in Easy Rider. Brilliant!

According to his IMDB entry he had at that point done dozens of appearances on film and TV including guest appearances on such outstanding shows as Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Zane Grey Theater, and The Big Valley. He was also on some less outstanding fare like Petticoat Junction and The Time Tunnel. Oh well, a guy's gotta earn a living.

He was in a lot of westerns, befitting his birth in Dodge City, Kansas. He didn't have to work too hard to come across as an authentic cowboy. Starting with Giant in 1956 (when I was frickin' three years old!) he was in classics such as:
Cheyenne; Gunfight at the OK Corral (as Billy Clanton); Sugarfoot (as Billy the Kid); From Hell to Texas; The Sons of Katie Elder; The Legend of Jessie James; True Grit -- you get the idea. The list goes on, showing that he did as much to form the public idea of what a cowboy is as John Wayne or Slim Pickens.

A great career spanning over half a century, hopefully a life that was just as great for him as it was for his fans, he'll be missed.

So long, pardner.

TAGS: Dennis Hopper

Human Arrogance Examined

2010-05-07T21:23:00.005-04:00

TAGS: Science, Evolution, Life, Human Race, Arrogance, Religion
I want to discuss science if I may. Specifically in an area that really arouses my passions: That is the ridiculous and arrogant assumption that the universe and everything in it was created with it's future inhabiting by mankind in mind. We've all heard the arguments about irreducible complexity and so forth. It's the basis of the idea of intelligent design. I say "idea" because "theory" isn't apt in this case. Theory is the analysis of facts and how they relate to one another while intelligent design takes facts and assumptions and even made up notions and preconceptions and compares them.
I'm not here to discuss intelligent design though. I want to address the over arching concept that without a whole lot of very specific events occurring, humanity wouldn't be here. That is absolutely true, without a doubt. If Theia hadn't smacked the Earth hard almost four and a half billion years ago, the moon wouldn't exist and our rotation and axis wouldn't be as stable as it is. There is a theory that if the Snowball Earth Era hadn't happened, life would have never been under so much pressure to adapt and to then be poised for the Cambrian Explosion when the planet finally thawed, ushering in the Phanerozoic Eon. If the Permian extinction hadn't occurred, maybe creatures related to Dimetrodon would rule the Earth and if not for a huge impact at the end of the Cretaceous, sentient dinosaurs may be quarreling about science versus religion.
We can argue and speculate about the details but it is certain that had some or all of these events not happened, the human race would not exist. We can go back even further and imagine that gravity never separated out of the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces at the very beginning of the creation of the universe with the Big Bang, leading to an endless ocean of subatomic particles that may have formed atoms but never bunched together to form anything more massive or complex than hydrogen or helium. No gravity = no stars = no people. Anywhere. There is also growing evidence that a gamma ray burst in our distant past may have also contributed to genetic modification of ancient and primitive life on Earth. What if the poles of that star had been pointed a few degrees away from us? Would I be sitting here typing this? Chances are I wouldn't be.
So yes. Except for a very specific grouping of some very unlikely events, the human race would not exist. Period. But does that then prove some divine guidance? Does that support the idea of an omnipotent sky daddy manipulating events and conditions to bring about the human race? I don't believe it does. The fact is that the universe doesn't have the properties it does for the benefit of mankind, rather WE have the properties we do because of the universe we evolved in. We owe our form, our method of reproduction, the mixture of gases we require, the temperature ranges we need, our nutritional requirements and etc because we evolved within this universe and on this planet. Conditions on Earth aren't perfect for us. We are perfect for the conditions on Earth. Assuming that life couldn't exist without those very specific circumstances and that intelligent life wouldn't be on the Earth at all if not for an accidental series of events is the very pinnacle of human arrogance. WE almost certainly wouldn't be here but I believe that life would go merrily on without us. Imagine that.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Before and After

2010-03-26T11:54:00.011-04:00

TAGS: DA,DT LGBT Navy Douchehattery
Some of the readers here are familiar with the general parameters of my story so I won't get too specific. I used to be an airframe technician for F-14A aircraft during the last half of the 1980s until early 1991. Although I wasn't a huge fan of the United States Navy, I enjoyed my job and I was good at it. VERY good. In fact I was so good that after I had been outed as transgendered, (by a "friend" who used his knowledge to distract from his second DUI offense), and after I had gone to Captain's Mast and after I had been told they were going to strip me of rank, benefits I'd earned and half of my pay, I was actually involuntarily EXTENDED to serve in the first Persian Gulf War. You see, though I had been deemed "unfit" to serve, I was the only person qualified to troubleshoot launches for the airframes shop and to act as flight deck safety at the same time. They told me I was being unceremoniously discharged but had to stay long enough to qualify people to replace me.
Before the hostilities were ended, I was on my way back to the states. Within 24 hours of landing, I had been reduced two pay grades, stripped of the benefits I'd earned and given an "Other Than Honorable" discharge. I say this not because I'm still wallowing in self pity after all of these years but to point out that, abominable as it is, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is a relative newcomer and much, MUCH better than the previous patchwork of regulations regarding LGBT service people. Then, it was largely up to the unit commander what happened to an outed person. In my own case, the unit commander had no problem with it because he knew me and what I was capable of. I was told nothing was going to happen. That was before the change of command. The new skipper DID have a problem with it, a huge one. As I hadn't even violated the UCMJ, charges were trumped up to get rid of me. I fought for a while but it was clear from the beginning that they would wear me down eventually. If they want you gone, gone you will be.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a compromise, (or capitulation), made by President Clinton and was codified into law on December 21, 1993 when Clinton issued Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, requiring the DOD to stop asking applicants and active duty service members to disclose their sexual orientation. It not only supposedly put a stop to that, it also homogenized the penalties and in most cases softened them, for violators of the policy against LGBT persons. For example, it was no longer solely up to the unit commanding officer what penalty violators would pay, they would all be given administrative discharges under honorable conditions, allowing them to keep their rank, pay and benefits. It didn't stop the harassment or the witch hunts though.
Though I detest the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, it is leaps and bounds better than what used to happen prior to it coming into effect. Randy Shilts wrote an excellent book called "Conduct Unbecoming" about lesbians and Gays in the military and I recommend it to people who harbor illusions about what the policy used to be and what it is today. As much as I would like to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I have never heard of the policy being repealed for transgendered people, just for lesbians and gays. Presumably transgendered Americans will still be sexually assaulted, harassed and hounded out of the service on trumped up charges. That doesn't seem to bother gay leaders much, most of whom have never served.
I'll close by dispelling a few myths:
Myth 1) The military is some hyper macho organization, rampant with homophobes and conservative bigots.
Fact: The military is a reflection of society, except a more disciplined reflection for the most part and a much younger one overall than society as a whole.
Myth 2) Congress has to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Fact: Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a Department of Defense Directive, later codified into law. The commander in chief could repeal it unilaterally and immediately.
Myth 3) Repeal of DA,DT would affect unit cohesion
Fact: Actually this one is true, it will make it much better since dishonesty breeds mistrust, honesty can only foster greater trust.

Open Thread

2010-03-04T19:09:00.002-05:00

Because we need one, as usual. And as usual, I'm too damned lazy to put up anything of substance.

TAGS: Open Thread

The Tea Bagger Airforce

2010-02-18T18:50:00.001-05:00

There's an old joke that's so lame that it's reserved for those occasions when someone you know gets 'decorated' by a pigeon or seagull. "Aren't you glad that cows don't fly?"

Well, I guess if one had said that about the anti-government Teabagger crowd any time before today, it wouldn't have been much of a joke.

Sadly, that's all changed with the latest incident: a pilot named Joseph Andrew Stark flew his small plane into an IRS office today. It wasn't long before it was revealed that he had written a rat-wanger 'manifesto' -- boilerplate screed indicting Big Government and taxation in general.

Of course the mainstream media will avoid tying this in to the identical boilerplate screed that is voiced at any teabagger rally. They will also do their damnedest to pretend that an obvious act of domestic terrorism is nothing of the sort because it comes from someone on the right who is whiter than rice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: OK, I'm going to have to deliver a full-bore mea culpa on some of the above. No excuses, I was simply mislead by some descriptions of Mr. Stark's 'manifesto' (which is also misleading - it's nothing of the sort.) and speculation that he was a member of the 'tea party.' Here's the text of his swan song, preserved at The Smoking Gun. Stark's original website was understandably shut down by the hosting server.

It doesn't strike me as being overtly political, save for the fact that he obviously wanted his last act to be a wake up call to the rest of the country. It does sound desperate, but what would you expect from a suicide note, however lengthy? And a lot of his complaints are exactly those that have been voice here for quite some time - not against big government per se, but against a corrupt system that no longer responds to the people, because it no longer has to.

I'm going to wait this one out before I offer any further opinions. Jumping into a story with both feet before all the facts are in is not something I'm any damned good at.

I 'spoke' in haste. My bad.

TAGS: Rat-wangers, Domestic Terrorism, Anti-government sentiment, IOKIYA a teabagger

FBI Wants ISPs to Spy on You

2010-02-06T19:20:00.002-05:00

Fourth Amendment Goes the Way of Habeas Corpus

From Cnet News:

WASHINGTON--The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.

As far back as a 2006 speech, Mueller had called for data retention on the part of Internet providers, and emphasized the point two years later when explicitly asking Congress to enact a law making it mandatory. But it had not been clear before that the FBI was asking companies to begin to keep logs of what Web sites are visited, which few if any currently do.

The FBI is not alone in renewing its push for data retention. As CNET reported earlier this week, a survey of state computer crime investigators found them to be nearly unanimous in supporting the idea. Matt Dunn, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the Department of Homeland Security, also expressed support for the idea during the task force meeting.

Greg Motta, the chief of the FBI's digital evidence section, said that the bureau was trying to preserve its existing ability to conduct criminal investigations. Federal regulations in place since at least 1986 require phone companies that offer toll service to "retain for a period of 18 months" records including "the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call."

But the good news is that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Frankly I'd describe this as universal warrantless wiretapping. If this is allowed the government would essentially have the 'right' to enter your home without a warrant and gather evidence against you for a crime that you have not yet formed any intention of committing. Shades of 'Minority Report.'

TAGS: Police State, Fascist Tactics, Fourth Amendment 'Rights'
Adolph Hitler Would Have Given His Remaining Testicle For This Ability

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

2010-01-27T17:45:00.003-05:00

AKA: "PresBO's State of the Union Address."

(It'll be interesting to see how he tries to talk himself out of the mess he's gotten into after a full year of kow-towing to the Republican obstructionists, with nothing to show for it.)

TAGS: Open Thread

Open Thread

2010-01-15T20:00:00.002-05:00

I've been applying all my spare time for the last couple days to trying to fix a friend's computer. Who knew that on today's internet you need an anti-virus program that's up to date, an anti-spyware AND a firewall? At least. Otherwise your machine will turn into a spam-bot, slow down to a crawl, and send ads for boner juice all over the world 24/7 until your ISP bans you for breaching their terms of service.

So this is what I've been doing a lot lately:

And with lots of this going on

On the thread below

it's gotten pretty long. So here's a new one.

Hopefully I'll scrape together some time to put up a real post sometime in the near future.

TAGS: Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Repeat as necessary

Way to Stay Classy Alaska

2010-01-06T21:45:00.000-05:00

I heard this on the local radio station today: The city of Fairbanks Alaska put an ice sculpture of Al Gore on display for the second year, supposedly to ridicule Gore's concern over climate change. Ooooh, clever.

"Why didn't the sculpture melt if global warming is true, huh?"
Short answer: It's fucking ALASKA in the middle of winter you fucktard!!

At any rate, a heinous site called Al Gore Lied.com is bragging about how this year's 8,000 lb sculpture is so much better than last year's because 1) it has audio - Gore's Copenhagen speech from last month and 2) the statue this year has been hooked up to the exhaust of a pickup truck, so that it belches noxious fumes as Gore 'speaks.' Get it? Gore is full of hot air, and they're so smart that they'll idle a truck all day and ruin Fairbanks' air quality just to make that juvenile point. "They" being designer Craig Compeau (who apparently also runs the Al Gore Lies site) and sculptor Steve Dean. They're so proud of themselves they've made a YouTube video of the sculpture.

Gore gives Copenhagen Speech

Belches Truck Exhaust

Now I wouldn't want to get so snarky here that I point out that Alaska is a state that is utterly corrupted by the influence of oil, or that they gave us both Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin, two of the most corrupt and clueless politicians to ever belch hot air. This really puts pressure on the teabag crowd to come up with something even stoopuder. OTOH it makes it significantly reduces the effort Keith Olbermann has to put out for his next Worst Persons In The World segment.

Oh, and that radio show I was listening to? The story was being used in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada as a lead-in to a Public Service announcement reminding people of a by-law that goes into effect today. In Peterborough if you idle your vehicle for more than 2 minutes you face a $30 fine. Not everybody is in a hurry to destroy the planet.

TAGS: Right-wing stoopudishness, Global Warming, Fairbanks Alaska
Forget About The Ozone Layer,
I Don't Think These People Are Getting Enough Oxygen to Their Brains

This Blog Needs a New Thread

2010-01-05T21:12:00.003-05:00

And Since We Haven't Posted a Music Video
For a While

This classic from the Staples Singers totally rocked my world when Rachel Maddow used it on her New Years Eve show. I'm using it in hopes that some of her cool will rub off on me.

TAGS: Staples Singers, Music Video

New Year Open Thread

2009-12-31T11:40:00.001-05:00

This image, found on the nets, is titled Happy New Years 2000. Whether you think the decade ends tonight (technically not, but most people see decades that way if not centuries) or a year hence, it's been pretty crappy hasn't it? Filled with disasters. Bush. 9/11. Bush. Katrina. Bush. A tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia. Bush. Afghanistan. Bush. Iraq. Bush. Abu Ghraib. Bush. Gitmo. Bush. Economic meltdown, and did I mention Bush?

Then there was the biggest disaster of all, Cheney.

Anyway, I'll be glad to be shed of the era that the Brits call the Naughties. Although honestly I don't think that a change of the tens column digit is anything to hang our hopes on.

Try to avoid driving drunk tonight, and if you can't at least try to remember that the road is that thing between the two lines of telephone poles. And keep the shiny side up.

TAGS: Open Thread, HAPPY NEW YEAR

Olbermann Tells It Like It Is

2009-12-17T15:30:00.000-05:00

"There Are Enough Villains to Go Around"

Transcript HERE

I don't think much commentary is necessary to embellish KO's commentary except on this one point:

"And Sen. Reid, put the public option back in, or the Medicare Buy-In, or both. Or single-payer. Let Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Baucus and the Republicans vote their lack-of-conscience and preclude 60 "ayes." Let them commit political suicide instead of you."

I don't think Leader Reid or any of the other 'centrist' Democrats or fucktard Republicans who wage legislative war against their own constitutents give a flying rat's ass about 'political consequences' anymore. They know the system, and they know that over 90% of them have their seats because they spent more on campaign advertising than their opponent. Voters don't matter, they haven't for a long time. Only contributors matter, which means only large corporations.

And what if they do get turfed out of office by some principled upstart, the next Al Franken or Alan Grayson? They'll be richly rewarded by the same corporations - a seven figure sinecure at some think tank, perhaps. Or maybe they'll turn around and join one of the lobbying firms - corrupting in turn their successors as they have been corrupted.

If this is the way that sausage is made these days in Washington, it's time to get a new butcher.

TAGS: Keith Olbermann, Special Commentary, Health Care Reform, Broken Government

It Looks Like That Time of the Year Again.

2009-12-13T19:29:00.002-05:00

And well past time for a new thread, don't you think?

Drive safely. Unruliness is one thing, but even I obey the rules of the road.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T12:33:00.004-05:00

Please remember that not everybody is free from want.
Be thankful if you are.
You can find a food bank near you at this
handy-dandy locator.

Amazing Artistry

2009-11-11T12:55:00.002-05:00

Duo Siqueira Lima 'Tico Tico'

(CECILIA SIQUEIRA and FERNANDO LIMA)
(click here for HQ version at YouTube)

Watch this once and be delighted and amazed. Watch it more closely a second time and you see that the performance really transcends even what you first saw and heard. Around the 52 seconds there is a distinct transition in the music (from arpeggio to picado, or so I'm told.) At that point the guitarists start playing 'cross-handed,' by which I mean she's picking (right hand) the treble strings that he's fretting (left hand) and vice versa on the bass strings. Watch again at 1:52 when he takes over fretting 5 strings and she frets the bottom E 'over the neck.' And I'm not sure, but I think there is a point where the strings are allocated other than top three/bottom three - she's picking the bottom string and top two while fretting the bottom three and he's picking the middle three while fretting the top three.

Never mind all of that. If there were no accompanying video at all -- if you were told (or assumed) that this was two guitarists playing two guitars -- wouldn't it still be delightful to listen to in its own right?

I give the piece two thumbs up, a Bravo, a Brava, and a standing ovation.

There's more on their website, which is offered in Portuguese, Spanish and English.

TAGS: Music Video, Tico Tico, Duo Siqueira Lima
Wow, just wow

Stewart Does Beck

2009-11-10T16:22:00.003-05:00

...Brilliantly!!

Stewart parodies Beck's paranoid conspiracy charts, Nazi rhetoric

I'm so happy to be able to present this bit. Seeing as I'm in Canada I normally have trouble with videos from Comedy Central, which are geo-blocked. Big thanks to Media Matters for hosting this one on their own servers, and hat/tip to The Gun Toting Liberal, where I found it.

TAGS: Glenn Beck, The Frayed Outer Edge of the Lunatic Fringe
FOX "news", The Propaganda Arm of the Republican Party

What's Really Wrong With the Economy?

2009-11-07T15:40:00.007-05:00

Adam Smith and the
Roots of Neo-Conservative Hypocrisy

You've doubtless seen recent headlines showing that unemployment in the US is above 10% officially, higher than it's been since 1983. But that's not the whole story.

New figures in Friday's jobs report from the Labor Department indicate that the broadest measure of unemployment—including those unemployed who have looked for work in the last four weeks, discouraged workers, and the "underemployed" (part-time workers looking for full-time work)—has hit its highest recorded rate. More than one in six, or 17.5 percent of workers, are unemployed or underemployed, and in some hard-hit states like California, Arizona, and Michigan, the figure can get as high as 20 percent. The current figure is almost a half-percent higher than the previously recorded high of 17.1 percent in December 1982, even though the official jobless rate remains lower than its peak in the 1980s.
(more details at The New York Times)

While all the Wall Street firms are flush with the money from the Bush bailout, Main street has yet to see full benefits from the Obama stimulus package. As always America's top-down priorities can be summed up as "comforting the comfortable." Station Agent's post today got me thinking about the whole 'too big to fail' meme, and this post is an expansion of my response there in comments.

Adam Smith is almost universally considered to be the father of economics. His book The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, and that coincidence in date leads conservatives to regard it as though it was one of America's founding documents, like the Declaration of Independence. Much in Wealth can be used as an argument for unbridled and unregulated capitalism, but like the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or any religious writings for that matter) cherry picking of certain passages while ignoring others can lead to a conclusion far from the original intent.

It's no accident that people with mental illness are often referred to as 'unbalanced.' If your every thought and consideration pulls you in one direction it's just a matter of time before you're dragged over the edge. I haven't actually read Wealth of Nations, but I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that it has been cherry-picked mercilessly to present only one side of Smith's philosophy. Smith himself was seemingly quite aware that his own thoughts ran a considerable gamut.

On the road from the City of Skepticism,
I had to pass through the Valley of Ambiguity.
-- Adam Smith --

One can certainly cherry-pick through Smith's writings and assemble quotes backing every core conservative argument. He is presumed to have been against regulation and the welfare state, for instance. Quotes can easily be found to bear that out.

"Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice,
is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way,
and to bring both his industry and capital into competition
with those of any other man or order of men."

"Every man is, no doubt, by nature,
first and principally recommended to his own care;
and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person,
it is fit and right that it should be so."

An argument mitigating the laissez faire effect of that first quote would focus on the underlined phrase. Smith lived and died well before the emergence of the modern multinational corporation. How would he have reacted to the idea of corporate lobbying, especially when the intent is so often to alter the laws so they no longer even resemble justice? What would he have thought of a government that was blatantly for sale to the highest bidder?

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul
can always depend on the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw --

Just because you bribe or coerce the Legislature into making something legal that was once criminal doesn't make it right. And one other question; would Smith have seen the monopolistic practices of giants like Microsoft as constituting a form of market regulation of their own?

Those who might cite Smith in defense of the free market could in no way rely on him in the case of the crony capitalism that now dominates the global economy. He quite clearly abhorred monopolies, trusts, and price fixing.

People of the same trade seldom meet together,
even for merriment and diversion,
but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,
or in some contrivance to raise prices.

The whole justification for free-market capitalism can be summed up in a sentence; "it creates a free market environment where competition spurs excellence." That's fine in theory, but where the rubber hits the road you always see capitalists trying to merge into entities that are not just too big to fail, but too big to compete with. Whether they buy out anyone who challenges them, as for example Microsoft has always done, or collude with them and form a cartel, as you see in the oil and health insurance industries, the result is the same. No competition. No free market. Prices are fixed at artificially inflated values, and the public is screwed.

As the saying goes; "in theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice they are quite different." This is true in spades in the field of economics.

The sad truth about free market capitalism is that it inevitably leads to concentration of wealth in so few hands that the free market vanishes. You're left with crony capitalism. Which as I've already stated, is a kind of regulation unto itself. I'm absolutely certain that Smith would have considered the no-bid, cost-plus model that Cheney used to dole out cash to Halliburton and Blackwater as nothing less than criminal. I certainly do.

Happily my search for Adam Smith quotes led me to this brilliant post that contains the conclusion to the first book of Wealth of Nations. You should, indeed MUST read this post in its entirety.

It is my contention that much of today's discourse is seriously distorted by the near universal acceptance of some points which are, in fact, completely false. One of these is the idea that modern Conservative/Republican philosophy is strongly tied to the principals of free market capitalism as espoused by the like of Adam Smith.

The author then shows that Smith considered the investor class to be parasitic on the rest of the economy, and their interests contrary to general prosperity.

The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.
[...]
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

By taking the top-down investors-first approach to the economy Barack Obama's financial advisers (all members of the investor class and most alumni of the Goldman Sachs boardroom) ignore the lessons of history and all credible economic theory. Listening to those , "who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it," would seem to constitute Obama's biggest mistake to date.

That mistake, to be blunt, has been to pick the wrong side in what is really a class struggle. Or, put another way, it's like investing in new draperies for a house whose foundation is crumbling. Even Republicans once recognized that prosperity is based in the working class. Anyone who looks at it honestly agrees to that, regardless of ideology. Even John McCain, caught in the absurd statement that the economy was strong while the banks were failing, tried to rescue himself by equating the American worker with the 'fundamentals.' For once he was right.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor,
and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed.
Labor is superior to capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
-- Abraham Lincoln --

“Labour was the first price, the original purchase -
money that was paid for all things.
It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour,
that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. ”
-- Adam Smith --

"Capital is dead labor,
which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor,
and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."
-- Karl Marx--

By this yardstick there is only one thing that could be more dangerous than the gloomy unemployment statistics at the head of this post. And that danger is that the blood-sucking investor class can continue to shop for fancy draperies (paid for by the taxpayer) while the nation's foundation crumbles beneath them. Conservative philosophy revealed itself to be unsustainable practically speaking with the banking crisis last year. Hopefully this post shows that it is and always has been a sham on the theoretical side as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATES: There are a couple of pertinent links to add to this, which have just appeared on the web since I posted on Friday.

Ellen Brown has a new post up at Truthout: "Shifting the Burden from Main Street to Wall Street: Why We Need a Tobin Tax"

The BBC has released the results of a new poll: "Free market flawed, says survey"

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well. Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were necessary. There were also sharp divisions around the world on whether the end of the Soviet Union was a good thing.

So, as some celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall (which was after all a good thing) others regret the collapse of communism that brought it about.

TAGS: Economics, Adam Smith, Republican Hypocrisy
Cherry-picking the Facts to Support an Unsustainable Argument

Italy Convicts Kidnappers

2009-11-04T20:00:00.004-05:00

Court Sentences 22 CIA Agents, 1 USAF Colonel

From The BBC:

An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric.

The agents were accused of abducting Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from Milan and sending him to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured.

The trial, which began in June 2007, is the first involving the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions. "We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington. He declined to comment further pending a written opinion from the judge, but said an appeal was likely.

Three Americans and five Italians were acquitted by the court in Milan.
[...]
The CIA's Milan station chief at the time, Robert Lady, was given an eight-year term, while the other 22 Americans convicted - one of them a US air force colonel - were sentenced to five years in prison.

A little more information that the BBC omits is available from this article at Al-Jazeera. For one thing the three Americans who were acquitted actually got a pass for having diplomatic immunity. For another the five Italians were acquitted because they were "protected by State Secrecy rules." Which leads one to wonder why the 2 convicted Italian agents were not covered by that umbrella. Hmmm...

The US State Department may be disappointed by the verdict, but I'm quite frankly delighted. And I'll tell you why. For more than three years now, over several posts, I've been saying that the weasel-word 'rendition' really means kidnapping, and should not be given any distinction any higher than that of an extreme criminal act. It's nice that a judge and jury agree. And as to the disappointment expressed by the US government, I already covered that in that post from Sept. 19, 2006.

In America we see a government that continues to deny their own criminal activity. Then when it becomes undeniable, they deny that there is anything illegal about it. Then, when THAT becomes undeniable, they try to retroactively make legal the most egregiously despicable actions. Sickening. As Glenn Greenwald asks, "How can you be an American citizen and not be completely outraged, embarrassed, and disgusted by this conduct?"

What they're disappointed with, frankly, is that their depraved indifference to the rule of law cannot be forcibly extended to other jurisdictions.

In an e-mail about this story Len Hart expressed the fervent hope, "Perhaps the CIA will --at last --be held accountable for its TERRORIST activities." I wouldn't advise him to hold his breath. Not with the kind of MSM reporting on the story that is exemplified by this exchange on CNN's The Situation Room.

Sorry, I have no transcript so this is paraphrased from memory (I wrote this in comments of the last post just minutes after hearing it however. It's pretty accurate as to the intent of what was said.) Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Jeffery Toobin, whose legal expertise puts him in a class with John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Orly Taitz.

Toobin: "the bad thing about this is that because of Interpol the [convicted criminals] have to avoid travel not only in Italy but most of the rest of Europe as well.

Blitzer: It's part of the job description of the CIA that they go into other countries, and break the law. They break and enter. They engage in bribery, and so forth. Italy is an ally. They're supposed to have an agreement with the US about things like this. The system failed somehow."

The only agreement that any foreign country might have with the US (at least so far as international law is concerned) about spies is this -- if a spy has an official embassy cover, when caught spying they are not charged, but simply declared Persona Non Grata and expelled from the country. As noted above this is what happened to the three CIA criminals who had diplomatic immunity. The others had to have been what is known as NOC's (meaning non-official cover,) and should have known that they were vulnerable to charges if they broke Italian law.

Any argument to the contrary can be boiled down to two words; American Exceptionalism. Which, you may be surprised to find out (assuming you're an American) has no foundation whatsoever in international law. None. And 'legal expert' Toobin had to have known that. So he's either an incredibly incompetent attorney or he's a liar. Or both.

There are other elements to this story that I'll just touch on here. First, what an incredibly ill-conceived and counter-productive operation this was. Kidnapping and torturing a Muslim cleric?! What the FUCK were they thinking?

The thought that comes to my mind is that infamous 9/12/01 quote from the Shrub, "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." This adds the qualifier, "and if you're not with the terrorists YET, just wait til you see what we're planning."

Second, while I generally agree with the outcome of the case I'm a bit disconcerted about the relative weight of sentencing. It was my understanding that this kidnapping was carried out over the strenuous objections of Robert Seldon Lady, the Milan CIA station chief -- who rightly "saw it as ill-conceived and counter-productive." He was over-ruled by some political authority that one must assume extended right up to the White House, probably the OVP. Why then should he have gotten eight years when the doofuses who actually committed the crime got five? For that matter, if you're trying leaders in absentia anyway, why were Bush the Lesser and Shooter Dick not charged? This was nicely covered at Crooks and Liars last April.

It’s not easy for me to generate a lot of sympathy for a CIA man involved in a kidnapping, but I feel sorry for Bob Lady.
[...]
He and his wife loved Italy so much they bought a house in the foothills of the Alps and retired there in 2004. Months later an urgent call came, warning Lady to get out of Dodge — don’t even pack. The cops were on their way.

Tipped off, the Ladys successfully fled the country. But they left behind a bonanza of evidence in their dream home, not the least of which was a CIA surveillance photo of the kidnap victim, Osama Mustafa Hasan Nasr, known as Abu Omar...
The little guy stuck carrying out the operation (that he objected to) had to flee his home to avoid imprisonment, not to mention lost his wife, and all their property in Italy may go to Omar as restitution for his rendition...And the CIA abandoned Lady, disowning him as an employee and refusing to assist him in any way.

So, as with Abu Ghraib, the accountability begins and ends with the least powerful and never makes it up to the top decision makers.

As with everything the administration of Bush the Lesser touched, in this case loyalty only ever worked in one direction. Some days it just sucks to be Mr. Phelps.

"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. We have a mission for you.
...
...
As always, if you're caught or killed the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM:
With any post that involves torture one feels compelled to remind readers that it is not only despicably inhuman, but is totally ineffective as an intelligence tool. Here's a quote on point from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

He became simply a mouth that uttered, a hand that signed, whatever was demanded of him. His sole concern was to find out what they wanted him to confess, and then confess it quickly, before the bullying started anew. He confessed to the assassination of eminent Party members, the distribution of seditious pamphlets, embezzlement of public funds, sale of military secrets, sabotage of every kind. He confessed that he had been a spy in the pay of the Eastasian government as far back as 1968. He confessed that he was a religious believer, an admirer of capitalism, and a sexual pervert. He confessed that he had murdered his wife, although he knew, and his questioners must have known, that his wife was still alive...It was easier to confess everything and implicate everybody.

Clarification: One other small point just to be accurate. For anyone hoping that the US government, Justice Department, Obama administration or any combination of the above will eventually step up, do the right thing, and extradite the guilty parties to Italy - fuggedaboudit. The fact is that extradition requests were made long ago, and were refused. Duh-uh, that's why they were all tried in absentia.

TAGS: Extraordinary Rendition, CIA Kidnappers
The Not So Great War on Tur'r
You Can't Make This Shit Up

Some Good News Amongst the Bad

2009-10-16T17:24:00.006-04:00

There are just a couple items of good news that remind us of what politics would look like if the Democrats would give it half a try. Amongst all the bad stuff, like the recent appointment of a 29-year old Goldman Sachs exec to the investigative branch of the SEC.

The first is the loveable Al Franken's amendment to deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue over things like the gang rape of Jamie Leigh Jones. This has totally exposed the 30 Repuke senators who voted against the amendment as the corporate puppets they are. Here's hoping this is used in future campaigns to unseat the hypocrites.

(Canadians, click here)

In a very similar vein is a bill introduced by Patrick Leahy to remove the exemption to the Anti-trust Act that health care providers have had since just after WWII. Again, this is a perfect opportunity for Republicans and Blue Dogs alike to show their true colors to the nation. After all the whining and posturing they've been doing about letting the market (and the oh-so-trustworthy corporations) take care of every possible problem under the sun in an open competitive market, I can't see how they can credibly argue for a measure that shields the health-care parasites from that very competitive environment. Again, a good move from Democrats both intrinsically for the good of the American people and politically in the fact that it shows something more than the razor-thin space between the parties that we've been seeing lately.

OK, that second bit of good news isn't really that new - the Leahy website announced the intention on September 17. So I'm a month behind. I'm also about a month behind in announcing this other good news - Station Agent is back to blogging at Ice Station Tango. I only found out when I opened up the Blogger editor and saw a recent post had been made there. Pay him a visit, he's always got good topical stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: From The Rachel Maddow Show, we have this clip demonstrating that a vote against the Franken Amendment may well have been a career-ender for at least some of the 30 Repugnicant Senators who voted against it. Again, this is going to make future campaigns against these asshats a slam-dunk for the Democrats when they come up for re-election. If the Democrats can only put somebody in their places who is actually better is another question.

Praise For Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment

"When Republicans are getting called out in
Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia
something big is going on politically."

UPDATE II: Somebody has done a very good thing, starting a website called Republicans For Rape, specifically to target this issue. Check out the page listing those senators who voted against the Franken Amendment - complete with pictures of each. Nothing like a proper rogues' gallery, I always say.

TAGS: Health Care Reform, Anti-trust Exemption, GOP Hypocrisy
The Station Agent Rides Again

Fercryingoutloud, This Blog Needs a COCKTAIL!

2009-09-25T19:18:00.003-04:00

How about this lovely, and very blue, cocktail?

Because nothing says UNRULY more than a blue cocktail.

Cocktails not your thing?

Then get your UNRULY on however you like!

While looking around for a video to embed, I stumbled upon "Pricasso" (absolutely not mis-spelled) and believe me, while I'd love to embed it, I'll just give you the link; it is SO not safe for work, but it's truly unruly art in action - totally pant free!

Still looking for something unruly, blue, and somewhat wasted. This oughta work:

Cheers!

TAGS: Belly up to the bar, Open Thread, Have fun - or else!, Pricasso
Blue Man Group Blue Blue O'Reilly

Axis of Friendship

2009-09-11T07:16:00.003-04:00

(These are my comments I will make this morning at the interfaith observance of the eighth anniversary of 9/11 at the Peace Bell in Newport, Kentucky.)

Since that first September 11th, we have lived in the shadow of an axis of evil. That’s what former President George W. Bush called it. An axis of evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. All accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruct-ion. All used to justify his War on Terror.

But while President Bush was plotting his axis of evil, the September 11th tragedy brought an outpouring of sympathy from all over the world. Throughout Europe, churches on September 12th rang their bells as people held a minute of silence at noon. The world’s sympathy came from places as far off as Tehran, where thousands of Iranians lit candles and stood in silence in the streets of the city in solidarity with the people of the United States.

Friends, we need to remember this. Before the bombs and the torture, there was a unified response by the global community. Prayers of every faith circled the earth…for the healing of the nations.

And I am the one who is just naïve enough to say to you this day – eight years later – that the healing potential of that moment has not been lost. That spontaneous outpouring of goodwill still holds the potential for a new way forward…a spark of the divine still flickers…lighting the point of a new axis: an axis of friendship.

An axis of friendship. Now that may sound all warm and fuzzy to you…kum ba ya, my Lord, and all that jazz. But as a Christian, I know Jesus had some pretty serious things to say about friendship. Like we are to love God and our neighbor. And just to be clear, Jesus added, we are to love our enemies, too. Because when we love our enemies, we create the possibility of their becoming our friends. And Jesus said we are to risk everything for our friends.

Yes, scripture teaches that we are to live peaceably with everyone. And not to be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This means that in the face of dangerous situations and hostile governments, we are called to find solutions that respect human rights and life, that generate mutual respect and accountability, and lead to genuine peace.

An axis of friendship. Is not such a friendship a better and more lasting basis for both international cooperation against terrorism and diplomatic means for solving international conflicts than the exploitation of national tragedies as governments are so want to do? Is not such a friendship a better pathway towards nonviolent solutions than predator drones and video game style wars?

Friends, there are so many hurting places in the world today who desperately need our friendship. Places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where almost six million people have died in the past decade. Places like the Philippines and Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe where governments heap hardship and suffering on the people. And, yes, places like Iran where just this summer we saw people die for the sake of free elections, and North Korea where their nuclear development continues to raise a serious obstacle to peace.

So let us declare at this place – the Peace Bell in Newport, Ky, an axis of friendship. Let us affirm here at this place our commitment to diplomacy for resolving conflicts. And let our pathways home from this place be ways of nonviolence.

And, you know, with our interfaith commission going into hibernation for awhile, the imperative lies with us. We have to take the initiative now. We have to be the ones to extend the hand of friendship. To find ways to celebrate our diversity and to promote understanding. And it starts with us - in our churches, mosques and synagogues.

So let us stand together here today – an axis of friendship – let us affirm our commitment to peace. And let it begin with me, Lord, let peace begin with me. Amen.

TAGS: , 9/11, peace

A Toast To Teddy!

2009-08-26T22:48:00.003-04:00

Raise 'em high!

Ni ceart go cur le cheile:
There is no strength without unity

TAGS: Teddy Kennedy, Liberals Passing, Have a drink

Talking to Wingnutz

2009-08-19T11:30:00.003-04:00

You Tell 'em, Senator Franks!

This is how it should be done. If there were a Talking To Wingnutz Prize, Barney Frank would win it hands down for the line, "on what planet do you spend most of your time?" He would also be runner-up in the same category for the comparison of the questioner to a dining room table.

Honorable mention would go to Rep. Rick Larsen (D - WA) for his now-famous line, "I've got the facts on my side, you've got Glenn Beck."

The Democrats WON the last two elections handily. They should use their position of power to marginalize the wingnutz at every opportunity.
Frankly, I love this stuff!

This woman probably came away from this meeting complaining that Senator Frank didn't take her seriously. Not so. If someone is talking out of their ass, this is HOW you treat them seriously. I mean really, the woman is carrying a sign depicting Barack Obama as Hitler, and she starts her question off with "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?" To acknowledge such an approach as being anything but straight out of the loony bin is to hand the conversation over to those who came straight out of the loony bin.

TAGS:
Republican Idiocy, Comparing People To Furniture, Teabaggers
Senator Barney Frank

Rachel Maddow Has Already Taken Down 60Plus.org, but there's one more little nugget...

2009-08-14T20:44:00.004-04:00

Rachel Maddow has already exposed 60Plus.org's affiliation to Jack Abramoff. But there's a motive and some connections of 60Plus.org, that I wanted to explore, so I did some more digging.

The Ad: In case you haven't seen it. Clearly senior scare mongering -

Rachel Maddow's Take Down and Tie to Abramoff:

The 60Plus.org website:

60Plus.org would like to be known as "the conservative alternative to AARP." It's president is Jim Martin which you wouldn't know from the website itself; you'd need to do an advanced google search to dig up this bio-page:

Now Mr. Martin serves as the President of the 60 Plus Association, which has been called an "increasingly influential lobbying group for the elderly--often viewed as the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons."

60 Plus is a hard hitting organization dedicated to protecting the tax rights of seniors, and to repealing the most confiscatory of all taxes--the inheritance or estate (death) tax. Jim Martin has been quoted as saying that while there are two certainties in life, taxes and death, now, thanks to the death tax, Jim adds a third certainty--taxes after death. 60 Plus presents a Benjamin Franklin Award to Members of Congress in both parties who sponsor legislation to abolish the third certainty, taxes after death. Original sponsors are Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

Pretty classy, hiding the leadership bio page, yes? So who would do that? Well, the firm that provides the technology and registered the domain names, and appears to host 60Plus.org's email servers might do it. And who would that be? Generation X Strategies, GXS.net. And who is GXS.net?

Why it's none other than the recently former head of the VA Republican Party, Jeff Frederick!

Amongst the list of GXS clients which I'd like to highlight are Media Research Center (Bozell's outfit) as well as the RNC and the Texas Christian Coalition. And what else is supercool is that GXS has procured some Federal and State government contracts, as well as a Minority Owned Business status by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Jeff Frederick was ousted as the VA Republican Party Chair in April of this year, but prior to that, since July 8 1996, and up to today runs GXS services
for 60Plus.org, and then therefore powers the contribution technology at 60Plus.org's website, which is what this is all about. Money.

Abramoff (Shill-ius Maximus), Martin (Astroturfius Nastius), Frederick (Republicanus, Head of VA Party), PhRMA (Tauzin, probably hired because he has a drug sounding name) - probably all legal relationships, but they seem way too cozy to me. And the poor saps who are scared by this fearmongering ad have no idea that PhARMA doesn't need their help to keep their drug prices high, but Jim Martin and Jeff Frederick are really happy to facilitate the money exchange for them.

The icing on the cake? 60Plus.org's National Spokesman is Pat Boone. Yep, No More Mr. Nice Guy Pat Boone - and when you think about it, none of them in this tale are nice guys at all if you ask me.

TAGS: Astroturf, Republican Crime Syndicate, Jerks, Scaremongering

Maddow Uses Racial Slur Against AstroTurfers

2009-08-11T17:00:00.005-04:00

Here's an interesting angle on the disruptive Town Hall Protesters.

Is Rachel Maddow Accusing
Conservatives of Being Mafiosi ?!?

In this clip about the Astro-turfing of opposition to, well everything liberal but mostly public health care, Rachel speaks of "an organization that promotes itself as non-parmesan but appears to be anything but." Just listen.

Who's Behind Health Care Disinformation?

(Complete clip is HERE)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now we all know what the Right Wing Wind Machine is going to say about this; that Rachel was cryptically accusing the town hall disruptors of being Italian, which is of course code for Sicilian*, which is code for (cue dramatic riff on pipe organ) THE MOB!!

Obviously the Republican Party and all affiliates mentioned in Rachel's bit will be suing Rachel for defamation of character. Rumor has it that they've already retained the same attorney who's representing Kenneth Gladney, the man who was allegedly beaten by SEIU thugs at a town hall meeting in St. Louis. Good luck with that, Ken; it passes neither the laugh test nor the smell test.

In other news the Italian Anti-Defamation League have announced that they too will be suing Rachel for having associated them with Republicans. I personally think they've got a much stronger case going forward.. These days you ask most people and the Mafia seem downright benign next to the Repugnicants.

In other other news, there has been no response from the Pastafarians as to whether they plan to sue anybody. Most of them seem to be keeping their yearly vigil in keen anticipation of the Second Helping prophesied in their holiest of holy books, known only as the Dinner Menu. Unlike other religions that fast during such times, the Pastafarians keep vigil while eating basket upon delicious basket of fresh garlic bread.

~~~~~~~~~~~
* - Sicilian: (footnote) I realize that the town of Parma, from whence Parmighiani, is in the Italian province of Tuscany, not in Sicily. However, that is what is referred to as a "well-known fact," and as such has no place in any conservative or Republican argument.

TAGS: Rachel Maddow, Town Hall Protests, Astroturfing, Kenneth Gladney

Astroturfing in Denver

2009-08-07T19:06:00.003-04:00

Have a look:

TAGS: Birthers, Deathers, Astroturfing, Activism

Sunday Morning Deep Thought

2009-08-02T11:15:00.003-04:00

FOX "news" really is
FAIR and BALANCED!!

(Who'd a thunk?)

My first internet stops every morning are to Crooks and Liars and Glenn Greenwald. As it happens, both sites were being rather critical of what Station Agent has dubbed the Lamestream Media (abbreviated LaMe) and I would like to call the Lamestream Mediocre, except that most of the time they don't even rise to the level of mediocrity.

Somehow my morning mind (sometimes a little foggy until at least the second cup of strong coffee) had a moment of the utmost clarity. I guess I was thinking, "how does FOX "news" get away with calling themselves fair and balanced, anyway?"

I came up with an answer almost immediately. Got a dictionary handy? Never mind, we can use Merriam Webster's online. Here's the relevant portions of their main entry for the word FAIR (adj.):

1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality

2: superficially pleasing : specious (she trusted his fair promises)

6a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism (a very fair person to do business with)

6b (1): conforming with the established rules : allowed (2): consonant with merit or importance : due (a fair share)

6c: open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule (fair game)

9: not dark (fair skin)

So, quite obviously FOX is implying that they conform to definition 6, but really they mean that they're fair in the sense of definitions 1, 2 and 9. I would say with an emphasis on 2 (and you should really click on the definition of specious if you don't already know it) and 9. And thank Gawd for 6c, though I don't think FOX wanted to imply that definition.

In short, fair and balanced can be taken to mean, "we present you with good-looking, mostly blond newsmodels who at least have the capacity to not fall off of their chairs."

Nor has this escaped those who watch FOX with a rather more critical eye than their target audience do. Media Matters' Simon Malloy did an article on Alternet about the rampant sexism on FOX back in 2006.

A person idly watching Fox News all day, for example, has an excellent chance of glancing at the screen and seeing some partial nudity or a male Fox News personality hitting on a female colleague on the air. Scantily clad women and on-air sexual harassment are the orders of the day over at Fox News Channel.
Take, for instance, Fox News' premier business news program, Your World with Neil Cavuto. Cavuto, Fox News' vice president of business news and the worst James Bond since Timothy Dalton, regularly shows footage of Victoria's Secret runway models and Playboy bunnies -- presumably in the name of business.
Cavuto also has a special obsession with a certain football game played every year in early February: the Lingerie Bowl. Last February, Cavuto interviewed two Lingerie Bowl contenders in their -- ahem -- uniforms. As the News Hounds blog pointed out at the time, this interview was preceded by a one-on-one with Focus on the Family's James C. Dobson, who said that parents must monitor what their children are "looking at because pornography is everywhere, as you [Cavuto] know."

The hypocrisy is phenomenal. Not surprising though when you consider that the greatest consumption of pornography is in the Red States that FOX targets. And they don't really care if a few people in that audience pick up on it either. This little gem appeared in the New York Post (to whom I shall not link) back in 2007. Note the reaction.

CHRISTIAN "media watchdog group" The Resistance is all worked up over the ultra-femme anchors of Fox News. The group's leader, Mark Dice, rants in an e-mail, "I see shorter skirts on the women of Fox News than I do on the prostitutes being arrested on cop shows." Fox responded, "We're always flattered to have everyone talking about us in one form or another."

It may flatter FOX, but I wonder how the objectified newsmodels themselve feel about it? No matter, they're probably grateful for the high paying jobs they hold more for the Clairol™-enhanced outside of their pretty little heads than whatever's on the inside. How grateful? Just go to YouTube and do a search for Megyn Kelly legs" (47 videos!) "Megyn Kelly upskirt" (28) "Gretchen Carlson upskirt" or "Gretchen Carlson legs" (29 videos each.) Or just type "Hot Fox" in the search window and see how it auto-fills. "Hot Fox News Women" has a whopping 314 hits, so don't tell me their viewers aren't obsessing. Thanks to William Mark for this nice paste-up of the T&A FOX shows daily.

FOX News Exploits Sexuality
to Sell Lousy News Programming

But then, I don't really know. FOX isn't even a part of my satellite package.
(sigh)

TAGS: Sex SELLS!, Fox News Anchorwomen, Presstitution
Is this what they mean by a story that's got legs?

OFF With Their Our PANTS

2009-07-31T21:00:00.001-04:00

Canadian Protesters to Moon US Spy Balloon

Woo Hoo! This one's a gem. From Raw Story:

A Canadian man is planning what local press called a "moon mission" in protest of a U.S. spy balloon being tested for the Department of Homeland Security. In other words, when the balloon flies, he and other Canadians (he hopes) will give its operators a glimpse at how they feel about the aerial spying.

The Vancouver Sun kept score:
A Sarnia resident is organizing a protest to express his displeasure over a balloon equipped with a surveillance camera that was hoisted last week just across the St. Clair River in Port Huron, Mich., with its eyes set on the border.

Eli Martin said Thursday he hopes protesters at "moon the balloon" will simultaneously drop their trousers to send a signal that Sarnia "doesn't like being watched."

The 15-metre long balloon has a high-tech camera capable of identifying the name on a ship 12-15 kilometres out in Lake Huron, according to the American company operating it. The Sierra Nevada Corp., is testing the technology that could eventually be used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley, according to the report, called it the "Port Huron Hindenburg" and demanded the Canadian prime minister stand up for citizens' privacy.

Let's hope there are lots of sunny days in Sarnia so that the patriotic residents there don't catch a chill when they drop trou for freedom. And even though I see a contradiction in someone exposing themselves over the issue of privacy, I say go for it boys and girls. You're all inducted into the Unruly Mob as far as I'm concerned.

Ella Fitzgerald: "Blue Moon"

TAGS: Canada, Protest, The Fundaments of Democracy, PEEK-a-boo!!

Beyond Race: On "Contempt of Cop" Regarding The Crowley/Gates Affair

2009-07-30T23:07:00.001-04:00

In my opinion, there was undoubtedly some racial profiling going on in the Crowley/Gates affair. I'll leave the racial component to others, as what I wish to draw out are some underlying points as regards the relationship between all of us citizens, our rights and the police.

First, bmaz articulates the basis of the legal argument better than I can:

Instead, the officer seems to have become angered and bellegerent [sic] that Gates would be so forward as to demand his identification. At this point, little old Professor Gates, who walks with a cane, was in what is known in the criminal justice field as "contempt of cop".
The salient problem for the Cambridge Police Department is contempt of cop is simply not a crime, even if profanity is directed at the officer, a situation escalator not even present in Gates' case. In fact, there is a case I have argued with success many times, Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) which, in an opinion written by now 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, provides:

Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
...
No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows--or should know--that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

Sounds pretty much on point doesn't it? It is. The City of Cambridge, Sergeant Crowley, and the other individual officers actively participating in the wrongful arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates are in a world of hurt legally. They may want to rethink the company line of no official apology.

Pretty much lays out the legal side, no? So let's move on to the society and relationship pieces, which are woven together by who else, the traditional media.

While most of the chattering class is interested in beer today, there were a few "poker tells" thrown in about the underlying issue; Do What Cops Say Or Else. From the years ago, formerly vaunted, but now pretty much noise machine NPR today there was anthe following article on All Things Considered.

Doing the usual, mush-mouthed, split-the-baby vis-a-vis Colbert "Bad Stenographers" type of reporting Tovia Smith offered this:

Adams is calling for a federal investigation into whether local police make unjustifiable or illegal arrests.
"We're going to have to compel them to examine what needs to be done. And to look at [whether they are] misusing the disorderly conduct statute to teach people a lesson who talk back to police officers," Adams says.
To others, Gates' arrest shows that the public needs educating as much as the police do.
"That learning curve should be on both sides," says Dr. Joe Thomas Jr., police chief in Southfield, Mich. He says citizens need to know not to cross the line with police. It's not so much about protecting police egos as it is about public safety.
"There's a certain amount of respect. There are certain things you don't say to ministers; there are certain things you shouldn't say to your mom, your dad, or the clergy," Thomas says. "It's how you talk to people that got responsibility and authority for controlling people, because if you disrespect them, you take away that authority and it hurts everybody." [emphasis added]

You can listen to the audio here, and you tell me if Joe Thomas' tone of voice is irrelevant.

This was not Joe Thomas' only appearance on a PBS network about this issue. He was also on Newshour, in a segment with Ray Suaresz and Professor Antwi Akom:

...

JOSEPH THOMAS, JR., Chief, Southfield Police Department: I think that there are some studies out there that this does happen in some areas, in some communities, but let`s not get too far away from this incident, because this is what we`re talking about. This is why we`re here. If not, we`re talking about a larger study.

This incident, as a law enforcement executive, when I saw this, first thing that went through my mind is a lack of training. That incident that occurred to that professor could and should have been handled differently.

Now, that does not mean that this officer did something that was against the law. I`m not going to go that far, because I don`t know the totality of the circumstances.

But I do know, from my personal standpoint, my law enforcement career standpoint, based upon my working with students and colleges and university settings, and I also own my own consulting company, G.I. Consulting (ph), that case or that incident should have been handled differently.

There`s no doubt about it; there`s a lack of training there.

RAY SUAREZ: So, Chief, just so I understand you, you`re saying by definition, if a mistaken call of a crime in progress occurs and it`s understood by both parties in an encounter that there is not a crime in progress, if somebody ends up getting arrested and led away in handcuffs, this wasn`t handled properly?

JOSEPH THOMAS, JR.: It could have been handled differently. I don`t use the word improperly. With the proper training, it could have been handled differently.

This is why I made the statement in the copy of today`s USA Today that, when you began to react and interact with a police officer in a negative manner, then the humanistic sides take place and you can -- sometimes I talk to my people of color about police demeanor and police training.

And you can talk your way into a ticket. I`ve seen people talk their way in jail by saying things to antagonize the police on the scene. And that could have been what happened here.

So we`ve got to be extremely careful and look at this case by itself, and then we voice our opinion. If not, we`re going to start talking about what happened in the `50s, the `40s, the `30s and `60s, and you won`t solve this problem.

I`ve seen a lot of cases, cases throughout this country, where we saw emotions and we saw personal frame of reference and we don`t solve the problem. If we don`t look at this from a training standpoint and take a look at what those officers are being taught in the academy and their enrichment training and what they`re taught to do, this incident will reoccur, if you don`t change the policy and training, rituals, beliefs and values of people that are in the law enforcement industry. That`s what I`m saying about this incident.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me turn to Professor Akom at this point. Professor Akom, does a black man have to handle an encounter with the police different from any other American?

ANTWI AKOM, San Francisco State University: No, I think that we should all be handling encounters with the police by following exactly what the police say. At the same time, I think that racial profiling is a rampant problem and that we need to very much be focused on making sure that racial profiling -- i.e., the criminal suspicion of people based on race -- there`s a psychological impact that I think that we need to be concerned about and that that this is actually broader than a law enforcement problem.

This is actually a problem that is also a public health problem. But in terms of reaction, I think that, yes, black Americans are no different than any other American, and we need to respond in the same way.

And voila! Yes, I said this post was beyond race, but behold; PBS put on two men of color who said basically "Do What The Police Say - Don't Get Uppity." Because the big message here was to anybody who would watch or listen to either of these PBS articles, much less any other trad med that might have pushed into this confrontation piece; Don't Any Citizens Talk Back To Authority. Have Respect Or Else You Get What You Deserve.

What is particularly bothering me, is that living in Denver, I have very recent memories of the Police State occupying town last year.

Nonetheless, I say:

TAGS: Crowley, Gates, Racial Profiling, Police State

No Real Public Option?

2009-07-28T20:25:00.007-04:00

We still have a long way to go, but Congress looks like they have no problem handing the president a piece of trash and call it heal care reform.

If they do Mr. President, you have to throw that bill away.

You put a couple of big tin garbage cans out on the White House lawn. Take the garbage legislation Congress is about to give you, and drop it in there. Then tell the country that between now and November 2010, you'll be campaigning for members of and candidates for Congress that will pass a public option or single payer health care reform. Starting with Max Baucus, you show up in the districts and states of every Democrat and Republican that would not allow Americans the right of health insurance. We would rather wait two MORE years than allow the lobbyists to pass a "bi-partisan" piece of turd that does nothing but make this country even more unhealthy and even more economically unjust.

And if that doesn't work, roll out the trash can again and try to pass proper reform in 2012 and keep on pushing until it gets done right.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein has an opposing view.

UPDATE 2: Jane Hamsher says that Ohio's Sherrod Brown and the progressives in the Senate will not give up on the public option so easily.

TAGS: Health Care Reform, Public Option, Barack Obama, Election 2010

Mission Accomplished

2009-07-24T11:50:00.003-04:00

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal,
before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon
and returning him safely to the Earth.

-- John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961 --"

I didn't want to give short shrift to this, technically the most difficult task of this or any moon mission, and the one that really meant the most to the astronauts and their families. The splashdown occurred at 16:50:35 UTC on July 24, 1969 @ 13°19′N 169°9′W.

TAGS: Apollo 11, Splashdown
Home again, home again, jiggedy jig

Apollo 11 and the Triumph of Liberalism

2009-07-16T08:32:00.006-04:00

The Launch: July 16, 1969, 8:32 AM EDT

Some memories will always be with you, and for anyone who is "of an age" Apollo 11 has just GOT to be one of those memories. One thing that always bugged me about it though; Inspired by a speech given by John F. Kennedy and financed through the Lyndon Johnson administration, America's space program was as liberal as anything in America's history; tax and spend on a scale as massive as the Saturn V rocket itself. But it would be hard to argue that that spending didn't benefit US businesses, who responded with innovations as widespread as the microchip and Velcro™. Still, it's not Kennedy's signature or LBJ's that graces the commemorative plaque at Tranquility Base that will mark the event uncorroded for centuries, even millenia. No, it's Richard Nixon's. Nixon also took advantage of the event for his own political ends by staging a live telephone call to the moon which was broadcast live on all networks at the time -- this in spite of his government having slashed funding for space exploration and the Apollo program in particular. So yes, the Nixon plaque sticks in my craw.

Those Nixon cut-backs were done in such a ham-fisted manner that three flights already scheduled were cancelled. The Saturn booster rockets already built had to be abandoned. Today all three are on display in various locations. "One is located at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Texas while another is at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. A third Saturn V is on display at the United States Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville near the Marshall Space Flight Center." How ignominious that these machines destined to put Apollos 18, 19 and 20 on the moon ended up as giant rusting hulks where generations of birds now nest! How shameful for America that the reason that those flights were cancelled was so that Nixon could expand the bloody and useless Vietnam War and make secret incursions into Cambodia.

I didn't watch either the launch, nor the landing, nor the first moonwalk live on TV - my family was at the cottage that week. I listened live on the radio. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the DJ who spun the first platter of music after the news bulletin chose this song, the #2 hit of 1969:

CCR: Bad Moon Rising

There's another Nixon connection here.

“[writer John] Fogerty claims it was written on the day Richard Nixon was elected to power in the States, and it reflects the sense of unease in the air and the portents of what was to follow.”

Triumph of liberalism? Maybe not, but for one glorious shining moment we showed what Big Government can do.

TAGS: Space Program, Apollo 11, America's Finest Hour,
The Coolest Things of All Time
No, it wasn't a damned hoax, you f#@King pinhead!!

Call It "Medicare for Everyone" And Just Get Over It Already

2009-07-11T22:04:00.012-04:00

If you take this whole health care legislation thing seriously these days like I do, you should take 35 minutes and watch this piece from Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: So why are you speaking out now?
WENDELL POTTER: I didn't intend to, until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.
BILL MOYERS: But during this 15 years you were there, did you go to them and say, "You know, I think we're on the wrong side. I think we're fighting the wrong people here."
WENDELL POTTER: You know, I didn't, because for most of the time I was there, I felt that what we were doing was the right thing. And that I was playing on a team that was honorable. I just didn't really get it all that much until toward the end of my tenure at Cigna.
BILL MOYERS: What did you see?
WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans. I--
BILL MOYERS: When was this?
WENDELL POTTER: This was in July of 2007.
BILL MOYERS: You were still working for Cigna?
WENDELL POTTER: I was. I went home, to visit relatives. And I picked up the local newspaper and I saw that a health care expedition was being held a few miles up the road, in Wise, Virginia. And I was intrigued.
BILL MOYERS: So you drove there?
WENDELL POTTER: I did. I borrowed my dad's car and drove up 50 miles up the road to Wise, Virginia. It was being held at a Wise County Fairground. I took my camera. I took some pictures. It was a very cloudy, misty day, it was raining that day, and I walked through the fairground gates. And I didn't know what to expect. I just assumed that it would be, you know, like a health-- booths set up and people just getting their blood pressure checked and things like that.
But what I saw were doctors who were set up to provide care in animal stalls. Or they'd erected tents, to care for people. I mean, there was no privacy. In some cases-- and I've got some pictures of people being treated on gurneys, on rain-soaked pavement.
And I saw people lined up, standing in line or sitting in these long, long lines, waiting to get care. People drove from South Carolina and Georgia and Kentucky, Tennessee-- all over the region, because they knew that this was being done. A lot of them heard about it from word of mouth.
There could have been people and probably were people that I had grown up with. They could have been people who grew up at the house down the road, in the house down the road from me. And that made it real to me.
BILL MOYERS: What did you think?
WENDELL POTTER: It was absolutely stunning. It was like being hit by lightning. It was almost-- what country am I in? I just it just didn't seem to be a possibility that I was in the United States. It was like a lightning bolt had hit me.
BILL MOYERS: People are going to say, "How can Wendell Potter sit here and say he was just finding out that there were a lot of Americans who didn't have adequate insurance and needed health care? He'd been in the industry for over 15 years."
WENDELL POTTER: And that was my problem. I had been in the industry and I'd risen up in the ranks. And I had a great job. And I had a terrific office in a high-rise building in Philadelphia. I was insulated. I didn't really see what was going on. I saw the data. I knew that 47 million people were uninsured, but I didn't put faces with that number.
Just a few weeks later though, I was back in Philadelphia and I would often fly on a corporate aircraft to go to meetings.
And I just thought that was a great way to travel. It is a great way to travel. You're sitting in a luxurious corporate jet, leather seats, very spacious. And I was served my lunch by a flight attendant who brought my lunch on a gold-rimmed plate. And she handed me gold-plated silverware to eat it with. And then I remembered the people that I had seen in Wise County. Undoubtedly, they had no idea that this went on, at the corporate levels of health insurance companies.
BILL MOYERS: But you had, all these years, seen premiums rising. People purged from the rolls, people who couldn't afford the health care that Cigna and other companies were offering. This is the first time you came face to face with it?
WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, it was. You know, certainly, I knew people, and I talked to people who were uninsured. But when you're in the executive offices, when you're getting prepared for a call with an analyst, in the financial medium, what you think about are the numbers. You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations. That's what you think about, at that level. And it helps to think that way. That's why you-- that enables you to stay there, if you don't really think that you're talking about and dealing with real human beings.
BILL MOYERS: Did you go back to corporate headquarters and tell them what you had seen?
WENDELL POTTER: I went back to corporate headquarters. I was trying to process all this, and trying to figure out what I should do. I did tell many of them about the experience I had. And the trip. I showed them some pictures I took while I was down there. But I didn't know exactly what I should do.
You know, I had bills of my own. And it was hard to just figure out. How do I step away from this? What do I do? And this was one of those things that made me decide, "Okay, I can't do this. I can't keep-- I can't." One of the books I read as I was trying to make up my mind here was President Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage."
And in the forward, Robert Kennedy said that one of the president's, one of his favorite quotes was a Dante quote that, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain a neutrality." And when I read that, I said, "Oh, jeez, I-- you know. I'm headed for that hottest place in hell, unless I say something."
BILL MOYERS: Your own resume says, and I'm quoting. "With the chief medical officer and his staff, Potter developed rapid response mechanisms for handling media inquiries pertaining to complaints." Direct quote. "This was highly successful in keeping most such inquiries from becoming news stories, at a time when managed care horror stories abounded." I mean, you knew there were horror stories out there.
WENDELL POTTER: I did. I did.
BILL MOYERS: You put these techniques to work, representing Cigna doing the Nataline Sarkisyan case, right?
WENDELL POTTER: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: And that was a public relations nightmare, you called it. Right?
WENDELL POTTER: It was. It was just the most difficult. We call them high profile cases, when you have a case like that — a family or a patient goes to the news media and complains about having some coverage denied that a doctor had recommended. In this case, Nataline Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA had recommended that she have a liver transplant. But when the coverage request was reviewed at Cigna, the decision was made to deny it.
It was around that time, also, that the family had gone to the media, had sought out help from the California Nurses Association and some others to really bring pressure to bear on Cigna. And they were very successful in getting a lot of media attention, and nothing like I had ever seen before.
[PROTESTERS: Shame on Cigna! Shame on Cigna!]
WENDELL POTTER: It got everyone's attention. Everyone was focused on that in the corporate offices.
BILL MOYERS: You were also involved in the campaign by the industry to discredit Michael Moore and his film "Sicko" in 2007. In that film Moore went to several countries around the world, and reported that their health care system was better than our health care system, in particular, Canada and England. Take a look at this.
[snip]
MICHAEL MOORE: Even with insurance, there's bound to be a bill somewhere. So where's the billing department?
BRITISH WOMAN #1: There isn't really a billing department.
BRITISH WOMAN #2: There's no such thing as a billing department.
MICHAEL MOORE: What did they charge you for that baby?
BRITISH WOMAN #3: Sorry?
MICHAEL MOORE: You've got to pay before you can get out of here, right?
BRITISH WOMAN #3: No.
BRITISH MAN #1: No, no, no. Everything's on NHS.
BRITISH WOMAN #3: This is NHS.
BRITISH MAN #1: You know, it's not America.
BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film?
WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.
BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?
WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.
BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?
WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

So let's do this:

Call it "Medicare for Everyone", which every American will understand instantly and not connect it with some dumb fuck idea of socialism, and let the HealthCareProvider CEOs pee their fucking pants.

Interview, Part One

Interview, Part Two

Happy 4th of July (Bumped)

2009-07-09T13:10:00.000-04:00

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

-- Thomas Jefferson --

MILLION CAN UPDATE:

Cans 1,358
Cash $1,965
I'll have some comments and links tomorrow.

Don't forget that the push is on to get some numbers up for the Million Can March today, and show the wingnuts that real grass roots beats Astroturf™ any day.

Mention your donations on the thread below so that RevPhat can total them up.

TAGS: Million CAN March, Yes We CAN, Hunger, Independence Day

Blast from the past; last June that is...

2009-07-09T03:17:00.003-04:00

From Last June, PRIOR to the FISA vote by Obama.

Let's just have a look:

Pitchfork? Check.

Torch? Check.

Unruly attitude? Check.

OK let's go:

In all the noise and fury of the last primary run, and Scott McClellan's book last week, there's a unruly gem in them thar hills:

"David Sirota is a clear-headed and principled hell-raiser for economic justice. More like him and we'll have a real uprising on our hands. "
—Naomi Klein, author of "No Logo" and "The Shock Doctrine"

Do I have your attention, Mob? Good, I thought so.

I saw this on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!" show last night. I am a latecomer to David Sirota. He has been blogging on Squarestate.net which is a major Colorado progressive blog, (credentialed to the DNC by the way) and I always thought he was interesting, but I had never dug fiercely into him before. Last night's show had me absolutely riveted.

You can watch the whole show here, but I have excerpted a couple of points:

His observations about Obama, the political process this cycle being the "starting point, not the end point" and further observations about "direct action" making Wall Street and K Street "scared" are just music to my ears. Literally.

Just listen to what he says about the Iraq War. We've been saying it for the longest time!
AMY GOODMAN: David Sirota, you talk about conflicts of interest within the antiwar movement: the antiwar movement, which enjoys widespread support, and the politicians who ally themselves with pro-war consultants.
DAVID SIROTA: Right. What happened, in the chapter that I reported on the antiwar movement, is back in 2007, what we found is that you just had an election where the Democrats were elected promising to end the war, and what ended up happening was that the same Democratic Congress refused to really do what it takes to actually end the war. And part of that was, I think, a strategic decision on behalf of the antiwar organizations in Washington about how they said we could end the war. You had consultants who were simultaneously being paid by the Democratic Party and Democratic Party politicians.
AMY GOODMAN: Like?
DAVID SIROTA: You had Hildebrand Tewes. You had consulting firms. They were the lead consulting firm. And I don’t mean to pick on them. It’s just that they were the consulting firm that was heading up the major coalition in Washington of antiwar groups. And so, the strategy that came out of those antiwar groups was we have to simply bash the Republicans to end the war, when in fact, of course, Congress was controlled entirely by Democrats. Last I checked, Democrats have forty-one senators in the US Senate, if they wanted to filibuster a bill to continue funding the war [sic-they could]. They haven’t done that. Yet the strategy kept saying, well, we have to only focus the ads, the media buys and the pressure on Republicans. It was sort of a dishonest strategy, and I think it had something to do with the fact that you have organizations in Washington that put partisan affinity over movement goals. [emphasis mine]

He is totally speaking our Unruly Language, I do believe. The part about sneaking into the Exxon Shareholder meeting is GREAT!

Watch the whole show, (Sirota's interview starts at 30 minutes into the stream) and buy the book. I have never EVER said buy something before on this blog, but I'm telling you I am buying it, and from what I saw of the interview, Sirota's insights into the whole political process and "direct action" really speak to what we as the Unruly Mob hold dear.

Pitchfork? Check.
Torch? Check.
Unruly attitude? Check.

OK let's go!

Are we really anywhere different than this point from last June? I say "No, we're not." Do you?

Observe with scrutiny from 2:00 in the video. [Observe with a harsh eye, and you tell me that it hasn't worked out better for the corporations than for you or me.] Up until 2:45.

There was simply no choice last summer/fall. There is no way I or anyone I know or trust would have voted McCain/Palin.

But what do we do now?

Personally, I don't care to punt.

TAGS: Democracy Now!, David Sirota, "Uprising", Let's Do Something Besides Blog, Unruly, Uprising, I'm Not surprisd one fucking bit by what has happened, are you?

Your Cans Count Here!

2009-06-28T14:45:00.009-04:00

July the 4th is just around the corner. Now is the time to put your best intentions into action. Clean out those pantry shelves (but please double check those expiration dates), go to Costco or wherever you get the most bang for your buck, and tell your friends it's time to pony up.

Then count the number of items you are donating and take them to your local pantry or shelter. If you live in the Northern Ky/Cincy area you can bring them to the church Sunday morning, July 5th. We serve breakfast at 9:15 and worship is at 10:45 a.m.

Finally blog about your efforts and send me the link in the comments section. If you don't blog, then just tell me your total in the comments. I'll do a final tally in a post shortly after the 4th and include the links to your blogs.

If you make a cash donation to your pantry, let me know the amount and I'll list those as well. There seemed to be some confusion about cash donations. These would be made to your local pantry. (Unless you're feeling the love and want to make those checks out to the RevPhat Benevolent Association.) Whether cans or cash, everything is to be done on the local level.

Thanks to QuakerDave we have a facebook group page. So tell all your friends to get on board.

And if you need a reminder of what this is all about click here.

PLEASE EVERYONE: Email Rachel daily (or even hourly?) Some of you have asked me about contacting Rachel Maddow's producers or asked my permission to do something or the other. Permission is hereby granted to do whatever is necessary - and legal - to get the word out. And you don't have to limit it to Rachel only. Call KO or Wolfie over at CNN. If anyone knows Markos or has an in at Daily Kos send them the word. I've tried emailing him, but I'm only one small voice.

Now it's time to get busy. Talk this up to your friends. Blogwhore it widely. ONE MILLION CANS: YES WE CAN! LET'S DO THIS!!

Come, all you who are thirsty…and you who have no money, come and eat! (That Unruly Isaiah 55:1)

[Hey Rev P, sorry but I'm butting in on your post, to amplify, and well, push the harsh reality... smooch, UC/Kelly Canfield]

Let's get real about the scope of what we are proposing against the reality of what exists. 2 years ago, I had the privilege of the Lincoln NE Foodbank letting me in to see a bit of the operations they do:

And if you think it's ONE BIT BETTER TODAY, you gotta another think coming. The new survey for the "Hunger In America" study has only just been completed and is not available at this writing. But from what I am hearing from Lincoln and Denver, the need is devastatingly larger.

And a Million Cans will be grateful, useful, but far less than the need. The visibility YOU can help with will totally make a difference; SO DO IT!

Grab the button; here:

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" width="165" height="150" id="MillionCanMarch" align="middle"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="false" /> <param name="movie" value="http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/MillionCanMarch.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /> <embed src="http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/MillionCanMarch.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="165" height="150" name="MillionCanMarch" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" allowFullScreen="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /> </object>

Now smile: :)

TAGS: Million Can March, hunger, hunger in America, activism

Make Glorious Kulture Learnings of Klowns

2009-06-26T23:31:00.007-04:00

Komrades!

Komrad Sanford so misunderstood. He's actually "King David."

Do not these liberal fools understand? He was just doing it "his way."

Evidently, so is Komrad Obama.

Drink! It's the Weekend! Then Dis-Cuss!

TAGS: Mock!, Mock Freely!, Mock Mark Sanford, Mock Republicans because hey they're mock-worthy

How One Gets Along - My Story About Domnique Starr

2009-06-23T03:59:00.001-04:00

In the past I related this story.

It was really quite formative of my youth, and now here's the next truly formative age, fast forwarding in time to 1980.

I came out 30 years ago. Bit by bit, piece by piece, social segment by social segment, and my family last. I never realized till much later, and still think to this day, that "coming out" is a process, rather than an event. And so, from the beginning, my process unrolled, and continues to do so.

From the pot-smoke filled '71 Mustang where I told my best friend the first time in '79, until I told my mother in '80, there were layers. And ever since then too. Experimentation of HOW to just get the words out were a big deal to me (still is.)

We're talking about 1979 and 1980 after all. In backwards Phoenix AZ to nail the place as well as time. It was so different there, then. Violence was really an issue for me. It was so prevalent. [The story of the scar on my ass while I was getting mugged doesn't happen till '84, and is a different post.]

After the fits and starts, I began to get the hang of the words, and how to come out. Surprisingly quickly, but surprisingly devastatingly.

You'll never believe this, but my school was actually the easiest entity to come out in. A boys only Jesuit High School.

Reading that sentence above, I realize I'm going to give a lot of people the wrong impression. It was no homo playground. That school was so right wing and jock oriented, it was tough to be myself. But it was also such a world, where intelligence, acumen and loyalty totally counted, that I had some amazing experiences, particularly when I was homeless.

That's right; homeless, which really wasn't a word at the time, or at least didn't have the same cachet or meaning of circumstances.You see, to come out as publicly gay was "simply not suitable, this is disgraceful" thus, I could not be allowed in the home. Away with you!

Which was perfectly fine with me then. At that minute that I handed my mother the key to our house, and turned away, I knew the life I had expected was gone, and whatever was going to happen was not what I had expected previously. At that point I was 17 years old by less then a months worth of days.

Dominique Starr was still in my future by about 6 weeks.

What I did during those earliest days, was make deals with some of the guys at school. Two in particular. Let me store my suitcase in your trunk, and sleep in your car. I'll do your homework. Worked for about two weeks, as I'd shower at school, and keep that whole suitcase thing to a minimum. The clothes situation I handled by sneaking into the locker room, and doing my clothes in the school's laundry. So far, so good.

Busted! About 3 weeks into this, I'm innocently going to my goddamn LATIN class, first class of the day, and get hauled into the Principle's Office.

He was a prick to begin with. SOP - Standard Operating Procedure. Then -

Mike: How are things going?
Me: Fine.
Mike: No, I mean how are things going with you living with your dad?
Me: What?
Mike: Your Mom tells us you're not living with her.
Me: True.
Mike: Your Dad lives in San Diego, right?
Me: Yes.
Mike: Then where are you living exactly?
Me: [hackles rise] What do you care? I'm coming to class every day.
Mike: This is what we find amazing.
Me: What?
Mike: Because in normal circumstances, you'd be long gone. You wouldn't be here. Most kids run away and don't go to school. You've run away, and you still show up. What's the deal?

Honest to God, right then I lit a cigarette in his office; right then and there.

Me: Mike I didn't run away, I was thrown out.
Mike: Put out that cigarette.
Me: Sorry, nope.
Mike: Don't call me Mike, It's Father _____, and put out that smoke. [Fr. Mike was smoking BTW. Those were the days at that time.]
Me: No. You can throw me out, but since I'm responsible for myself, res ipsa loquitur. [The thing speaks for itself. I actually really said that. The Jesuit took notice, and hard.]

Mike: [pushes himself back from his desk] What are you saying?
Me: I am responsible for myself. [I blew a cloud of smoke out at then. The irrepressible hippy/punk kid.]

[big pause]

Mike: So you're not living with your mother?
Me: No I'm not.
Mike: You're not living with your father?
Me: No I'm not.
Mike: Where are you living?
Me: However I can.
Mike: [the ever keen Jesuit] you said however. I asked where are you living?
Me: I told you. However I can.

Good ol' Mike spun his chair around, where he didn't have to observe the next exchange.

Mike: We're prepared to make a deal with you.
Me: About what?
Mike: Tuition.
Me: [trepidatiously] OK
Mike: Yeah, your mom, well, you, if I read your thoughts correctly, owe the school about $10,000.
Me: No no no. She sued my dad for tuition, and won. You should have been paid. I only owe for today forward.
Mike: Sadly, that's not the case. There's nothing paid on your account beyond the first enrollment of your freshman year.

Dear reader, you cannot imagine my fury, angst or impotence that I felt at that very moment, as those feelings were fused, all together at a single point in time. My parents used me as a pawn between each other, threw me out the house, AND dumped the whole Jebbie School debt on me simultaneously. Freaks, really. That's all changed but only in degree, not in substance. And I fell sorry for both the parents, but in different ways, which is for another telling.

It didn't dawn on me for years that this selfsame Jesuit asshole who was basically CEO of a mini prep college was badgering a homeless kid for thousands of dollars. I bought into his meme for a while - and cut a deal. That's what you do with the Republicans In Charge, right?

I got to stay homeless and agree to thousands in debt with these fabulous Christians.

Needless to say, it totally got around the grapevine what my situation really was, and the kids who were in-the-know and at all sympathetic dried up, as their parents really couldn't have "such a situation." It was really socially unacceptable. My life was really unacceptable at that point. Until I met;

Dominique Starr.

Dominique was a transsexual and performing at several bars around town, the seedy ones you know. Including one in the neighborhood of 3rd and Roosevelt [back in the day] where she busted me blowing some dude for cash.
Her fury was legendary, the dude was instantly disappeared, and I was esconced on her couch in her apartment immediately. Dominique Starr was a Saint to me.

You cannot, dear reader, imagine the relief that Dominique provided me. Street knowledge alone kept me from being killed. Aside from that, she was a real Pridester (as I call it now.) She was FIERCE! and Proud and simply couldn't accept what had happened to her, happening to anybody else. I hung onto her for advice all through the early and mid 1980's when we had the MLK marches happening in Phoenix too. She was fantastic and unsung and passed away from AIDS in '85.

Dominique was a shrewd character; she only co-signed for my apartment when I had ponied up 6 months worth of rent for the 6 month lease I signed in 1980. (Don't ask how I put the money away.)

I was devoted to her; how could I not be?

So aside from the whole DOMA/DADT bullshit going on lately, I simply can't countenance any ENDA legislation that does not include the "T's".

I only understand help and freedom from where I got it, and I ain't abandoning that source. What Dominique did for me mattered; what I do in her memory matters too.

No more kids rooting around in garbage cans and alleys or blowing tricks for a living. They're human and this nightmare has to stop.

And just let me tell you this, whether you like it or not; you have seen one of these kids. You have passed by them in some McDonalds or Taco Bell as you go through your life. Someplace like that. You just haven't seen them in their seedy reality, unless, you actually have. And if you have;

Are you Dominique Starr? Can you help one of these kids?

Do it. I find for myself I simply must do something that helps.

TAGS: LABEL, LABEL, LABEL, LABEL

The Million Can March Wants You

2009-06-19T18:00:00.003-04:00

Dear Ms. Maddow,

On July 4th, Teabaggers will be having another one of their astroturfy tea parties protesting the evil rise of socialism. Only this time, liberal bloggers are busy organizing a real grassroots counterprotest. If the Teabaggers are afraid of socialism, then we'll show them the horrors of socialism. And what is more socialistic than sharing our food with the hungry?

To help our struggling food banks this summer, the Million Can March will raise one million cans of food by July 4th.

And since we are all in this together, we're inviting conservative bloggers to come to the party and bring the drinks!

The Million Can March is starting to pick up steam. But one lesson we should learn from the tea party movement is that you can't have enough media attention. Please, Ms. Maddow, would you consider mentioning the Million Can March on your program - again and again and again - relentlessly for these next two weeks. We would be most appreciative.

Imagine a million cans of food dropped off at food pantries and shelters across the country. Yes we can!

Sincerely,
RevPhat

The unruly thing to do is for everyone to email Ms. Maddow at rachel@msnbc.com everyday for the next week and see if we can get her attention. It's not stalking if it's for a good cause, right?

TAGS: Million Can March, hunger, hunger in America, activism

Mr Miyagi Says

2009-06-19T02:50:00.004-04:00

Yoda lookalike Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel an important lesson in this clip from The Karate Kid.

"Man Who Catches Fly With Chopsticks
Can Accomplish Anything."

And by now we've all seen this video:

The Swatta From Chicagga

So how 'bout it Mr. President? You killed a fly and didn't even need the chopsticks! So when are you going to start accomplishing some of the things you were elected for? Just for starters, I'd suggest some investigations of the previous administrations many and varied crimes. You should also think about providing real effective healthcare for all Americans, there are a LOT of other countries that have already accomplished that. There are a dozen other things that you promised in your campaign (and I'm still being solicited for donations BTW) and then reneged on. And finally, you could start standing up to the Republican party for a change. I don't know if you remember this, but THEY LOST THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

TAGS: LABEL, LABEL, LABEL, LABEL

8 Reasons For The Fierce Urgency and Advocacy of Seperate And Unequal

2009-06-12T21:47:00.012-04:00

The Obama administration, in the persons of the DOJ's Tony West, James Gilligan and W. Scott Simpson gave eight legal reasons in the form of a Motion to Dismiss Smelt/Hammer v. United States of America why gay people are separate and unequal. A summary list of those reasons:

1 - Court Lacked Jurisdiction
2 - Plaintiff's Claim Lacks Standing
3 - DOMA is a Valid Exercise of Congress' Power under the Full Faith & Credit Clause
4 - DOMA Cannot Be Said to Violate an "Asserted Right to Travel"
5 - DOMA is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles
6 - DOMA Does Not Violate the Right to Privacy
7 - DOMA Cannot Be Said to Infringe on any Rights of Speech
8 - DOMA Cannot Be Said to Infringe on any "Right" under the 9th Amendment

Reasons 1 and 2 are techno-legal, and can be dismissed as regards the separate and unequal discussion that follows. These same technical reasons could have been enough for the Obama DOJ to weigh in on the Constitutional basis that the President is required to do if s/he feels that the case at issue IS Constitutional. If the case is deemed un-constitutional, the President is free to not defend the damn law.

The Department of Justice may also notify Congress of a refusal to defend an impugned statute without appearing in court for either side. As recently as 2005, the Department of Justice notified congress that it would not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta (civil action no. 04-0262).

Since PresBO's DOJ wieghed in, points 1 & 2 alone would have sufficed if the Administration meant it's campaign claims, namely that DOMA was "abhorrent" and should be repealed, yet felt on technical bases that the case lacke merit or standing.

And yes, repeal means a legislative process. But the Administration has not sponsored or introduced their own legislation. But they did offer the remaining six reasons why I am separate and unequal along with other gay people. Frankly, this leads me to the belief that the campaign promise was empty, hollow, as actions are louder than words as we all know.

Let's have a look at the interesting points and most egregious claims in this Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor who hired Obama as a research assistant in Obama's first year law:

"I certainly agree (a) that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, at least as applied to couples like those who are currently challenging it in federal court here in Massachusetts.... I'm not at all reluctant to have it known that I think the equality component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause forbids the federal government to deny same-sex spouses benefits identical to those that it would grant to opposite-sex spouses when the spouses are "married" under the law of their state -- that is, when the spouses were married and reside in states where the law forbids a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and rejects the DOMA definition of 'marriage.'"

From DOMAFlipFlop:

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is Clearly Unconstitutional

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7 states, ““In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word „marriage‟ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word „spouse‟ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Because of this interpretation guideline, same-sex couples legally married in their state are denied economic benefits granted to heterosexual couples legally married in the same state. These include spousal health insurance for state employees, federal income tax deductions for those “married filing jointly,” and the one-time lump-sum death benefit granted to a spouse under the Social Security program claim. Gill et al. v. OPM et al. v. U.S., No. 12-345 ¶ 6-8 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 3, 2009).

The denial of these benefits to legally married couples has no rational basis. The denial of marriage-based benefits to same-sex couples has been found to violate constitutional equal protection guarantees by a number of State Supreme Courts. Kerrigan and Mock v. Connecticut Department of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn.,2008.), In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008), Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), Varnum v. Brien, WL 874044 (Iowa 2009). The challenge to DOMA 1 U.S.C. § 7 does not argue that same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It does not, in fact, address the question of same-sex marriage at all. Instead, DOMA 1 U.S.C. § 7 denies benefits to same-sex couples already legally married in their home state where the equality question has already been argued in front of the courts and settled.

Conclusion

The President reserves the right to refuse to defend an unconstitutional statute. Section 3 of the DOMA is clearly unconstitutional in that it denies married same-sex couples economic benefits granted to heterosexual married couples from the same state without providing a rational basis for this discrimination.

We ask that President Obama and Attorney General Holder refuse to defend DOMA in the upcoming challenge filed in the State of Massachusetts, Gill et al. v. OPM et al. v. U.S.

Yes, you'll notice that's the Gill case, not Smelt/Hammer. But it's the same difference in Presidential perogative as regards USA standing. Larry Tribe and the FlipFlop folks viewpoints are prior to the filing of this MPA (Memorandum of Points and Authorities) under discussion.

On to the egregious. Reason 5 (C) DOMA is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles; DOMA Does Not Rest on Any Suspect Classification. The twisting of the Loving decision from the DOJ motion:

Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application" of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a . . . purpose" to discriminate against either men or women.

Speechless. The issue is about orientation, not gender, which is superfluous, as we're talking about SAME SEX COUPLES. But that's the rub with this argument; same sex oriented people clearly do not have the same rights as opposite-sex oriented people, hence the term "Unequal" in my post headline.

Since the claim by Hammer/Smelt brought up the Ninth Amendment, the same rude treatment was given by the Obama DOJ as they too brought up Griswold and twisted it just as they did Loving. Reason 6: DOMA Does Not Violate the Right to Privacy

Plaintiffs also assert that DOMA constitutes "an undue invasion of the Right of Privacy,"citing Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). See Complaint ¶¶ 17, 27, 28. This claim must fail, first, because the Supreme Court has rejected a "right to privacy" claim in relation to same-sex marriage. One of the arguments made in Baker v. Nelson, referred to above, was that Minnesota's refusal to permit same-sex marriage constituted "an unwarranted invasion of . . . privacy" in violation of the Constitution. See Jurisdictional Statement, Baker v. Nelson, No. 71-1027, at 18 (Attachment 2 hereto). In dismissing the appeal in Baker "for want of Case 8:09-cv-00286-DOC-MLG Document 25 Filed 06/11/2009 Page 47 of 54 a substantial federal question," the Supreme Court necessarily addressed the merits of that claim, and rejected it. 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (Mem); see Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. at 343-44.

Even if Baker were not dispositive in this regard, this Court should reject plaintiffs' right to privacy claim. The Supreme Court has described the contours of this right as follows:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however . . . the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. . . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

So you see, according to the Obama DOJ, rights of marriage equality for gays are neither fundamental, nor do they rise to the level of the "concept of ordered liberty." [And btw, just be on the alert about Griswold and the Ninth Amendment as regards women's reproductive rights with this Administration, as Griswold and the Ninth are part and parcel of Roe v. Wade.]

I'm not buying into what others around the blogosphere are saying about the incest and pederasty angles that are being read into this MPA, as I think that's overly reaching compared to the civil libertarian material I've pointed out so far, which I believe is enough to oppose the Administration.

Which brings me to the next part; how to oppose a popular President and not support the Right?

Money.

In this case, I propose that neither Obama, the DNC, DLC, Democrats of any stripe get one nickel until they do a 180 on this issue. Additionally, I think a tactic from the AIDS activists of the '80s is due for revival:

GAY MONEY.

It's FUN! Stamp your cash in pink, red, hell just write on it in pen GAY MONEY and watch how the bills flood the circulation. Hell, just screwing around with money to send messages is kind of a neat way to protest at all.

But to end, that's the first peaceful method of protest I can think of at this moment as I am just simply mad at this turnabout from the campaign rhetoric. I'm sure to think of others, and I bet you will to.

Thank you for reading.

Out, Proud, and Not Asking For Rights - Simply Demanding and Living Them -
Kelly Canfield,
Denver Colorado

TAGS: Gay Marriage, Obama, More Broken Promises, Anniversary of the Loving Decision, Irony

Food, Inc.

2009-06-12T14:00:00.003-04:00

Food, Inc., a new film documentary opening today, attempts to answer the question, "Where does your food come from?" You can watch the trailer here. It doesn't look like it will be showing anywhere near my corner of the world, so I'll let those who know more than I give there take on it.

From Crackpotpress:

They also explore the science of advanced growth in these animals. In recent years, chickens and cows have been genetically enhanced with steroids, growth hormone and corn. CORN? What's wrong with corn? Cows are herbivores and are only supposed to eat grass. Thanks to government subsidies carboload corn is cheaper than grass. The result is animals who grow three times as large in a fraction of the time. By slaughter time, their legs cannot even support them.

This begs a question, "Why are there congressional investigations of baseball players who use steroids and not investigations of chickens and cows who do?" In the big picture, a Barry Bonds or Manny Ramirez has little effect on my life outside of the occasional heartbreak. Chickens and cows using performance enhancing drugs do. The answer is simple Bush and Clinton both appointed Food Corporation lobbyists and insiders to the head of the FDA. In essence the wolves are guarding the hen house. Those who should be investigated lead the investigations.

And before your friends try to tell you that eating organic, sustainably produced food is too expensive, go over to Cook for Good and learn how you can eat for less than the food stamp allowance. They've got menus, recipes and cooking and food storage tips that will have you saving money and eating healthier.

And just in time for our Million Can March, via DKos, Cook for Good has a tutorial on how to throw a film fundraiser - make that foodraiser. Follow their simple steps, rake in the dough, and donate it to your local food pantry or shelter. And then don't forget to tell us all about it so we can count it towards our goal.

A million cans of food: Yes we can!

TAGS: Food Inc., hunger, Million Can March, sustainable agriculture

Million Can March: Yes We Can!

2009-06-09T21:30:00.002-04:00

Welcome to the Unruly Mob and the launching of our Million Can March! This all started with a vague notion that we should do something more than just have a good laugh at the next round of tea parties scheduled for July 4th. I thought that if teabaggers are so afraid of socialism, maybe we could show 'em socialism on a national scale. And what is more socialistic than sharing our food with others. Food banks across the nation are struggling with shortages as increasing demands meet head on with decreasing donations. But bloggers also reach across the nation - and the world - and we could make a real difference for our neighbors and make this a memorable 4th of July.

THE CHALLENGE: To collect one million cans of food for our nation's food banks, food pantries and shelters by July 4, 2009.

WHO: Progressive bloggers with a special invite to conservative bloggers.

HOW: Act locally. Here are some examples:

• Take a bag of food to a local pantry
• Organize a food drive where you work or play, your church or motorcycle club, etc.
• Organize some friendly competition amongst a group of blogs
• Challenge your Facebook & Myspace friends and your twitter followers
• There's no one right way to get involved. Look around you, see the need and do something about it.

WHAT: Nonperishable food items. Note: We've already had a cash donation to a relief agency reported (and I know this is a good way for some folks to participate) so if you report your cash donations we'll run a tally of those as well.

SPECIAL CHALLENGE TO OUR CONSERVATIVE READERS: Bring the drinks! Ask your readers to donate cannisters of premixed tea, lemonade, koolaid, etc. You could even set up collection barrels at your next tea party. After all, it wouldn't be a party without the drinks. And it'd probably give you a little better publicity this time...just saying. Now aren't you wishing you thought of this first?

AND THEN WHAT: Blog about it and send us the link. We'll add your amounts to the totals and keep a running tally of the results. And we'll post all your links so folks can see what you did. (Hint, hint: We especially love posts with pictures! Yeah, we're simple like that.) But wait! There's more! If you want more than that warm fuzzy feeling from doing something good, we'll send you the script for an awesome button to adorn your blog to memorialize your participation in the 2009 Million Can March!

Here are some food suggestions:

• If in doubt, call the agency you plan to donate to and ask them what they need.

Here's a basic list:

• cereal, instant oatmeal
• Canned meats & fish (tuna, salmon, deviled ham, canned chicken, etc)
• Peanut butter, jelly, crackers
• fruits and vegetables
• Soups, stews, canned pasta dishes like beefaroni, lasagna, ravioli
• Boxed potatoes and rice and pasta mixes in a box or pouch
• "Just add water" cake, pancake, muffin mixes, etc.
• Canned and powdered milk
• Infant formula and baby foods

You can also think in terms of a meal:

• Spaghetti sauce and pasta
• Tuna and macaroni and cheese
• Beans & Rice

You get the idea, and then add a vegetable, a fruit, and a sweet treat.

Really, this isn't rocket science. Give what you like to eat!

Ok, let's get this started! Copy and paste the Million Can March button to your blog so your readers can join the party.

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" width="165" height="150" id="MillionCanMarch" align="middle"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="false" /> <param name="movie" value="http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/MillionCanMarch.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /> <embed src="http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k39/SericeousBurden/blog/MillionCanMarch.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="165" height="150" name="MillionCanMarch" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" allowFullScreen="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /> </object>

Be sure to leave us a comment and tell us how you plan to get involved. Bloggers, please leave the URL of your post and we'll be sure to link to you.

And one other thing - don't forget to invite a tea-bagger to the party! It's going to be an unruly good time. Yes we can!

Come, all you who are thirsty…and you who have no money, come and eat!
(That Unruly Socialist Isaiah 55:1)

TAGS: Million Can March, Hunger, Hunger in America, activism

Let Clean Waters Flow

2009-06-08T10:40:00.001-04:00

Let clean waters flow to the 884 million people who do not have access to clean water.

Let clean waters flow to the 2.5 billion who live without adequate sanitation.

Let clean waters flow promised President Obama in his Inaugural Address. Senators Durbin and Corker introduced S. 624, The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009. So you'd think with the backing of the POTUS and bipartisan authorship that the bill would sail through the senate.

[Insert favorite watery death scene here.]

Right now the bill has only five of the 20 cosponsors it needs to move forward. And every day that passes, an estimated 4,100 children will die from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene.

Please call or email your senators and ask them to cosponsor S. 624, the Water for the World Act.

Here's what One.org said about it in their email:

The Water for the World Act targets underdeveloped countries with focused initiatives to improve access to clean water and sanitation; fosters global cooperation on research and development; provides technical assistance and capacity-building; provides seed money for the deployment of clean water and sanitation technologies; and strengthens the human infrastructure at USAID and the State Department to implement clean water and sanitation programs.

This bill will help establish the capacity and momentum we need to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on increasing access to water and sanitation by 2015. If those MDG targets are met, the benefits will include a total annual economic return of $22 billion for Africa in saved time, increased productivity and reduced health costs.

And most importantly, 203,000 fewer children will die in 2015 from lack of access to clean water and sanitation.

Let clean waters flow.

One.org has a petition you can sign. But really. Call or email your senators and ask them personally to please cosponsor S. 624, the Water for the World Act.

TAGS: The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, water, poverty, child poverty

Faith Groups Key to N.H. Gay Marriage Vote

2009-06-05T16:00:00.000-04:00

Are you listening progressive Christians? Our silence is our sin. When we speak we can be key in making positive change.

Via the Pew Forum:

New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage on Wednesday (June 3) in part because faith leaders testified that the measure would not impinge on religious rights, according to V. Gene Robinson, the state's openly gay Episcopal bishop.

When credible Christians, Muslims and Jews advocated for same-sex marriage, it "had a lot of sway with legislators in terms of giving them cover," said Robinson. "Our message was loud and clear: religious organizations have nothing to fear from civil marriage for same-gendered folks."

(snip)

Two separate studies released on Wednesday concluded that anti-gay marriage groups relied heavily on religious language to successfully push for ballot initiatives in Michigan in 2004 and California in 2008 that outlawed gay marriage.

"A religious opposition requires a religious response," said the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and an author of one of the reports.

Robinson said, "I think it's about emboldening legislators to see people like them who identify as Roman Catholic or American Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran (and) say `OK, this ... is clearly a person of faith, so despite what the denomination says as a whole I've got a fairly firm piece of ground to stand on here."

TAGS: Marriage Equality, Christianity, Same Sex Marriage

On Teabags and Bread

2009-06-04T18:30:00.002-04:00

On July 4th, teabaggers will once again gather in crowds of ten and even twenty wearing their teabag hats and teabag earrings proclaiming their hatred for all things Obama. If it's anything like the April 15th events, it should be good for a laugh. But why stop there? I say we really piss 'em off and engage in a national act of socialism. And what would be more socialistic then sharing our food with those who have none?

The long summer months mean a drought at our nation's foodbanks and homeless shelters. It means children home from school may no longer have access to breakfast and lunch programs. National statistics about hunger in America are available only through 2007, but we need only look at the record unemployment rates and deduce that food will come in a long second to paying rent and utilities. And as this report notes,

In March 2009, SNAP/Food Stamp participation was 33,156,745 people, the highest participation level on record, and an increase of nearly 600,000 individuals from February 2009, the prior record level. Over the past twelve months, participation has grown by 5.2 million individuals.

I'd like to get a grassroots campaign going throughout the progressive blogosphere to counter the upcoming July 4th teabag protests with a food drive. And I know the Unrulies are just the ones who can make this happen. We have one month to make a plan and put it to action. I'm imagining folks across the blogosphere all giving locally, but let's use this thread to do some brainstorming. It's been my experience that two or more brains are way better than mine alone. Most important, I think, is we need a concerted effort to get the bigger blogs on board ala a blogswarm or like the blogs against theocracy campaign. Okay, maybe most important, is you telling me this is a good idea or a dumb idea. I'm willing to do the work on this, but I need your creativity, your ideas, your blog connections. Tell me what you think.

Let Them Eat ~~Cake~~.

TAGS: hunger

Just A Little Something

2009-05-31T23:51:00.004-04:00

About the Van Cliburn competition I've been going on and on about in the comments....

A couple things you should know:

The semi-finalists (12) will move to 5 finalists, sometime tonight. Prox 11:00 Texas time which is any minute now.

All of the players are so talented, it's rude. There's so much talent in Dallas/Ft. Worth right now that the piano universe is really out of whack.

How this all came to be is because Van went and won the prized Tchaikowski Award from those stinking pinko Russkis!

He had a ticker tape parade in New York when he came back from Europe. Like the Astronauts did.

Which is my point. In those crazy Cuban, Nuclear Nasty years, Art held sway, and helped bring normalcy to the stoopid world. It really did.

Can it do so again?

Let's hope so. There's a real talented group of kids in this year's Van Cliburn lineup, and they're from everywhere. China. Bulgaria. Japan. England. Italy. Korea.

Personally, I really liked this new music from Naomi Kudo, by a composer named Vine, who I hadn't heard of before:

But she didn't move forward in the competition. That tells you how sharp this particular and literal world stage is. It's the UT!

Forward! I can only lust over the coming concerts.

TAGS: Culture Matters, Wild About Piano, People have differences, but wow how about their similarities?, I'm Betting on Di Wu

Fox News Analyst's Analysis--Just Kill 'Em

2009-05-28T10:16:00.002-04:00

Fox News Strategic Analyst Col. Ralph Peters says that he's not concerned about the human rights of terrorists. He thinks they should all be killed. In fact he says, "Fight for human rights; kill terrorists." Let's watch:

The problem is, we don't know which detainees are really terrorists. Peters admits that he doesn't care. Well, good for him, but that is fucked up. Some of these people were sold into detention by locals with a grudge or out to make a quick buck.

A highly disputed report that says 1 in 7 terror detainees that were released from Guantanamo are suspected to or confirmed to have returned to militant activities. That means 6 out of 7 were released and did not participate in militant activities. Wouldn't that mean they probably weren't terrorists in the first place? Doesn't matter to Col. Peters.

TAGS: Human Rights, The Dependent Media, Guantanamo, Fox News

Pronunciation Guide for Dummies

2009-05-27T16:25:00.002-04:00

I'm a big fan of (the ideals of) the Olympic games. I can remember watching the games as a child and hearing all of the exotic sounding names of the athletes. There was never any question in my child's mind who the American athletes were. They all had very American sounding names like "Smith" and "Jones." Over the years, however, more and more of those exotic sounding names were listed under the United States. And today I can't go by just their name to determine whether any given athlete is playing for the United States or another country. For me, this was a sign of how inclusive our melting pot of a country had become.

Enter Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Poor Mark Krikorian can't figure out how to pronounce her name. Say's it just ain't natural. That if we let people run around pronouncing their names like they want that civilization as we know it will cease to exist. So for the sake of decency, maybe Nature Boy Krikorian can help us out with a few other names we poor liberals have difficulty pronouncing. Like this guy:

It is CHAY - nee? That's how this online pronunciation guide calls it. Or is it CHEE - nee? Gosh, not even Liz and Lynne Cheeney can agree:

When the Dick was asked directly, he had this to say:

"How do I pronounce my last name and how do I want you to pronounce it? Well, the family's always said Cheney with an 'e' and that was especially true out West growing up," he said. "I find, when I came East, that the tendency was to say Cheney with an "a". I'll respond to either. It really doesn't matter."

I guess it just ain't natural for easterners to pronounce it Chee-nee. Not sure what this says about Tweetie.

Naturally, I call him "The War Criminal."

And then there's this guy:

Now according to the same online guide, it is pronounced Bay - nur. BUT THEN it says:

See also: John A Boehner - representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for the state of Ohio

Circular reasoning or repuglican conspiracy? You decide. Me? I call him "The Cry Baby."

As for Judge Sotomayor? The online guide says so-"toe"-may-OR. But if we are to pronounce it the natural way, I would think the pronunciation for dummies would be Soto - mayor. But no, apparently, it's even naturaler to say Soto - Meyer. I probably should withhold giving her a moniker because I really don't know enough about her. But just going with my gut, I'd say "Awesome Activist Judge."

TAGS: Sonia Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Why I Think Obama Will Pick Sunstein For SCOTUS

2009-05-25T23:46:00.014-04:00

SCOTUS!

People never think about it until one of two things happens; 1) a SCOTUS judge announces retirement or 2) there's a Presidential election. Well we've now had both events occur relatively soon to each other, so the topic is hot, the nominee will soon be known, so why don't I be just as wrong as anybody else on the topic? Hmm? OK.

I predict Obama's SCOTUS nominee will be Cass Sunstein.

The HELL you say! There's Kagan, Woods, Sotomayor, and oh, BTW there's so many white men on the Court already! Pah, you foolish blogger! You Know Nothing!

Well, we have equal opportunities to be wrong in this regard. After all there's no reason to believe under the "Yes We Can (But That Doesn't Necessarily Mean We're Going To [thanks, John Stewart])" banner that um, Sotomayor or any of the SCOTUS front runners have anything going for them from Obama's practical point of view.

Campaign promises about DADT aren't manifesting today.
Campaign promises about ENDA aren't manifesting today.
Campaign promises about DOMA aren't manifesting today.
Campaign promises about closing GITMO aren't manifesting today; neither is the Executive Order (but it's true that the EO gives until January 22, 2010 to be completed)
Campaign promises about IRAQ aren't manifesting today.

Need more? (There is more, but Health Care, Social Security and other issues are for a different post.) The election was, after all, about politics and practicality; Yes We Can! (But that doesn't mean we're necessarily going to.)

And there really weren't any true campaign promises about SCOTUS appointments, so that really leaves everything open, now that you think about it, eh?

So how about this Sunstein cat?

Dahlia Lithwick [glurp] wrote this, about Sunstein and Thaler's book, "Nudge": [UC - emphases added]

The premise of Nudge—the authors caution in their very first footnote that this is not to be read as noodge (noun: from the Yiddish, meaning, "You never call; you never write. ...")—is that in framing public policy, "choice architects" should gently guide us to make better choices, the sorts of choices Albert Einstein or Star Trek's Mr. Spock* might make or that we would make if we were to consult such men on our personal decisions about, say, giving up smoking. Laissez faire economics holds that faced with a broad menu of choices, most of us will choose wisely. Sunstein and Thaler fear that some of us might pull a Homer Simpson and try to eat the menu.

[snip]

If Sunstein and Thaler are right that we live in a world of too many choices, with insufficient time and information to make the best one and little feedback about the stupid choices we've made in the past, the question is not so much whether we should be steered toward the smart ones as: Where should we be steered instead? Given that someone someplace is often setting the defaults anyhow, wouldn't we prefer that the guy in charge be Mr. Spock? Could any of us agree, however, about which Mr. Spock is truly worthy of making these decisions? The authors urge that "if the underlying decision is difficult and unfamiliar, and if people do not get prompt feedback when they err, it's legitimate, even good to nudge a bit."

Where does one begin? With Lithwick or the damn book? They're both specious and egotistical. "You Cannot Be Trusted, Mere Mortal - (so basically) You Shut Up, Let Me Decide."

This could be expected from Lithwick, but from Sunstein? The dissonance is painful; "The invisible hand of the marketplace compels you, but since you weren't compelled correctly, you need compelling."

So somebody's invisibility, compellingess or correctness is totally fucked up. I get it!

But about Sunstein's political/legal views - Greenwald, July 19th, 2008, re: FISA fiasco:

Writing from the Netroots Nation conference, The Nation's Ari Melber detailed what he calls "Bipartisan Attacks on the Rule of Law," and specifically highlighted the fact that close Obama adviser, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, "cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration" during a Conference panel. As Melber wrote:
Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton -- or even the "slight appearance" of it.
As I documented last week, the idea that the Rule of Law is only for common people, but not for our political leaders and Washington elite, is pervasive among the political and pundit class, in both parties.

Cass: Don't risk cycles! After all, you weren't compelled correctly, and need better compelling.

Fast forward - Obama wins, and lo, the appointments come. From Ezra, January 8th, 2009:

There's some confusion over a celebrity thinker like Cass Sunstein being appointed to head an office as obscure and bureaucratic as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. But OIRA is important! It's just also boring.
OIRA was birthed in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act as part of the effort to streamline the federal government's regulatory processes. If Carter had won reelection, the department probably wouldn't matter. But he didn't. Tucked deep within the Office of Management and Budget, OIRA received relatively little notice until David Stockman, Reagan's young turk of a budget director, realized that, properly applied, OIRA could be used to shut down the government's regulatory functions by tying new regulations up in endless rounds of analysis and bureaucratic justification.
[snip]
The point of all this is that OIRA is quiet, but important. It's the chokepoint of the entire federal regulatory apparatus. If used wisely, it facilitates the flow, provides welcome analysis and judgment, and aids in implementation. If used as an anti-government weapon, it can do a lot of damage. Sunstein can do real good there. But why would he want it? He's shown a taste for celebrity, and OIRA very much does not provide that.
It's worth remembering that Sunstein has recently achieved great fame for Nudge, a book which basically argues that we need to apply the insights of behavioral economics to the construction of regulation. And Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the ultimate staging ground for those ideas. Reagan understood that OIRA was the central clearinghouse where you could affect the whole of the regulatory state all at once. He wanted to virtually shut it down. Sunstein wants to "nudge" it.

Ezra was a wee bit early - FDL gets to the meat of the matter 2 days later on January 10th this year. Kirk Murphy, PhD:

Who does PEBO want to put in command of OMB's health and environmental rules? A Libertarian who predictably opposes "mandates and bans". Meet the new Borgias -- same as the old Borgias. Meet our new BFF, Cass Sunstein.
But as co-chair of the American Enterprise Institute Center for Regulatory and Market Studies advisory board, Sunstein works for one of the nation's most influential right-wing corporate anti-regulatory think tanks.

But of course. Why should Cass waste his time on environmental justice when the AEI can write him checks? In a free market, everything's for sale. Right, Cass?

For a long time, the nation has been split between two types: old-style Democrats, favoring mandates and bans, and new(ish)-style Republicans, insisting that markets and free choice should be respected. Richard Thaler and I think that there is a way to avoid mandates and bans, and to respect free choice, while also helping people to make better decisions.

In short, we hope that libertarian paternalism might provide a real third way.... Thus, for example, libertarian paternalism offers fresh ways of thinking about the mortgage crisis, credit card reform, savings for retirement, prescription drugs, health care, environmental law...

If you have small children, good ol' Cass's lucrative ideology gives them the freedom to suck down a whole lot more poison. Does it give us the freedom to have our food and water free of man-made poisons? Not so much. Folks, can't you just feel the post-partisan love?

Oh Brave New OMB to have such sophists in it!

Here's the thing; Obama and Sunstein are both friends, they're both Chicago Economics School, Obama already has Sunstein past Congress once, Obama knows Sunstein's Constitutional views.

Did I mention Sunstein is one of the most widely cited legal scholars? Amy Goodman's folks said so, and look - here's Glenzilla debating the execrable Sunstein on Democracy Now! July 22nd, 2008.

Since there was no real push for Dawn Johnsen for OLC from the Whitehouse, and so on regarding other matters, I just would not be surprised if we wake up one day soon to headlines with "CASS SUNSTEIN NOMINATED FOR SCOTUS" with the ensuing right wing hissy fits, wich would account for nothing, as Cass, having worked for AEI, along with his body of work, is one of their own Villagers. He is, in fact, already head of OIRA.

Meh.

But here's hoping I am wrong about the SCOTUS thing. But I got this nagging feeling...

TAGS: Sunstein, Nudge or Nooge?, What Works!, SCOTUS, forget that reason to vote any more

1001

2009-05-18T21:06:00.005-04:00

Well, new thread was needed. I thought maybe going to one of the "birth posts" of the Unruly Mob would be appropriate; August 1, 2006

There's the pant rack - you know what to do------>

And who knew? There's a youtube video called "My Crew Be Unruly"

Anyhoo, carry on...

TAGS: Happy 1,001, Open Thread

Reclaiming Mother's Day

2009-05-10T13:00:00.000-04:00

From the Network of Spiritual Progressives

Julia Ward Howe offered her Mother's Day Proclamation to the world in 1870. Her dream was the establishment of an international Mothers' Day Festival dedicated to the cause of nonviolent resolution of conflict and international solidarity among all women. Her pacifist consciousness had been provoked by the bloodshed of the Franco-Prussian War. Her activism was cultivated in the struggles for abolition of slavery and the quest for women's suffrage. She had the proclamation translated into French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Swedish, working for the establishment of Mother's Day in concert with women internationally celebrating peace and women's empowerment.

Howe died in 1910, four years before President Woodrow Wilson officially declared the day in 1914 in response to the burgeoning success of the movement she inspired. But Wilson avoided any mention of the thrust of Howe's cause in his declaration, instead emphasizing only the nurturing "home and hearth" dimension of motherhood. He also spurned the internationalist concern that was central to Howe's consciousness, distorting this into American nationalism. Howe's central concerns, the universality of motherhood and its natural expression in anti-war sentiment, was excised from the official meaning of the day.

President Wilson proclaimed: "Now, therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the said Joint Resolution, do hereby direct the government officials to display the United States flag on all government buildings and do invite the people of the United States to display the flag at their homes or other suitable places on the second Sunday in May as a public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country."

Compare this to Howe's far more high minded vision, still so desperately needed in this suffering divided world. Here is the text of her 1870 Mother's Day Proclamation, so prescient in its understanding, so courageous in its call, so plaintiff in its currency nearly a century and a half later.

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

TAGS: Women's Work

Comedian In Chief

2009-05-10T02:13:00.003-04:00

He's hilarious! And not in that "Hillary" hilarious kinda way until a way bit into the monologue.

Continues! [He get's serious near the end, and so will I, but still, watch.]

The guy has charm and wit all over the place. The country's favorable/unfavorable numbers are all moving in the right direction, save for those few dinosaurs who just can't cope.

"Tone At The Top" is a subject that I think is really overlooked, and Obama does it very well. Bush? HAHAHAHAHA! Puh-LEASE.

There's just a few things Mr. O, that you need to REALLY pay attention to. The whole "torture" thing and especially the whole "states secrets" thing. You didn't get to them in your funny business, but they remain funny business.

Step up and do the right thing on both issues.

Yes, You can.

[By the way, this post happen to be post 999. The next post shall be the 1,000th.]

TAGS: Obama WH Dinner, SUX2BREPUBLICAN, YESYOUCAN, Where the hell was Colbert, hmmmm?

Let's Get Unruly

2009-05-07T15:00:00.003-04:00

Mike Rogers is busy promoting "Outrage," which opens this weekend. Here's the trailer:

So Mike appeared on local DC program "Let's Talk Live" and during the interview host Doug McKelway...well let's just let the video do the talking shall we?

(Open in Stand-alone player)

The money quote is at about 2:45. In case you missed it, my pretty close paraphrase is "Mike I want to take you outside and punch you in the face." Nice, Doug. Oh, and I do believe, criminal.

And here's the apology:

(Open in Stand-alone player)

You know what to do. You can reach Doug here. And you can contact the station here. Let's do what we do best and get unruly.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

2009-05-03T12:20:00.000-04:00

From Jonathan Turley's blog:

Neal Horsley, who is an advocate of secession, is running to be Governor of Georgia. Horsley also admits to having sex with a mule in his youth.

Horsely says that he views himself as the next John Brown in triggering rebellion and is willing to sacrifice his son in such an effort. He previously told Alan Combs that he had had sex with a mule, explaining “When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule. You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually.”

While everyone has been calling for transparency in government, this might be a bit too much information.

You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. And no, Horsley is not a Democrat, whose mascot is a mule, if that's at all relevant. As to what video that could possibly accompany such a post, it is, like Horsely, a no-brainer. It's just gotta be -

Government Mule - "Get Behind the Mule"

TAGS: Neal Horsely, Wingnuttery, Republican Bestiality
Nutty Enough to Use as Bait in a Squirrel Trap

More About Those Damned CIA Torture Memos

2009-05-01T16:45:00.004-04:00

Something just occurred to me.
It could be important.

In all of the discussion over the so-called CIA torture program memos authored by John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, the attention has been focused on how shocking it is that these attorneys in Bush's Department of Justice would assign such plenary powers to the president as they do. That's got everyone straining at the legal gnat of whether the memos constitute just very sloppy legal practice or an actual conspiracy to subvert the law. And sure, I succumbed to the same lure in my latest post on the subject.

Not that I really believe that to be a gnat; in starkest terms you could say that the DoJ under a succession of Bush-appointed Attorneys General (Ashcroft, Gonzales, then Mukasey) actually mounted a sustained attack on the Constitution of the United States of America. With their partisan Republican machinations they not only enabled numerous crimes, but in doing so they were in defiance of certain core constitutional principals, not the least of which are the separation of powers doctrine and Article V - the one that defines how the Constitution can be amended. Because make no mistake, when you purport to suspend habeas corpus, then the Supreme Court rules against you, and you continue to deny the litigant key habeas rights, you have effectively nullified the entire protection.

The first, fourth, eighth and ninth amendments seem to have been gutted during Bush's term in office as well. I must have missed the part where these changes were "ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress." It wasn't in the news.

So -- it's fair to ask; when did mid-level worker bees in the Justice Department acquire the power to amend the Constitution outside of the provisions of Article V? Because I find it hard to see that as anything short of a coup d'etat; a major intrusion on the Congress's exclusive power to pass legislation.

Looking at the Bush administration through the eyes, as it were, of Article V puts a whole new level of appreciation for just how far they went towards shredding the Constitution in toto, and I humbly submit that I've contributed some insight of value into the analysis of recent history on that point. But wait, that's not the important thing that just occurred to me. And thanks for hanging around while I set up for the delivery of this lightbulb moment.

Here it is: All of these memos were dealing with a hypothetical. They discuss whether, IF Bush were to authorize something like the CIA torture program, it would stick. Would he have the authority as Commander in Chief to over-ride the various US statutes against that sort of thing, the Geneva Convention, and whatever other treaties the US has entered into that prohibit torture? (The correct answer, which neither Bybee, Yoo nor Bradbury got, was and remains NO, he does not. The legal supremacy of ratified treaties is in Article VI of the Constitution)

By now you must see where I'm going with this. All of these memos remain hypothetical until one key question is asked and answered. Did president Bush the Lesser actually sign an Executive Order that authorized torture? A secondary question would be; to whom was such an order distributed and through what channels? And the sticky part of it is that neither question can be answered without putting someone, either Bush himself or someone in the chain of command, into serious legal jeopardy.

I can't believe that no-one else has thought of this yet, especially those attorneys with courtroom experience.

I came to this thought while playing a game of 'let's try to think like a lawyer.' If you were preparing a real case which you expected to bring into an actual court of law, you'd want to connect the dots in a very meticulous way. So imagine that a certain CIA operative - call him Mr. X - has been positively identified as having done some of the hands on work of questioning a suspected terrorist, and is trying to defend himself using the dubious claim that he was following, in good faith, the Department of Justice's assurances that he was in the clear legally. (In my opinion this is the Nuremberg Defence, and is not really relevant under the applicable laws, but just for the sake of the argument...)

So, Mr. X can demonstrate that he was in receipt of the __________ (Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury) memo of ______(date) which tells him that the president's plenary powers as Commander in Chief give him the authority to authorize torture. Does that alone take Mr. X off the hook?

Of course it doesn't. Mr. X needs both the DoJ opinion AND an Executive Order from president Bush. Because all the DoJ opinion can possibly do, at the very maximum, is to confirm the validity of the Executive Order. In the absence of the EO, the opinions of Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury, as I noted above, are nothing more than exercises in how to make bad law. And yes, shabby attempts to amend the Constitution of the United States of America at the bureaucratic level.

Consider the absurdity of any defense Mr. X might make that fails to demonstrate the existence of this Executive Order (that everyone seems to assume must exist, but it certainly hasn't yet been publicly acknowledged.) Suppose X's attorney argues that a Deputy or Assistant Attorney General working at OLC had, through the mere writing of a memo;

a) assigned powers to the president which are not described in Article II of the Constitution and have not been created through legislation,

b) delegated those same powers to himself, through some magical and invisible assignation of Power of Attorney, without the president's knowledge, and

c) exercised those powers in a manner hitherto unknown in the history of jurisprudence, within the same memo that created them.

Do you think that would convince a judge? I mean, presuming the judge is not the Ninth Circuit's Jay Bybee? Of course not, but that is the assumption under which all these torture memos have been discussed so far. And at the risk of hammering my point so far into the ground that it disappears, here's some parallel logic; IF I had a deed to your house, I could charge you rent. So pay up.

Until such time as a Bush Executive Order authorizing torture is made public, the rest of the discussion is moot.
~~~~~~~~
End-note: Before I get called on it, there are all sorts of indications that Bush did indeed authorize torture, but no official acknowledgement as such. It's almost like they're hoping to have their cake and eat it too.

Dan Froomkin reported in the Washington Post last year that Bush authorized the meetings where Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice et. al. discussed the details of torture, and admitted as much. He did not however admit to attending those meetings himself. Froomkin notes how much media attention this story (which originated at ABC) got: "There was no mention of Bush's admission in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Los Angeles Times. There was nothing on the major wire services. And nothing on CNN, CBS or NBC." Way to go, Lamestream Media!

Even before that, you could find indications that the Executive Order in question did indeed exist, such as this story in the New Standard: President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says.

Repeated references in an internal FBI email suggest that the president issued a special order to permit some of the more objectionable torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib and other US-run prison facilities around Iraq. The email was among a new batch of FBI documents revealed by civil rights advocates on Monday. Other documents describe the initiation of investigations into alleged incidents of torture and rape at detention facilities in Iraq.

While this may have had an impact at the time on the dubious 'a few bad apples' meme that was then (Dec. 2004) going around, it was not very widely circulated. Anyway, my point is not whether the EO exists so much as whether it is publicly acknowledged. The story goes on to indicate it was not;

After the ACLU released the documents, White House, Pentagon and FBI officials told reporters that the author of the email was mistaken, and that the order was not an Executive Order, but a Defense Department directive. All sources refused to be identified in news reports.

The White House does not appear to have ever officially denied that President Bush issued an Executive Order specifying interrogation techniques, though none has been made public. The ACLU and other organizations involved in forcing the release of documents regarding prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib as well as prison camps in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have demanded the White House "confirm or deny the existence of such an order," according to an ACLU press release issued on Monday.

How can any document possibly have any legal weight if;
a) it is never acknowledged and therefore
b) no court ever gets to review it?

The very idea that a single person could make secret laws is abhorrent and in conflict with the basic concepts of democracy. The idea that those secret orders could result in the torture and death of innocent people is doubly so.

Torture Memos, Jay Bybee
Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney and the usual cast of clowns.
Reductio ad Absurdum

About Those Memos

2009-04-28T14:00:00.004-04:00

Is OPR Report the Key?

This story from the Future of Freedom Foundation's Andy Worthington (h/t Mike's Blog Roundup) has some interesting facts about the torture memos affair.

Some people have been saying that a full investigation won't and shouldn't get underway until the release of a report by the DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility into actions taken by the Office of Legal Counsel, another branch of DoJ, the latter having much closer ties with the White House. OPR has been investigating OLC for FOUR YEARS now.

[T]he Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), ... was charged with looking at whether the legal advice in the crucial interrogation memos “was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.”

According to Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, who broke the story, a draft of the report, submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration, caused anxiety among former Bush administration officials, because “OPR investigators focused on whether the memo’s authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted.” A former Bush lawyer, speaking anonymously, added that he “was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.”

That's news to me, and a significant positive for those who wish to see justice done on this issue. We already know that these memos were complete fabrications by any legal standards; created to provide an impression of legality that was utterly without substance. Chances are very good that the internal e-mails and multiple drafts will show that the various players - Bybee, Yoo, Bradbury, Gonzales, etc. - were not just bad lawyers doing sloppy work, but criminals entering into a conspiracy against the constitution and rule of law. Another repercussion if this is found to be the case -- the attorney-client privilege goes out the window. But even more significantly,

The OLC, as the New York Times explained in September 2007, holds a uniquely influential position, as it “interprets all laws that bear on the powers of the executive branch. The opinions of the head of the office are binding, except on the rare occasions when they are reversed by the attorney general or the president.” The legal opinions were, therefore, regarded as a “golden shield” by the administration, although, as lawyer Peter Weiss noted after I last wrote about the Bush administration’s war crimes, “it cannot be binding if it violates the constitution, or a jus cogens prohibition of international law, e.g. torture, or, perhaps, if it was made to order for the executive, as you demonstrate it was.”

So, such a finding would not only put exoneration for the memos' authors well out of reach, it would nullify any protection that those documents extend to any of the torturers themselves. Note that I'm speaking in legal, not political terms. Political mechanisms for protecting the guilty seem to be both numerous and robust. Even so, the anonymous former Bush lawyer quoted above who was "stunned to discover" the details at OPR's disposal must be filling his Fruit of the Looms. A particular sticky point hinges on the actions of Jack Goldsmith.

...Jack Goldsmith ... took over from Bybee as the head of the OLC in October 2003. A supposedly “safe pair of hands,” who, with Yoo, was regarded as “a leading proponent of the view that international standards of human rights should not apply in cases before U.S. courts,” Goldsmith in fact turned out to be a nightmare for the administration, as he withdrew four pieces of legal advice — including the “torture memo” and a March 2003 memo approving the more general use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” — because he regarded them as “tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed.”

As Goldsmith explained in September 2007 to Jeffrey Rosen of the New York Times, he concluded that the “torture memo” contained advice that “defined torture far too narrowly,” and also took exception to the memo’s claim that “any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander in chief authority in the president,” explaining that he believed that “this extreme conclusion” would “call into question the constitutionality of federal laws that limit interrogation, like the War Crimes Act of 1996, which prohibits grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits cruelty and maltreatment.” He added that he “found the tone of both opinions ‘tendentious’ rather than cautious and feared that they might be interpreted as an attempt to immunize government officials for genuinely bad acts.”

When it came to withdrawing the “torture memo,” Goldsmith was acutely aware that it would anger the administration, because it “provided the legal foundation for the CIA’s interrogation program,” and, as Rosen described it,
He made a strategic decision: on the same day that he withdrew the opinion, he submitted his resignation, effectively forcing the administration to choose between accepting his decision and letting him leave quietly, or rejecting it and turning his resignation into a big news story. ”If the story had come out that the U.S. government decided to stick by the controversial opinions that led the head of the Office of Legal Counsel to resign, that would have looked bad,” Goldsmith told me. ”The timing was designed to ensure that the decision stuck.

Given the time line there should be no-one whose undies are more stained than those of the OLC’s Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Steven G. Bradbury. Yoo and Bybee might argue, however lamely, that they were just mistaken in their interpretation of the law, but Bradbury's three memos of May 2005 (available as PDFs here, here and here) came after Goldsmith had called bullshit on the earlier arguments. There seem no legal defenses left for Bradbury, unless he can demonstrate himself to have been clinically insane at the time. Then again, the APA might add Republicanism to its list of mental defects in the next DSM IV.

As I noted above, as dire as things get for these potential defendants in pure legal terms, there is still a chance that political forces wishing to just move on will prevail. As Worthington notes,

I maintain, as I last stressed a month ago, that the release of the OPR report is of critical importance (especially in light of recent reports that it has been rewritten, or is being rewritten, to reach a less stark conclusion of wrongdoing), as it seems clear that it is the key to securing concrete proof of the involvement of Dick Cheney, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales in the creation of the torture memos.

If true, that sucks. And what sucks worse is the way that the Lamestream Media has bent over backwards to portray the entire torture program in very Cheney-esque terms, as though it were 'a dunk in the water' being talked about here. Something you can do wearing a suit and tie, like watering the plant next to your desk in the office. (see illustration, top)

Glenn Greenwald has of course been meticulously chronicling the media's wave of propaganda in defense of the indefensible here, here, here, here, here and here. He's also done a post on the complicity of the Democrats here. So don't hold your breath waiting for justice - if you do you may end up feeling like a waterboarding victim yourself.

TAGS: Waterboarding, Torture Memos, Jay Bybee
Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney and the usual cast of clowns.

Things that make RevPhat Cuss, #266

2009-04-23T09:45:00.001-04:00

I've been reading Digby and Emptywheel and Ackerman this morning. So the way I'm understanding it, this is why the Bush regime tortured in my name:

Digby concludes:

If the SASC report is correct, then much of the torture regime was devised to justify the invasion of Iraq. It explains why Cheney is out there behaving like he's on methamphetamines. If that's the case, he and Bush and all those who signed off on it are subject not only to prosecution, they are subject to the kind of historical legacy reserved for the worst of the worst. This is as bad as it gets.

I hope she's right. I hope this is as bad as it gets. Because this is fucking sick. Fucking cowards.

I Am A Newly Minted "Uncle"

2009-04-22T23:31:00.003-04:00

Baby "ruschka" made her appearance Saturday at 8:18 Mountain time.

Damn russkis were all secretive until last night.

Proud papa was tired, but happy, reporting the events to me last night. Once all the immediate family was notified, which took some time across continents and stuff, mere mortals like myself were allowed to know.

Reports are that she has the same beautiful hazel eyes and dark hair as her mom.

Lettuce spray that she has the same sensibilities; her parents are top drawer humans. They let me in their house! Wild! How crazy is that?

TAGS: Hooray for ME!, Future Unrulians, Hair Is Relatively Good, Get one of your own, leave me alone

Nineteen Reasons We Should Encourage Texas to Secede

2009-04-17T17:28:00.002-04:00

No, Nosy isn't dead. Here are 19 reason thinking Americans should encourage the Lone Star State to go it alone:

1) 49th in teacher pay
2) 1st in the percentage of people over 25 without a high school diploma
3) 41st in high school graduation rate
4) 46th in SAT scores
5) 1st in percentage of uninsured children
6) 1st in percentage of population uninsured
7) 1st in percentage of non-elderly uninsured
8) 3rd in percentage of people living below the poverty level
9) 49th in average Women Infant and Children benefit payments
10) 1st in teenage birth rate
11) 50th in average credit scores for loan applicants
12) 1st in air pollution emissions
13) 1st in volume of volatile organic compounds released into the air
14) 1st in amount of toxic chemicals released into water
15) 1st in amount of recognized cancer-causing carcinogens released into air
16) 1st in amount of carbon dioxide emissions
17) 50th in homeowners' insurance affordability
18) 50th in percentage of voting age population that votes
19) 1st in annual number of executions

Of course, they are number one in wind energy generation but with Rick Perry for a governor, what could you expect? I'd vote immediately to approve secession provided they take everything south of the Ohio River with them.
TAGS: Texas, Rick Perry, South's Gonna Do It Again, LABEL

Prosecute!!

2009-04-17T13:08:00.003-04:00

"Mr. President, You're Wrong."

KO did a good job here, and his historical perspective on the costs of 'going forward' without resolving an issue is exactly the way I would have gone but I have one quibble. It's about this quote from PresBo:

"Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

Olbermann incorrectly assumes that the divisive forces that Obama refers to are "the ones lingering with pervasive stench from the previous administration." This is an understandable mistake on Mr. Olbermann's part, for one can certainly identify a number of sources of the stench to which he refers.

There are still dozens if not hundreds of partisan Republican civil servants in the DoJ alone, illegally hired by Monica Goodling and now embedded there like a colony of cockroaches under the sink. Ironically it would now be illegal to fire those illegally hirees, due to civil service regulations. Sad, but true.

There are still many partisan Republican US Attorneys appointed by the Bush administration whom Obama has not bothered to replace, and who have refused to resign as is traditionally done; hacks like Mary Beth Buchanan, who incidentally hired Goodling. In that latter instance, Obama has the option of firing any US Attorney he wishes to and hiring replacements, a relatively light duty task that would have the effect, stench-wise, of Hercules' cleaning out of the Augean Stables, without any of the heavy lifting required.

Or perhaps the stench emanates from the right-wing extremists recently designated a threat by the Department of Homeland Security - the redneck racist core of what's left of GOP electoral support. (Ya gotta love Janeane Garofolo's description of this crowd, "You can tell these type of right-wingers anything and they'll believe it - except the truth. You tell them the truth and it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire.") An even greater reek rises out of the studios of FOX "news," who are usually the one telling them anything but the truth, and egging them on.

With all these candidates to be the divisive forces I have to conclude from the context that Obama is really talking about those who insist on the continuing rule of law, those who demand that criminals be brought to court and prosecuted. Us. We are, in Obama's reckoning, 'the forces that divide us.'

What really divides 'us' (those who wish for transparency and accountability) at least today, is the question of whether Obama should be praised for the transparency inherent in the release of these documents or condemned for putting yet another item of accountability off the table. Glenn Greenwald argues that we should both praise him on the one hand and condemn him on the other. This would be a very rare instance of my disagreeing with GG on even a small point and even now it's only a matter of degree. Because he's right - Obama does deserve some praise for releasing these memos, just not very much.

For me the balance lies in the duplicity in the first part of the quote above. To talk about, "America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values" while promising to resist all calls to exercise that ability only leaves America on the wrong course, and bereft of core values. The rest of the world will take Obama's pledge with the same seriousness as someone who tells you, "I could benchpress 1,000 lbs., I just don't want to." Yeah, right buddy. Uh huh.

The president and his Attorney General seem to be on the same page on the issue of protecting the guilty. As Glenn Greenwald quoted them,

Barack Obama, yesterday:
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.
Eric Holder, yesterday:
It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.

That's pretty unambiguous. Jonathan Turley responded just as unambiguously on the Rachel Maddow Show.

What is really disturbing is that President Obama is obviously referring to criminal investigation and prosecution ... somehow he's equating the enforcement of federal laws -- that he took an oath to enforce to uphold the constitution and our laws -- and he's equating that with an act of retribution, and some sort of hissy fit or blame game. It's not retribution to enforce criminal laws. What it is is obstruction to prevent that enforcement, and that is exactly what he's done thus far.

That sounds like a clarion call to me, "PROSECUTE!!" And it also sounds like a counter-argument to what Greenwald calls "an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially." Well Glenn, he's a politician and until some mechanism comes along where the electorate can vote in a different guy for each issue (or in this case for each action taken on the same issue) you're going to see a lot of that. Someone being selected to make decisions on a wide variety of matters over a period of at least four years must eventually be judged on his overall character.

And bottom line, the release of these memos was required by law. Obama himself acknowledges that. And so are investigations required by law, a law that is so far being broken. So we have a case similar to someone who comes to a full stop at a red light, then makes an illegal left turn and runs over a pedestrian. I don't think the first cop on the scene is expected to heap any praise on that driver.

TAGS: Jay Bybee, Torture Memos
Barack Obama, Bush Light?

Canadian Study a Lesson for Teabaggers

2009-04-15T12:00:00.004-04:00

"Three in Four Suffer From Cuts to Public Spending"

From CBC.ca:

Tax cuts could diminish the standard of living for the vast majority of Canadians who enjoy the public services that they fund, according to a study (pdf HERE) by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released on Wednesday.

The majority of Canadian households enjoy a higher quality of life because of the public services their taxes fund, the study argues.
[...]
"What passes for a tax cut debate in Canada is really only half the debate," said study co-author Hugh Mackenzie, an economist. ..."The suggestion we often hear, that taxes are a burden, hides the reality that our taxes fund public services that make Canada's standard of living among the very best," he said.

The study uses Statistics Canada data on government revenues and expenditures to compare public spending in categories including health care, education, social services, old-age security benefits and employment insurance. ...Using the statistics, the report finds that the average per capita benefit from public services in Canada in 2006 was about $16,952.
[...]
"The overall impact of tax cuts — and the cuts in public services that accompany them — has not been addressed in any substantive way," the study states. "Tax cuts are always made to sound like they're free money to middle income Canadians. They are anything but," Mackenzie said. "We're far better off with the public services our taxes fund than we are with tax cuts." Any reduction in income tax results in an equivalent constraint on public spending, the study says, and about three in four Canadians suffer from cuts to public spending.

Overall, the tax cuts implemented in Canada in the last 15 years have had the net effect of reducing the living standards of most Canadians, the reports says.

The study also finds that the number of public services used by Canadians appears to increase as household income and size increase. This is particularly true for households that have children who are accessing publicly funded elementary and secondary schools and seniors who are more likely to use the public health-care system. "Families with young children will tend to benefit relatively more from the health-care system, whereas families with older children will tend to benefit from the public education system to a greater extent than other types of families," the study states.

It's not hard to predict the kind of reaction that this report is going to get from the conservative movement in the US. Reports based on provable facts and confirm-able statistics are not to their liking anyway. They much prefer to rely on ideologically-based theory drawn out of thin air (or worse) - thin air that evidently gets compressed and heated, then spewed out of bloviators' blowholes at FOX "news" in support of this tea-bagging movement. Which, by the way, is an excellent example of astroturfing as defined by Wikipedia, "formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf."

Nor should the motive behind this campaign escape anyone but the morans (sic, see photo) it is directed towards. (or should that be against?) The conservative movement has been pretty successful in the past at getting the poorly educated to vote against their own interests based on simplistic slogans. "Read my lips, just say no, drill baby drill" etcetera. My guess is that they're trying to bring back the glory days of monosyllabic right-tard propaganda -- in spite of being utterly discredited by the spectacular economic disaster wrought from their trickle-down 'free market' policies. My hope is that they're wrong, and that even the worst of the low-information voters will wake up once they've lost their jobs and their homes, and are living in cardboard boxes and depending on food stamps. But then, past experience has been that really poor people don't vote at all, and the GOP has made it nearly impossible for the homeless to even register to vote, so that hope might be a bit optimistic.

The Economist just hosted a debate on whether it's time that the rich be required to pay more in taxes. Just reading some of the closing remarks by Chris Edwards of the Cato institute, arguing against the motion, reveals the paucity of the conservative argument. Unable to attack the logic of his opponent, he mounts a personal, ad hominem attack. "[Parisian economist Thomas] Piketty's understanding of the nature of income is very European, " he whinges. Name calling is rightly regarded as the lowest rung on the scale of debating technique, (see triangular diagram near the bottom) and is characteristic of someone who can't base their argument on facts or logic. So I would say the pro-tax side won the argument.

(Parenthetically, it could, should and must be said that this debate is just one battle being fought in an ongoing and increasingly bitter war between the classes. Because this whole unfortunately named teabagging movement is nothing more than a propaganda effort to perpetuate the Reagan tax cuts. The rich would prefer that you pay for the jackboot that presses against your own neck. If you don't mind, there's a good boy.)

One of the comments at The Economist succinctly expresses why certain functions should not and can not be left to the marketplace.

Of course, the free market doesn't provide universal quality education: thus we must rely on governments to provide this service, and others like it that also serve the greater good but generate no profit. Isn't that the point of taxes in the first place?

You'll often hear Thom Hartmann make the same point in a slightly different way on his radio show. "Don't we already have socialist fire services, socialist police forces, socialist roadways, and a socialist armed forces?"

I would add an observation of my own to that argument. When governments contract out to private enterprise to provide necessary services, they almost invariably do so under a system that is more crony capitalism than healthy competitive free enterprise. Can you say 'cost-plus, no-bid?' It is far better for the public that the money be spent within a government department where it can be more carefully controlled, and where there is recourse for diversion, mis-spending and waste. The whole 'privatization is more efficient' argument falls apart under any close examination.

Certainly the argument against paying taxes for government corruption is a valid one, but just as certainly the remedy is to attack the corruption, not the taxation. Ironically the same type of people who want to spare their buddies the burden of paying their fair share tend to be the type who want to pay off those same buddies through graft. A kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which if you think of it is hardly surprising considering that they want the government to fail. Or at least they claim to; really what they want is a government under their control - maximizing and guaranteeing their profits, socializing their losses, and calling out the guard should the hoi-polloi ever get fed up with the arrangement. In a word, fascism.

Going back to the comment made in The Economist, I think the author chose the perfect example. There is no better investment that a government can make than providing the public with free quality education. A better-educated citizen will earn much more during his lifetime, eventually paying back all the taxes gone into his schooling with interest. Which a wise government will then re-invest on educating his kids.

Maybe it's high time that the wise taxpayer learned that simple lesson. It would certainly be preferred to being conned into participating in some phony protest against your own interests.

ADDENDUM: Just as one example of the COST of LOWER taxes, here's a study of what it cost Americans to NOT have universal health care. (From the National Coalition on Health Care.) Just one fact from this piece forms a conclusive argument. The US spends 17% of GDP on health care and 40% of people are either not covered or not sufficiently covered. Canada covers EVERYBODY for 9.7% of GDP.

TAGS: Tax Day, Public Policy
Conservative "Ideology", vs. Common Sense

London Calling

2009-04-01T20:23:00.003-04:00

Pissed off people, doing something about it:

And the reporter in the middle of it. Good for him!

From Digby:

Update: Zbigniew Brzeznski just said, when asked about whether the G20 leaders care about these protests:
It is a signal to all of us, including them, that if the economic financial crisis is not brought under some constructive control we could have a repetion of this in many other parts of the world, including in the United States.

You know there is a potential rage, public rage, in the United States, at the unfairness and inequality that's involved in the financial crisis and the financial scandal.
Seriously, these MOUs really need to stop their public whining and get behind some things like Grayson's measure. They are fanning the flames of their own funeral pyre. It's just dumb.

Yep - it's just dumb.

Now, just for fun, and reminds me of my punk/eurotrash days:

TAGS: G20 Protests, Banksters and Pushing Back On Them, Won't See This On US Television Will Ya?, Not All People Are Sheep

Another Edition of: Where Are They Now?

2009-03-26T20:31:00.011-04:00

I was watching this on Rachel Maddow:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And while I thought I was just going to do a primer on the the genesis of Graham-Leach-Bliley Act that I've been bitching about for a while in comment sections everywhere, doing the homework reminded me of several things. The whole ass-end of the '90s flashed in my head. Bill-Gotta-Blow-Job was the dominant theme, and everything revolved around "What You Could To To Make Clinton Pay You For Getting An Unauthorized Hummer While Prez!"

Such leverage was entirely unfortunate, because years of lobbying efforts became true (patience please, as I do snag some long swaths from the wayback machine):

The NYT, Oct. 23rd, 1999, reporting that an agreement was nigh:

Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System

The Clinton Administration and top Republican lawmakers reached an agreement early Friday to overhaul the financial system, repealing Depression-era laws that have restricted the banking, securities and insurance industries from expanding into one another's businesses.
The deal was announced about 2 A.M. after a compromise was reached over the measure's effect on lending rules for the disadvantaged, the source of months of partisan bickering between the White House and Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who heads the banking committee.
[...]
For instance, the nation's largest financial services company, Citigroup, would have been forced to sell some of its insurance operations as part of the $72 billion merger last year between Citibank and Travelers Group without either the legislation or a waiver from regulators. [emphasis mine (these above and all emphases below too) - the merger was "technically" illegal - read ILLEGAL - at the time, and this was a retro-patch to make it legal. Sound familiar?]
[...]

Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said in an interview, "At the end of the 20th century, we will at last be replacing an archaic set of restrictions with a legislative foundation for a 21st-century financial system." The measure, he added, "would provide significant benefits to the national economy."

[...]
The idea behind Glass-Steagall, named for the two lawmakers who wrote it, was that confidence in America's financial house could best be restored if bankers and brokers stayed in separate rooms. Such a separation, it was thought, achieved two purposes.
First, it would reduce the potential conflicts of interest between investment banking and commercial banking that were thought to have contributed to the speculative frenzy in the stock markets. Under the 1933 Banking Act, commercial banks could receive no more than 10 percent of their income from the securities markets, a limit so restrictive that most simply abandoned business on Wall Street.
Second, it would provide a safe harbor for the money of ordinary Americans by enabling them to put their money in accounts that were protected by deposit insurance and insulated from more speculative investments like stocks. (The 1933 act also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which now insures bank deposits up to $100,000.)
Over time, Federal judges and regulators chipped away at the Glass-Steagall Act and other restrictions on cross-ownership of banks, insurance companies and securities firms, enabling, for instance, Citibank to merge with Travelers last year to form Citigroup, the world's largest financial services company. But large hurdles remained that have discouraged the expansion by banks into new businesses.
[...]
The breakthrough in Friday's legislation came in a backroom meeting at the Capitol soon after midnight, when a group of moderate Senate Democrats -- led by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Charles E. Schumer of New York -- forced a compromise between Gramm and the White House over the legislation's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-discrimination law intended to encourage lending to minorities and others historically denied access to credit.
Dodd, whose state is home to the nation's largest insurance companies, and Schumer, with strong ties to Wall Street, have long sought legislation to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Both men said in interviews Friday that they moved to strike a compromise after it became apparent that the legislation might be killed, as it was last year by Gramm, over the debate about the Community Reinvestment Act.
Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks. He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law. He also wanted a provision that would expose what he has described as the "extortion" committed by community groups against banks by requiring the groups to disclose any special financial deals the groups extract from the banks.
But the White House found that provision unacceptable and had its own ideas about community lending. It wanted the legislation to prevent any bank with an unsatisfactory record of making loans to the disadvantaged from expanding into new areas, like insurance or securities.
The White House had insisted that the President would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements. Four days of intense negotiations between Summers, Gene Sperling, the President's top economic policy adviser, and Gramm, while moving the two sides closer, failed to resolve the differences.
Such was the state of play Thursday evening when Gramm decided to force the issue by having the House-Senate conference committee vote on his proposed compromise, which the White House had already rejected for failing to block banks with bad lending records from expanding to new businesses.
When Gramm's measure was defeated by one vote, it quickly became clear that there would be no law unless Gramm could get some Democrats to break from the White House.
But Administration officials had spent all day making sure that the Democrats remained solidly against the measure until their concerns about the Community Reinvestment Act could be worked out.

After receiving calls from executives of some of the nation's leading financial companies, Dodd and Schumer began trying to work out a compromise. An agreement was quickly reached on the issue of banks and expanded powers -- no institution would be allowed to move into any new lines of business without a satisfactory lending record.
The lawmakers bogged down on Gramm's insistence that all community organizations disclose to the regulators what benefits they get from banks. Some Democrats expressed the fear that Gramm's proposal would require the Boy Scouts to file reports with the regulators.
Ultimately, the following provisions were drawn up and both the White House and Gramm said they could accept them:
-Banks will not be able to move into new lines of business unless they have satisfactory lending records.
-Community groups will have to make disclosures to regulators about certain kinds of financial deals with banks that they have pressed to make loans under the Community Reinvestment Act.
-Wholesale financial institutions, a new kind of business that takes large, uninsured bank deposits, cannot be affiliated with commercial banks.
-Small banks with satisfactory or excellent track records of lending to the underserved would be reviewed less frequently under the Community Reinvestment Act. As a practical matter smaller banks are reviewed about every three years. The deal struck today allows all rural banks and banks with less than $250 million in assets to undergo examination once every five years if their last exam resulted in an "outstanding" grade and every four years if they last scored "satisfactory."

Familiar? The playahs are really the same from yesterday to today. Not really a surprise. But the nugget I get out of that is revenge of the Banksters today regarding sticking them with CRA provisions: "Hey, if We, The Banksters Of The United States (TBOTUS) are going down, so are those godamned brown and poor people that you made us have in our godamn cake. Otherwise our plan WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECT!"

The NYT, Oct. 23rd, 1999 on background:

Behind the Banking Bill, Years of Intense Lobbying

[...] banking deregulation has been vigorously lobbied and debated for 20 years by three of the nation's wealthiest industries: banking, insurance and securities.
In 1997 and 1998 alone, these three industries gave $58 million to Federal political candidates, according to compilations by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. They donated $87 million in so-called soft money to the political parties, and they reported spending $163 million in additional lobbying expenses.
Some other issues generate larger donations and expenses over limited periods of time. Health care lobbyists on both sides of the managed-care debate, for example, reported $230 million in lobbying expenses in 1997 and 1998. But that issue has been lobbied for a relatively short time. Over two decades of lobbying, the insurance and financial services industries have certainly spent more.
"A tremendous amount of money has been spent just because it has gone on for such a long, long time," said Wright Andrews, a longtime Washington lobbyist who over the years has represented companies on both sides of the debate.
Of course, not every dollar donated by every bank and insurance office was dedicated to this subject. But Gary Hughes, a senior vice president with the American Council of Life Insurance, noted: "The lion's share of our resources have been devoted to this. We viewed this is as critical to the long-term viability of our industry."
Yingling of the bankers association said: "The way we saw it, if we didn't get this legislation we were going to disappear. This was our top issue for a long, long time. The resources devoted to it were huge, and we fought it tooth and nail."
[...]
Schumer was on the House Banking Committee and is now on the Senate Banking Committee. He has long been regarded as the securities industry's strongest ally in Congress. Of course, most brokerage and financial services companies are based in New York City, parts of which Schumer represented in the House. He received more money from the securities industry in 1997 and 1998 than anyone else now in the Senate, almost certainly because he was running for the Senate.
Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, is regarded as one of the strongest allies of the insurance industry. Hartford is the nation's insurance capital. Between 1993 and 1998, Dodd received $325,124 from insurance companies -- not a great deal less than the Republican chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, the man who determined whether banking bills came up for a vote.
The insurance industry gave Gramm $496,610. He also received $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from the banking industry.
[...]
Oddly, though, the lists show that Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the House Banking Committee and has the power to bring bills up for votes or bury them, received meager amounts from the three industries in 1997 and 1998: $8,570 from the bankers, $10,483 from the securities industry and just $3,000 from the insurance companies.
A member of his staff explained: " Leach doesn't take money from PAC's; he never has." Much of the industry money has been donated to members of Congress through political action committees.

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA) Bryan (D-NV) Dorgan (D-ND)	Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Mikulski (D-MD)	Shelby (R-AL) Wellstone (D-MN)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
McCain (R-AZ)