MEDIA ROULETTE
July 2008
One Chickenhawk Down -- One of the most interesting stories I've seen lately (see Vanity Fair , crooksandliars.com) is that Vanity Fair's editor in chief, Graydon Carter, asked writer Christopher Hitchens if he would be willing to subject himself to waterboarding, and Hitchens agreed. Now Hitchens is an enigmatic character, a skilled, articulate writer and speaker, who for some reason chose to employ his gifts to vigorously promote the invasion and destruction of Iraq. He was not just a supporter of the war. Hitchens became an extremely active and vocal proselytiser of it, participating in many public and televised debates to promote it. (with Andrew Arato, with Ron Reagan)
In those many debates, he puts on a very skillful performance, making great use of rhetorical and dramatic devices to push his point even when his point is utterly bankrupt. He speacks with an impeccably polished English accent. He has an encyclopedic mind and can smother you with facts of history and leave you confused and speechless. His arguments are clever ploys and ruses, magnificently delivered, but ultimately without substance because no matter how brilliantly orchestrated they are, they all rest on false premises. One, that 9/11 was the justification for attacking Iraq, that even though no connection could be found, that didn't mean there was none. He employed the quick switch, imperceptibly replacing Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. And that switch was effective because he held Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11, something that's never been effectively established because the Bushies fought tooth and nail against the investigation of the catastrophe. He would say that those who oppose the war against Iraq are giving in to the terrorists. Those who say the aggression only fuels more aggression (a demonstrable fact) are promoting the argument that "resistance to terrorism is the cause of terrorism". Not to attack Saddam Hussein, he argued, is to submit to the terrorists, to give up and let Islamic extremist take over the world. He had his mind made up, and in utter certitude he championed his cause brilliantly.
Hitchens is a perfect armchair militarist, an enthusiastic supporter of war, who has purely an intellectual view of war. His demeanor and body language reveal clearly his life of privilege, his utter lack of knowledge or experience of the least physical challenge or stress. In an article in Slate, Hitchens argued that there was a difference between "extreme interrogation", which is what he called the technique known as waterboarding, and "outright torture." (See Telegraph, tothecenter.com). He's changed his tune now.
The use of language, as Orwell said in "Politics and the English Language", to "name things without calling up mental pictures of them" is well exemplified in the use of the term "waterboarding". It sounds like "snowboarding", a jolly sport in which you skate across the surface of the water on a disk, or maybe a surfboard. It's referred to as "simulated drowning" because it is supposed to stop before it actually kills you, though that doesn't always work and in many cases it becomes real drowning, the completion of the act of murder.
So Hitchens took Graydon up on his challenge and agreed to be subjected to waterboarding, which he did not then consider torture. Now what he underwent can hardly be compared to what really happens to prisoners in the dark confines of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib with some sadists empowered and justified to take the most brutal action against a person defined as the enemy. You can see it in the video. The two kindest waterboardists who ever lived direct him gently to the board upon which he is strapped and explain to him that he is going to be holding some metal thing in his hand and if for any reason he wants the exercise to stop, all he has to do is drop the metal, or say the word "red" and it will be over instantly. Obviously the psychological effect of the real thing is absent here. Hitchens has total control. He can stop it at any second. He is with friends. A few moments before he was in his comfortable life and a few minutes later he will be back in it. He's not thrown in a cold stone cell, repeatedly battered, beaten, terrorized, starved, tormented, insulted, threatened for years without ever knowing if anyone knows he is in there, as is the case with the real prisoners, some of whom have been proven innocent.
In the video, the simulated captors secure the strap over him, gently avoiding his large Anglo Saxon belly, put a piece of cloth over his face and begin to pour water from a gallon jug on his face. One, two, three, four... I timed it at 11 seconds till -- clang! -- the metal went flying. Hitchens now agrees after 11 seconds that waterboarding is indeed torture. See the video. Next: Attorney General Mukasey? Did you say you were not sure if waterboarding qualifies as torture? How about New York Senator Charles Schumer, who thought Mukasey should still be attorney general and led the Democrats in caving in and confirming Mukasey even though he was a bare-faced liar and pretended not to know if waterboarding was torture? Any other doubters? Please step up and take your place in line.
More Hitchens:
Hitchens on the Daily Show in '05
If you want to see how ridiculous Hitchens can get, how pompously and self-righteously he can argue a point that is pointless and carry on as if his belief is ultimate, unassailable truth, when it would be utterly useless and petty even if it weren't absurd, see Hitchens on Why Women Aren't Funny. In this video he carries himself with the same regal bearing as when he's championing the destruction of Iraq.
Enough of Hitchens. In other news:
July 1, 2008
What's He Up To? Paul Krugman on "The Obama Agenda": " In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn't too clear about what that change would involve. Of course, there's always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all." NY Times Generic Reformer Product -- Huffington Post says, "Obama Undercuts his Brand", referring to his risky moves to capture "the center", which means in America, the point midway between 95 percent of the population on one side and corproate power on the other. According to the Post, "Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of 'flip-flopping' from conservatives." 33,000 Headed to Iraq -- How soon till Obama leaves his pledges on Iraq where he left he commitment against warrantless wiretapping? NY Times General Clark on McCain -- "John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues." huffingtonpost.com Joe's Enemies List -- War enthusiast Joe Lieberman says, "Our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration." CBS McCain's Jailer: He Made Up Stories of Torture -- The man who held John McCain captive in Vietnam says he would vote for McCain because he considers him a friend. They were such good buddies, according to Tran Trong Duyet, that McCain's stories about being tortured are just made up stories. According to an Associated Press story, "Duyet claims the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings and solitary confinement in an attempt to win votes." In fact, "Duyet, 75, grew testy during the interview when repeatedly questioned about torture and why so many other former POWs say they too were mistreated. He preferred to talk about McCain as an old buddy." As to POWs who claim to have been tortured, he says, "They are liars. What they said is not true." Al Qaeda Thrives Under Bush Policies -- NY Times cover story: "Qaeda Grows in Pakistan". Here Comes 'W' -- Oliver Stone is at work on a movie about Baby Bush. LA Times But Of Course! Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: "It was Oil All Along" truthout.org George Carlin -- Carlin on Countdown: "This country is finished. It's been sliding downhill a long time, and everybody has cell phones that make pancakes and they don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to make any trouble. People have been bought off by gizmos and toys in this country. No one questions things anymore ... Power does what it wants... " youtube.com Lieberman must go!
July 2, 2008
Target Iran -- Seymour Hersch on how the Bush administration is pushing forward with their actions against Iran. The New Yorker/OpEd News. Wild Man McCain -- McCain lost five U.S. aircraft, according to vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com, drawing information from The Nightingale's Song, a book by Robert Timberg about Annapolis graduates and their tours in Vietnam. "Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school," says the site. "He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft. His father John S. 'Junior' McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. During his relative short stint on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat." More questions on McCain's reputation for heroism at Eagles Nest II.
July 3, 2008
Here comes July Fourth! Which means what? Hey kids! It's the Macy's July 4th Sale, of course. Thousands of fabulous bargains, your chance to shop till you drop! Oh boy! Oh and by the way, there's another thing. Not sure what this means. It says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. Hmmm. Oh well.
One Chickenhawk Down -- One of the most interesting stories I've seen lately (see Vanity Fair , crooksandliars.com) is that Vanity Fair's editor in chief, Graydon Carter, asked writer Christopher Hitchens if he would be willing to subject himself to waterboarding, and Hitchens agreed. Now Hitchens is an enigmatic character, a skilled, articulate writer and speaker, who for some reason chose to employ his gifts to vigorously promote the invasion and destruction of Iraq. He was not just a supporter of the war. Hitchens became an extremely active and vocal proselytiser of it, participating in many public and televised debates to promote it. (with Andrew Arato, with Ron Reagan)
In those many debates, he puts on a very skillful performance, making great use of rhetorical and dramatic devices to push his point even when his point is utterly bankrupt. He speacks with an impeccably polished English accent. He has an encyclopedic mind and can smother you with facts of history and leave you confused and speechless. His arguments are clever ploys and ruses, magnificently delivered, but ultimately without substance because no matter how brilliantly orchestrated they are, they all rest on false premises. One, that 9/11 was the justification for attacking Iraq, that even though no connection could be found, that didn't mean there was none. He employed the quick switch, imperceptibly replacing Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. And that switch was effective because he held Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11, something that's never been effectively established because the Bushies fought tooth and nail against the investigation of the catastrophe. He would say that those who oppose the war against Iraq are giving in to the terrorists. Those who say the aggression only fuels more aggression (a demonstrable fact) are promoting the argument that "resistance to terrorism is the cause of terrorism". Not to attack Saddam Hussein, he argued, is to submit to the terrorists, to give up and let Islamic extremist take over the world. He had his mind made up, and in utter certitude he championed his cause brilliantly.
Hitchens is a perfect armchair militarist, an enthusiastic supporter of war, who has purely an intellectual view of war. His demeanor and body language reveal clearly his life of privilege, his utter lack of knowledge or experience of the least physical challenge or stress. In an article in Slate, Hitchens argued that there was a difference between "extreme interrogation", which is what he called the technique known as waterboarding, and "outright torture." (See Telegraph, tothecenter.com). He's changed his tune now.
The use of language, as Orwell said in "Politics and the English Language", to "name things without calling up mental pictures of them" is well exemplified in the use of the term "waterboarding". It sounds like "snowboarding", a jolly sport in which you skate across the surface of the water on a disk, or maybe a surfboard. It's referred to as "simulated drowning" because it is supposed to stop before it actually kills you, though that doesn't always work and in many cases it becomes real drowning, the completion of the act of murder.
So Hitchens took Graydon up on his challenge and agreed to be subjected to waterboarding, which he did not then consider torture. Now what he underwent can hardly be compared to what really happens to prisoners in the dark confines of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib with some sadists empowered and justified to take the most brutal action against a person defined as the enemy. You can see it in the video. The two kindest waterboardists who ever lived direct him gently to the board upon which he is strapped and explain to him that he is going to be holding some metal thing in his hand and if for any reason he wants the exercise to stop, all he has to do is drop the metal, or say the word "red" and it will be over instantly. Obviously the psychological effect of the real thing is absent here. Hitchens has total control. He can stop it at any second. He is with friends. A few moments before he was in his comfortable life and a few minutes later he will be back in it. He's not thrown in a cold stone cell, repeatedly battered, beaten, terrorized, starved, tormented, insulted, threatened for years without ever knowing if anyone knows he is in there, as is the case with the real prisoners, some of whom have been proven innocent.
In the video, the simulated captors secure the strap over him, gently avoiding his large Anglo Saxon belly, put a piece of cloth over his face and begin to pour water from a gallon jug on his face. One, two, three, four... I timed it at 11 seconds till -- clang! -- the metal went flying. Hitchens now agrees after 11 seconds that waterboarding is indeed torture. See the video. Next: Attorney General Mukasey? Did you say you were not sure if waterboarding qualifies as torture? How about New York Senator Charles Schumer, who thought Mukasey should still be attorney general and led the Democrats in caving in and confirming Mukasey even though he was a bare-faced liar and pretended not to know if waterboarding was torture? Any other doubters? Please step up and take your place in line.
More Hitchens:
Hitchens on the Daily Show in '05
If you want to see how ridiculous Hitchens can get, how pompously and self-righteously he can argue a point that is pointless and carry on as if his belief is ultimate, unassailable truth, when it would be utterly useless and petty even if it weren't absurd, see Hitchens on Why Women Aren't Funny. In this video he carries himself with the same regal bearing as when he's championing the destruction of Iraq.
Enough of Hitchens. In other news:
Welcoming Fascism -- The warrantless wiretapping system that Bush established illegally and Congress then moved quickly to legalize -- which has now been endorsed by that Prophet of Change Barack Obama, lays the foundation for a police state, according to Mark Klein, the retired AT&T engineer who stepped forward with the technical documents that form the basis of the anti-wiretapping case against AT&T. According to Klein (see wired.com), "The Democratic leadership is touting the deal as a 'compromise,' but in fact they have endorsed the infamous Nuremberg defense: 'Just following orders.' The judge can only check their paperwork. This cynical deal is a Democratic exercise in deceit and cowardice." Join the Cause Against Warrantless Wiretapping -- Sign Senator Russ Feingold's petition against warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity at Democracyforamerica.com Barack, Why? For me, though I have been a supporter of Obama, even been stirred to passion by his statements, his writings, his candidacy and advocacy, and still obviously support him over the Frankenstein monster produced by the system as the only other choice, I must say he lost me with his abandonment of his opposition to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. To see a good discussion of this and how eloquently Obama has stated the case against his current position, see Glenn Greenwald salon.com. The article also shows how the activist base the Obama has enabled, and which has buoyed him to his present position, can also be used to express one's disappointment in his turnaround and abandonment of principle in this case. I went to his site and expressed my disappointment with this note: "Open letter to Barack Obama: I love ya, Barack. I've read your memoir and been very stirred by your advocacy, your campaign, and of course I remain a supporter and will stay at your side to oppose the Frankenstein monster the Republicans are throwing at us. But I have to say, you lost me. You lost my enthusiasm and my heart. You dashed my hope. I find your turnaround on the warrantless wiretapping to be so inexplicable, such a fundamental betrayal of the most precious principles of our free society, not to mention your own candidacy, that I feel I have fallen back into the hopelessness that for a while you stirred me from. It's very sad. I don't understand it. It's not a small point, and it's hard to see what you gain by abandoning it, other than corporate support, support of the right wing. No one expressed the reason for opposing this better than you. Why the change? Who whispered in your ear? What is going on? Where is the Barack we knew? Or thought we knew? Oh well. Good luck." Tell Barack -- On this site (my.barackobama.com) you can join a group of Obama supporters who are urging him to return to his earlier position opposing warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity. Fight Back! -- Blue America has a way to take action against the retroactive immunity that is about to pass the Senate. Fox Garbage News Hits New Low -- Or, who knows, it's probably not a new low. It's probably just business as usual, but it's been exposed in this case. According to a report on AOL News, Fox news doctored pictures taken from the New York Times to tarnish the image of people it wanted to smear. "Media Matters has graciously provided us with the before-and-after evidence showing that Fox purposefully yellowed Steinberg's teeth, widened his nose and chin, and photo-shopped his ears stick out further. Reddicliffe also received the yellow-teeth treatment, as well as dark circles under his eyes, and an exaggeration of his receding hairline." See the comparison photos for yourself here. American Ignorance -- "About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family [The Simpsons], according to a survey."tomdispatch.com
July 4, 2008
"How dare they rip the Fourth Amendment?" by Joseph L. Galloway at mcclatchydc.com. "How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people? How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?"Your Tax Dollars at Work -- The supposed "brilliant rescue" of hostages in Colombia was really a payoff of $20 million to the Farc rebels, according to Swiss radio station RSR. The UK Times reported, "According to Bogota, the hostages were freed in an elaborate ruse by Colombian intelligence agents who had infiltrated the Marxist Farc rebels holding them. But RSR said that the 15 hostages 'were in reality ransomed for a high price, and the whole operation afterwards was a set-up'. Citing a source 'close to the events, reliable and tested many times in recent years', it said that the United States – which had three citizens among those freed – was behind the deal and put the price at $20 million." The Colombian government denies it. The U.S. government has not commented. See also The Guardian.
July 5, 2008
A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States -- "Through my signature below I hereby withdraw my consent to be ruled by the organization that has called itself the Government of the United States of America. A government is empowered through the consent of the governed to serve a sacred purpose, namely, to create a bright and sustainable future for its people and a biodiverse garden of its region. This purpose is possible. If a government no longer serves its intended purpose then it is proper that each individual formally withdraw his or her consent to be ruled by that government." Do check this out. opednews.com Not Good Enough -- Glen Greenwald deconstructs Obama's Statement on FISA. Not the Man, the Movement -- Amy Goodman makes a very good point in her opinion piece that appears in the Madison Times. In answer to the question, "Is Obama a sellout?" Goodman offers what I think is the proper perspective for us all to keep clearly in mind: "The question isn't whether he is a sellout or not -- it's about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them." This perspective keeps the power where it really is, in the people. The people are only powerless to the extent that they are convinced by the most powerful that they are powerless, that it is not about them it is about the media superstars selected by the "powers that be". Time to wash that idea from the mind. It's not about a pretty face, eloquence and charisma. It is about the principles that are vitally important to this country and to the world, which are violently under attack by the corporately controlled government in power. Time to stand up for them. Not for Obama, not for the Democratic party, but for the principles they are supposed to uphold for all people. Everyone Loves to Compromise the Constitution -- Mark Fiore's animation on Constitutional Compromise. Judge Rejects Bush Power Claim -- A California judge who was appointed by Poppy Bush rejected Bush Jr.'s claim that his role as "commander in chief" overrides his obligation to obey the law in regard to spying on Americans. Of course the compliant and subservient Congress, including the man who would be the alternative to Bush's presidency, is about to overrule the law that prevented Bush from doing it anyway, so then the next test will be whether it stands up to the Constitutional test. And with all those Bush cronies on the court, what should be a clear cut defeat for Bush is not clear at all. The case is significant because many of the groups who sued the government and the telecom giants for spying on them consolidated their cases under this one suit. With the Senate on the verge of overturning the law that prevented the Bushovics from launching their big brother spying apparatus, this case may be more or less nullified. But then again, there is the Constitution to consider, if anyone cares anymore. New York Times
July 6, 2008
Puzzled? According to a Reuters report, "Obama said on Saturday his plan to end the Iraq war was unchanged and he was puzzled by the sharp reaction to his statement this week that he might 'refine' his timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops." He said he was puzzled by the strong reaction to his comments that indicate he might be changing his position about Iraq. "I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off with what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. After just abandoning his strongly stated position against warrantless wiretapping, embracing Bush's faith-based pandering program and several other movements in a marked rightward lurch, is he really surprised that people have lost some faith in him? Is it really so surprising that his supporters fear that his statements about "fine-tuning" his position on Iraq indicate he's about to abandon another core principle in his attempt to woo the right wing? Can he really be that puzzled? If so, this is a good, early opportunity for him to assess the situation and figure out what has happened. As charming and eloquent as he is, this movement is not about Barack Obama, it's about the positions he has taken, about the cause of change which he has embraced, identified with, and which has stirred people deeply. If he abandons it, he will lose what he has built.Still Unanswered Questions -- JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. An intriguing title. According to the author, JFK went through a transformation during his thousand days as president, through his betrayal by the CIA over the Bay of Pigs attack on Cuba, and the near nuclear catastrophe of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when military leaders were pushing for a nuclear attack on Cuba. He entered office as a cold warrior but was transformed and began to pull back from military aggression, making him a threat to the military-industrial establishment. Read about the book at Stranger In a Strange Land, a review at Buzzflash, and read an excerpt at amazon.com.
July 7, 2008
More on the Colombia Hostage Release -- In spite of vehement denials that a ransom was paid in the no-shots-fired freeing of the hostages in Colombia, the story is not going away. See "FARC Farce" at shockfront.org for more.Why FISA Matters -- By Glenn Greenwald atSalon.com. "Nancy Soderberg was deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration. Today, she has an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times defending the FISA bill and telecom amnesty. The entire Op-Ed is just a regurgitation of the same trite, vague talking points which the political elite are using to justify this bill, accompanied by the standard invocations of "National Security" which our Foreign Policy elite condescendingly toss around to justify whatever policy they're claiming is necessary to protect us. But it's the language that she uses -- and the brazenness of the lying (and that's what it is) to justify this bill -- that's notable here." TUBE TIME
History -- "Robert Kennedy in South Africa, June 1966" The Questions -- RFK - 'We've shot him. We've shot him.' ORDER 66 Eternal Flame -- Never Gonna Break My Faith, sung by Aretha Franklin, Mary J. Blige and the Harlem Boys Choir, written by Bryan Adams, used as the exit music in the Emilio Estevez movie Bobby. Get it on! The Lyrics -- "You can cast the first stones you can break my bones, But you're never gonna break You're never gonna break my Faith" The Dream The Simon & Garfunkel "Sound of Silence" sequence from the Estevez movie Bobby. RFK in 1968 -- "The most emotional adulation I've ever seen in politics.". RFK gives himself to the people, faces death. 'Fearless to the cusp of reckless'. Judgment -- Ted Sorensen on Barack Obama.
July 10, 2008
How They Voted -- The bums in the Senate voted to give immunity to the telecom companies who aided Bush in spying on Americans, a felony, and gave Bush more power to spy on Americans. It's a dark day in America. Obama supported it. Clinton did not. To Clinton supporters, I apologize. Today she's looking a lot better than Obama. See a report at Truthout. I'm so sick of this line "9/11 necessitated more presidential authority." Look where the fuck it's gotten us. Very disappointed in Obama. No profile in courage this time around. He could have been a leader in this very important legal issue. Instead he lay down on his back for corporate America.Hello Authoritarianism -- Glen Greenwald in Salon: "The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly." What's With Obama? So what caused young Barack to change his mind, to turnaround 180 degrees on the warrantless spy program and give Bush a law to legalize his crimes and immunize his accomplices? Who whispered in his ear? Did he decide, now that he has consolidated his "base", that he's more concerned with the telecom corporations than with us, the people? Now the rest of us, cut adrift, are left to wonder, if this is the change candidate, how is he different from the same candidate? I went to his site and blew off some steam with a letter: "Very very disappointing and disheartening, to see the man we put our hopes in, the man who led us to believe he offered change, abandon us and the Constitution to legalize Bush's crimes and immunize his accomplices who abused our supposed freedoms and spied on Americans without legal authorization. If you are the change candidate, how are you different from the same old slide toward authoritarianism of Bush and McCain? This is not a small issue. It is a huge issue. It was a chance for you to show leadership and stand for principle. We the people of the Democratic party empowered you with our force, our backing. You could have, should have stood up for us. Instead, you behave as though now that you have us in your back pocket, you can cater to the right wing, the Republicans and the corporations who have abused America for years. This is a very very sad day." Down, Down, Down -- Meanwhile, Congress's approval ratings have fallen into the single digits for the first time. rasmussenreports.com Hang 'em High -- Dan Kennedy, writing in the Guardian, asks, "Should Bush be tried for war crimes?" And goes on to say, "The chorus demanding George Bush be prosecuted for torture and other constitutional abuses is getting louder." And yet, Kennedy writes, "We can't move on. Everywhere you turn, there are reminders of the demons that have been unleashed in the name of fighting terrorism. We are less democratic and less free than we were before Bush and Dick Cheney entered office following an election that they demonstrably did not win. If we don't come to terms with what happened, there's little chance of reversing our slide into authoritarianism."
July 11, 2008
Cheney Censored Environmental Testimony -- Dick Cheney (Satan) directed members of his staff to cut six pages out of the testimonty of Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which she would have said that the "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern." Is this even comprehensible -- the depth of evil of this man? This is a major threat to the whole population of the United States and of the world -- an international emergency of inconceivable dimension -- and he does not want anyone to know. Is it just to postpone action so that his buddies in his companies and his industries can make some more money first before anything is done? How can anyone be so evil, so greedy, so selfish? Already the man has enough money to start his own space program, but it's not enough, apparently. He is the embodiment of the cold, heartless corporation that exists only to amass more profit, more wealth. Destroy the world and turn its resources into figures on a balance sheet. Evil Dick, the incorrigible creep. The worst man in the world. The inconceivably foul and wretched human being. The all-time king of rogues. Even the sound of his name fits. It sounds like one of Edgar Alan Poe's creations. He has provided us with a villain character for all of history. Thanks, Dick. washingtonpost.com
SUNDAY NEWS
July 13, 2008
Bush Brains -- Ben Cohen on huffingtonpost.com discusses the window into Bush's insanity via a 2004 interview with Irish journalist Carol Coleman of Radio Television Ireland. Cohen: "The interview with Coleman should go down on record as definitive proof of Bush's utter incompetence, a priceless picture of a madman who had no business occupying the highest office of the land... The interview with Coleman should go down on record as definitive proof of Bush's utter incompetence, a priceless picture of a madman who had no business occupying the highest office of the land."Glen Greenwald: Torture and the Rule of Law. "There are two choices and only two choices for every country -- live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We've collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws -- that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. We've thus become a country which lives under the proverbial "rule of men" -- that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed... Things like "torture" and "illegal eavesdropping" can't be compared as though they're separate, competing policies. They are rooted in the same framework of lawlessness. The same rationale that justifies one is what justifies the other. Endorsing one is to endorse all of it." salon.com Rogue Regime in America -- Rep. John Conyers on "Karl Rove, The White House And The Rule Of Law" huffingtonpost.co. Giving a Rat's Ass About the Constitution -- Tom D'Antoni: "It's Outrageous That Rove Is Walking Free" huffingtonpost.com. "What is most astounding is how incredibly far the Democrats in Congress are behind the curve of where the public is at on this and so many other issues." The Tide Turns -- Seven Republican Members of House Judiciary Committ.ee are calling for impeachment opednews.com.
July 14, 2008
The Downfall of the Free Market Religion -- E.J. Dionne writes on The Death of Reaganomics. The biggest political story, says Dionne, is "the collapse of assumptions that have dominated our economic debate for three decades. Since the Reagan years, free-market clichés have passed for sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that capitalism is ailing. You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth doesn’t matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to “grow the pie” is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy is 'protectionism.'" As capitalism takes to the sick bed even conservatives are dropping the free market orthodoxy for a healthy dose of regulation. "This is the third time in 100 years that support for taken-for-granted economic ideas has crumbled," writes Dionne. "The Great Depression discredited the radical laissez-faire doctrines of the Coolidge era. Stagflation in the 1970s and early ’80s undermined New Deal ideas and called forth a rebirth of radical free-market notions. What’s becoming the Panic of 2008 will mean an end to the latest Capital Rules era."
July 15, 2008
All of You Enemies -- The U.S. government's terrorist watch list is growing by 20,000 records a month and has now passed the 1 million mark. One million Americans now being watched as "terrorists". (washingtonpost.com) What is the meaning of this? Is there some viral infection of insanity sweeping through the country, turning ordinary Americans into bomb-throwing terrorists? Or is the paranoid Bush administration turning ordinary Americans into terrorists by definition. Those who oppose the Bush radicalism are terrorists. Simple.
-- David Cogswell