.. that fantasy has now been put violently to rest[1] ...
.. thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush&Co
-=*=-
"Support the troops" is one of these 'framing' frauds, just as "Some of my best friends are..." and "Hate America, love Murkins."
My friends are friends on merit; I carry no dead wood.
Conversely, in a so-called democratic state, the voters are sovereign. If they choose - or even allow the 'non-choice' to be foisted upon them, to be turned into an ignorant mob - of sheople®, say, then that majority of voters, whatever their composition, are both collectively and individually responsible for any criminal acts perpetrated by their so-called 'leadership.'
No more 'free rides,' boys; whether troops or voters, if you can't restrain your 'mad George' types, or if you (troops, public 'servants,' bum-wipers) actually murder for spoil, or give orders to murder for spoil, or just not *actively, effectively oppose* murder for spoil, then all such types - troops, voters and/or bum-wipers alike are unequivocally condemned - and are utterly contemptible to boot. Murderers are, whose country murders. Prime examples: US, Israel (with UK poodle and Aus dag). We can extend this condemnation to any who cuddle murderers (i.e. those who assist them, even if by not opposing them), such as Sarkozy and Merkel, say.
Once again, I make no apologies for calling the mugs for what they are - i.e. sheople. If this makes the mugs all the more recalcitrant, well and good - because if all we ever get is 'more of the same,' then the greedastrophe® will arrive all that sooner - and the sorting can begin.
'Sorting?' - Yes. Evolution by survival of the fittest; we'll find out soon enough; is the predominant, surviving human characteristic to be some combination of vile greed and criminality, or will it be something a bit 'higher,' like cooperative peace and love, say?
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] «For the decade or two following the end of the Cold War, people might have been excused for believing that a new phase in the evolution of the international political system had been realized, one in which, while plenty of injustices would remain, at least the worst excesses of great power aggression seemed a vestige of twentieth century practice and eighteenth century mentality. That fantasy has now been put violently to rest, as the two greatest powers on the planet have returned to playing the great game with a vengeance, preying on lesser powers in pursuit of resources, strategic positioning or just plain national pride.»
[David Michael Green (G'day Bob)]
My comment: We've been conned - propagandised, by perpetrators via the venal corporate MSM, plus public broadcasters like the AusBC & SBS. I don't know from what worm-eaten woodwork these Judas Iscariot-types crawl, but they are in no way clever, merely commonly criminal. Although it may initially sound heretical, my accusations re: the AusBC & SBS are neither casual nor without proof. An 'easy' proof of AusBC culpability is the fact that for 60+ years they have portrayed Israel as a David heroically resisting an Arab/Muslim Goliath, with some 'extra' keywords like 'Islamo-fascism' thrown in lately, for 'framing' good measure. This portrayal is total bulls**t; the I/J/Z-plex dominating the Israeli regime and a horrendously large chunk of the US regime is in the criminal business of murdering for spoil (land and water), just as the US regime is concentrating on murder for resources, oil in particular.
As well as the D vs. G furphy illustrating the AusBC's culpability, it also proves that it's neither partisan (much!) nor accidental - because the AusBC behaves badly (and is biased, but not to the left as is usually alleged), more or less under both political stripes. Hmmm? Ergo, neither Lab nor Lib in their current guises can be our saviour, and the AusBC & SBS are shown to be conduits - even amplifiers - of filthy, propagandistic lies.
Then I hear someone say "So what? That's just the way it is." Typical of desensitized sheople, and again wholly illustrative of the problem.
Q: Why do the crims invest so much hubristic effort into their lying attempts at deception? Why does the venal MSM and AusBC etc. play along, echoing the lies?
A: Because if the sheople really knew, there'd be real trouble - and the crimes would be stopped - because the overwhelming majority of sheople are fundamentally honest, i.e. *not* criminal.
Sooo, how about it, sheople? Our future survival (or not) really is in your hands. Wanna help? If yes, then demand that your representative(s) start actively representing you.
2008/08/17
support the troops? - no! ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
G'day Phil, with the aggression comes the hypocrisy as Glenn Greenwald reminds us ... and a bit of historical perspective thrown in.
It's hardly news that the U.S., like many countries, espouses standards that it routinely violates, but still, even in light of such routine hypocrisy, wouldn't you think that this, from Condoleezza Rice today, on an airplane to U.S. reporters while traveling to a NATO meeting, would be too brazen to utter:
Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century.
Whatever one's views are on the justifiability of each isolated instance, it's simply a fact that the U.S. invades, bombs, occupies, and interferes in the internal affairs of other countries far more than any other country on the planet. It's not even a close competition.
Perhaps Mushroom Cloud has a problem with her memory:\
Just during the time Rice has served in the Bush administration, we bombed, invaded and occupied Afghanistan; did the same to Iraq; repeatedly bombed Somalia, killing all sorts of civilians; fed bombs to Israel as they invaded and bombed Lebanon; top political officials (led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman) have repeatedly threatened, and advocated, that the same be done to a whole host of other countries, including Iran and Syria. That's to say nothing of the virtually countless interventions and bombings in the pre-Bush, "peacetime" years -- from the Balkans and Panama to Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and on and on and on.
If only the media would confront her with the historical record. But we've dealt with the MSM previously.
And Paul Craig Roberts.
Running out'a time at the moment, and even less time will be available in the near term. Thanks for the great links (us usual), Bob; here's a quote - actually three - from your JPR article:
«Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.»
and:
«In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.»
then:
«If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.»
My comment: sheople®!
Ooops! For JPR, please read PCR (time-stress, sorry).
G'day Phil, following the cautions about what another Republican administration might bring, what of the Dems? Some are rejoicing over the Obama/Biden ticket, but how much different will it be?
Chris Floyd.
Joe Biden eagerly voted for the liberty-stripping Patriot Act; indeed, he claims to be its guiding inspiration.
Joe Biden is eager to prosecute the Terror War, which has already laid waste to three countries (yes, three; just because Obama, Biden, Bush and McCain never mention Somalia doesn't mean that ravaged, unlucky land is not part and parcel of their beloved WOT) and killed more than a million innocent people. Let that last fact sink in for a minute. Let that blood wash over your hands as you sit back with a cold brewski to watch the political conventions and debate fine points of presentation and handicap the "horse race." Mountains of the dead, vast pits of the dead, row upon row of the dead, just like the film clips you've seen of the Holocaust, all in the name of the berserker rage -- and the cooly calculated profits and power-games -- of the 'War on Terror' that both Biden and Obama want to wage in a "better" way than Bush has done.
(And now the UN informs us of 90 more innocents blasted to pieces in Afghanistan -- where Obama, like McCain, has promised to expand the Terror War, with 10,000 or more extra troops, and more bombs, more missiles, more attacks into the nuclear powder keg of Pakistan.)
And, as noted above, Joe Biden stood shoulder to shoulder with class warlords like Bush and Cheney to punish and ravage and drive down working people and the poor, on behalf of the rich and powerful.
No one forced Obama to choose such a running mate. No one forced Obama to make the statement of his own values that such a choice proclaims. It is glaringly, painfully apparent that he has no genuine values, beyond a keen ambition for power. Last week he was denouncing the Bankruptcy Bill. This week he's defending Biden's role in putting together a satisfactory "compromise" on the atrocity, while excusing the flagrant conflict-of-interest in the employment of Biden's son at MBNA. (It is also noteworthy to see how many liberal-progressive "dissident" types are suddenly finding outstanding qualities in Joe Biden, overcoming their various "quibbles" about his record and "evolving" toward a more mature and considered position on his virtues.)
Sometimes after I write critically of Obama and the Democrats, people ask me: "Well, what are we supposed to do? He's not perfect, they're not perfect, but don't you think McCain would be worse?"
As it happens, I do think McCain would be "worse" -- but only marginally so, for reasons I've laid out before. But what does that matter? These are the wrong questions for a nation swimming, sinking, drowning in the innocent blood shed by its bipartisan war machine. These are the wrong questions for a nation whose politics have become -- literally, with no metaphor or exaggeration -- insane, mired in violence, delusion and self-destruction. Whatever happens, whoever wins, there will be more war, more needless death, more mass murder in the name of America. Whoever wins, there will be more state-assisted assaults on working people and the poor. There will be more coddling of the rich, more servicing of the powerful, more injustice, more inequality.
The system is broken.
Robert Parry on a McCain administration.
Robert Scheer.
All those wars .. must be prepared with the too9ls of the trade .. and the Pentagon is trying .. from Tomdispatch, Nick Turse.
Madness reigns.
G'day Phil, continuing on the theme of the Dems candidates ... this from Stephen Zunes gets a mention in the main piece from Chris Floyd which also, and in large part, features Arthur Silber.
Arthur Silber points us to some of the money shots in Biden's speech. And the porn allusion is entirely appropriate in this case. The speech, like the whole evening -- which was given over to the glorification of war and the triumphant militarization of American society -- was a lurid example of the pornography of power.
For example, listen to Goldwat -- oops, Biden -- thundering at the evil Rooskies:
Ladies and gentlemen, in recent years and in recent days, we've once again seen the consequences of the neglect -- of this neglect, with Russia challenging the very freedom of a new democratic country of Georgia. Barack and I will end that neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we will help the people of Georgia rebuild.
What will he and Barack do to hold the Russians "accountable"? And accountable for what? For acting precisely as the bipartisan foreign policy establishment of the United States has acted for decades: using military power to achieve political ends and "project dominance" to protect "national interests" as defined by the ruling clique? And in this case -- unlike, oh, say, the Americans in Iraq or Somalia or Panama or Lebanon or Vietnam, etc. -- the Russians were provoked into action when their soldiers (lawfully stationed in South Ossetia with UN sanction, just like the American troops at the enormous Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo) were assaulted and killed, along with numerous innocent civilians, in a sneak attack by Georgian forces armed and trained by Washington.
What would an American administration have done in such a case? It would have laid waste to Tbilisi, as was done in Baghdad, Fallujah, Belgrade. It would have occupied Georgia; it would have sent soldiers barging into houses to drag out the menfolk and terrorize the women and children; it would have constructed enormous prisons to hold tens of thousands of Georgians captive, without charges, for months and years on end; it would bring in secret agents of unnameable agencies and private contractors to conduct "strenuous interrogations;" it would drop 500-pound bombs on residential areas if some guy at a computer console in a hole in Nebraska operating a drone camera spotted a Georgian man carrying a weapon or even -- heaven forbid! -- firing a weapon at the people who invaded and occupied his country, destroyed his home and killed his kinsmen.
In other words, the reaction of any American administration to such a provocation (or as in the case of Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Panama, Vietnam, etc., to no provocation whatsoever) would make Russia's action in Georgia look like a game of beach volleyball. Yet big bad Joe Biden -- and his commander-in-chief, Barry Goldwa--sorry, Barack Obama -- are going to hold Russia "accountable" (in some conveniently unspecified way) for not acting as brutally as any American administration would have done in the same situation.
Do as I say ...
On the matter of what people say - better to look at who advises them.
The conclusion of this last piece:
And some people call it "change." I call it unadulterated bullshit and nauseating lies -- and I also call it criminal war, unforgivable murder, and the promise of only further devastation, chaos and suffering.
Yes, the truth shall drive you mad. Try some truth about the body- and mind-obliterating lunacy of war, and join the ranks of the insane.
They don't need an election, they need a second revolution - to restore the principles they expounded in the first.
G'day Phil, McInsane has chosen his vp .. and some choice ... a woman .. nothing wrong with that ... on-term gov of Alaska, was runner-up in Miss Alaska. no forpol experience ... now for some views:
Gary Kamiya.
Joan Walsh.
Mike Madden.
And has she good Repuke credentials? Perhaps.
Political skills.
Over the weekend, the Anchorage Daily News discovered a whole new reason Governor Palin is the perfect person to be the next Dick Cheney:
She can look you in eye and tell you black is white.
Especially when there's oil involved.
Back in January, the secretary of the interior was considering whether or not polar bears should be on the endangered species list. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Childish romantics, who think there should be more bio-diversity on Earth than cows and us, wanted them listed. Grown-ups (and oil company lobbyists) argued that the answers are never that simple. But what about the scientists? Governor Palin wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that said:
"I strongly believe that adding them [polar bears that is, not scientists] to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."
The polar bears weren't drowning. They were hanging themselves in their cells.
So that was that. Scientists said so.
Except they didn't.
The Feds -- who eventually did add the bears to the list -- based their decision on models that showed all of Alaska's polar bears dead by 2050. The ice they hunt and mate on is melting and they'll fall in the water and drown.
There were too many "ifs" to this theory for Governor Palin. (Does ice really melt when it gets warm? Is ice really water? It doesn't look like water.) She had to have her own people check it out. So she sent the Feds' reports to three marine biologists, including Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Small wrote back:
"Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports."
In other words, the Feds are right. The email is dated October 9, 2007. Palin's op ed, where she says they said the Feds were wrong, was published January 5th, 2008.
But was Palin lying? Not technically. Look at what she wrote again. She only says her decision is "based on a comprehensive review of wildlife experts." She doesn't say it's based on agreeing with anything they said. That's you, jumping to conclusions.
It's like later, in the same op ed, where she repeats talk radio's favorite polar bear fact:
"Polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago."
The implication is that their habit is stable and climate change is something Al Gore made up because he's lonely. But it's only an implication. Why else would their population increase? I mean, we also stopped hunting them in 1973, and that's... let's see... 08 minus 73... carry the 5... round up... about 40 years ago. Not shooting them -- that might be part of the explanation. But I'm sure there's more.
All I know is, there are lots of polar bears and no scientific reason at all to believe they can't live happily, underwater, eating clean coal. Let's get drilling!
It's almost like Republicans say ridiculous twisted half-truths, and the New York Times publishes them as facts.
Makes you wonder if they'd lie about a war.
Not a lot of experience but obviously learning fast.
G'day Phil, Chris Floyd weighs in on the Palin issue .... with some Arthur Silber thrown in.
John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seems to have thrown the media-political-blogospherical establishments into a tizzy. It's hard to see why. Sure, Cleese would have been better than Palin -- more gravitas, louder voice. And of course, the late, lamented Graham Chapman would make a better president than any of the four ticket-toppers of the two major parties. I mean, even now he would be better, despite being dead and British and all.
But I must say that I strongly disagree with the argument that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president of the United States. Such a stance betrays a lamentable misperception of the true function of the office in these modern times. It also ignores the craven nature of our political and media establishments, which has been on such brazen display for lo these many years.
First of all, what do you think would happen in the not-unlikely-event that an aged, ailing President McCain either died or became incapacitated? The very instant that Palin assumed the presidency, the aforesaid establishments would surround her with an aura of substance, seriousness, and respect. She would become..."The President"...her title invoked with the same frisson of pleasurable self-abnegation that accompanied every utterance of the holy phrase on "The West Wing." The media would find hidden reservoirs of charisma and command suddenly coming to light. We would hear stories of her folksy charm, her steely resolve, her self-deprecating wit, her surprising grasp of complex issues.
It doesn't matter what kind of poltroon parks his or her butt in the Oval Office, or how they get in there; they will be presented to the people as a figure of moral authority and gravitas -- and be accepted as such by large swathes of the public. How can anyone have lived through the presidency of an utter non-entity like George W. Bush -- not to mention the presidencies of the fourth-rate aristo George H.W. Bush or the literally brain-corroded Ronald Reagan -- and not know this? As Shakespeare told us long ago in King Lear: "Behold the great image of authority; a dog's obeyed in office."
And haven't the past eight years been a painfully glaring demonstration of the undeniable fact that the office of the presidency is -- or certainly can be -- the emptiest of empty shams, a front behind which powerful elite factions shelter as they push their self-serving and undemocratic agendas? Yes, yes, yes, there are tussles and disagreements, even blood feuds, among the elite, there are narrow areas in which marginal differences in policy approaches might come into play. But no one -- no one -- becomes president or vice-president who has not already bought into the basic package: militarism, empire and continual state intervention in the economy on behalf of the rich and powerful. (For a brilliant exposition of the latter point, see this analysis at A Tiny Revolution, which uses the administration of the "Big Dog" himself as a perfect example of how, with every president, "You're dancin' with whom they tell you to/Or you don't dance at all," in the words of another national bard.)
Don't mention the war:
Silber zeroes in on the astonishing speech given by Al Gore at the Democratic Convention, in which the man who was actually elected president in 2000 (then meekly gave up the fight -- and the Republic -- long before all of his constitutional recourses against the coup were exhausted) did something almost unheard-of at such a gathering: he spoke the truth. First Silber quotes Gore:
After [the Bush Administration] abandoned the search for the terrorists who attacked us and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us, it's time for a change.
Then Silber notes:
As I heard that phrase this evening -- "and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us" -- I froze for several seconds. I couldn't believe Gore had said it, or that I had heard it...Consider the line again: "and redeployed the troops to invade a nation that did not attack us."
Iraq did not attack us. Therefore, the United States was not acting in self-defense. The invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression. Thus, the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq constitute an ongoing war crime, indeed a huge, horrifying series of ongoing war crimes. The war crimes continue today, and will continue tomorrow...But the U.S. government and our subservient media deny it to this day. If they go so far as to admit that the war was a mistake (which many still will not), they insist it was an "honest mistake," one based on "bad intelligence" ... At worst, politicians and most of those in the media will say only that the invasion of Iraq was a "blunder," perhaps a terrible one, but still only a "blunder."
But Al Gore said we invaded "a nation that did not attack us." The United States committed a monstrous war crime. That's what Gore's statement means. Do not expect anyone to acknowledge that is what it means.
Now to a couple of other stories:
On making the war powers indefinite.
As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain's choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.
Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."
Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”
The New York Times page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.
Useful things wars are - reczall the CC's statement from a decade ago that he wanted to be a war president to help get his domestic agenda through. One might even invent a war to do so and then make it virtually permanent so others can continue the process.
But surely the people will object? From Glenn Greenwald.
Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than "fire code violations," and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.
Jane Hamsher and I were at two of those homes this morning -- one which had just been raided and one which was in the process of being raided. Each of the raided houses is known by neighbors as a "hippie house," where 5-10 college-aged individuals live in a communal setting, and everyone we spoke with said that there had never been any problems of any kind in those houses, that they were filled with "peaceful kids" who are politically active but entirely unthreatening and friendly. Posted below is the video of the scene, including various interviews, which convey a very clear sense of what is actually going on here.
In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs. The 10 or so individuals in the house all said that though they found the experience very jarring, they still intended to protest against the GOP Convention, and several said that being subjected to raids of that sort made them more emboldened than ever to do so.
Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.
"They hate us for our freedoms."
Yes, well ....
G'day Phil, Chris Floyd picks up on Glenn Greenwald's piece on the police raids.
Glenn Greenwald tells a harrowing tale of police-state tactics in Minneapolis, with armed security forces conducting Baghdad-like raids on the houses of activists, terrorizing many and arresting some for thought crimes -- such as "planning to cause a riot" -- and other bogus charges. The sweeps -- guided and aided by the federal government -- are designed to "ensure domestic tranquility" during the imminent Republican convention in the city. As Greenwald points out, not one of those who were shackled, arrested and hauled out at gunpoint had committed any crime whatsoever.
Heinous indeed, and entirely worthy of the anger that Greenwald marshals in his reports from the scene. But we must disagree with him on one crucial point: his repeated declaration that these incidents are "extraordinary." On the contrary, there is nothing at all remarkable about them. They are all of a piece with the similar tactics employed to cleanse the city of Denver of any unseemly expressions of old-fashioned, long-gone American liberties during the Democratic convention, where any protests that escaped the grotesque official "cage" set aside for them were strangled by militarized police and mass arrests.
Today, GG has more.
As the police attacks on protesters in Minnesota continue -- see this video of the police swarming a bus transporting members of Earth Justice, seizing the bus and leaving the group members stranded on the side of the highway -- it appears increasingly clear that it is the Federal Government that is directing this intimidation campaign. Minnesota Public Radio reported yesterday that "the searches were led by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office. Deputies coordinated searches with the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
Today's Star Tribune added that the raids were specifically "aided by informants planted in protest groups." Back in May, Marcy Wheeler presciently noted that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force -- an inter-agency group of federal, state and local law enforcement led by the FBI -- was actively recruiting Minneapolis residents to serve as plants, to infiltrate "vegan groups" and other left-wing activist groups and report back to the Task Force about what they were doing. There seems to be little doubt that it was this domestic spying by the Federal Government that led to the excessive and truly despicable home assaults by the police yesterday.
So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry.
Beyond that, there is a widespread sense that the targets of these raids deserve what they get, even if nothing they've done is remotely illegal. We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.
After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government. Just sit quietly in your house and mind your own business. That way, the Government will have no reason to monitor what you say and feel the need to intimidate you by invading your home. Anyone who decides to protest -- especially with something as unruly and disrespectful as an unauthorized street march -- gets what they deserve.
Reads like places they like to criticise.
More on Palin:
Here.
Here.
In a recent BusinessWeek interview, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) admitted that she believes the Iraq war was fought because of oil:
We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
When liars fall out - the CC doesn't think "Bonkers" is credible.
Only now?
G'day Bob,
I've not read all the stuff you've posted or pointed to, but I do have some preliminary thoughts. I agree with Floyd that the pre-emptive(!!?) raids are not really a surprise, but extremely chilling nevertheless - an absolute horror, in fact. Some framing: I also agree that "crackdown" is wrong, but it's deliberately deployed to suggest that the demonstrators have already broken some law; it would seem not so, or at least, not so far. IMHO 'raid' is also wrong as an accurate description for we truth-seekers to use, what the cops did was an illegal assault - against the demonstrators and their/our rights.
In a nutshell, it's a sheople® problem; same as (in the pushed-paradigm propaganda) torture being 'OK' - if it saves just the one life, even - so demonstrating is only done by commies and the like - hairy freaks all. As Howard said, "A mob!"
It is the sheople's fault - they are 'simply' too stupid[1] to see how they've been conned.
Ahhh! "Been conned!" - that's the next step; a leadership failure.
(This 'leadership' may or may not be either the Libs or the Labs, but those ugly political twins are almost indistinguishable - in their *disrespect* of and for the sheople. Without serious reform, the Lib/Lab (Repug/Dummo) ugly twins will not, can not save us.)
Then, more framing, Q: Who did the conning? A: See Curtis[2].
I've been using the word 'élite' but it's wrong. Also wrong is 'vested interests,' what's needed is more along the lines of 'criminal bullies' or the old 'robber barons,' I have previously deployed 'criminal psychopaths,' perhaps I'll stick to that, or some refinement. It's 101% clear that these people have no regard for anyone not in this 'in group.' We will also presume that the 'in group' do not much care for each other either. Law of the jungle, I'd say.
One more bit of agreeing: the comments by Biloxi in the Floyd have some real relevance.
Fazit: This "puppet master" system is well-described in Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." Those 'running' the system are criminals, those who assist are accessories, and under 'normal law' are all equally guilty - of crimes up to and including the Nuremberg "ultimate crime."
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Definitions of stupid on the Web:
lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity
dazed: in a state of mental numbness especially as resulting from shock; "he had a dazed expression on his face"; "lay semiconscious, stunned (or stupefied) by the blow"; "was stupid from fatigue"
a person who is not very bright; "The economy, stupid!"
unintelligent: lacking intelligence; "a dull job with lazy and unintelligent co-workers"
[wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
There is no meaningful alternate to 'stupid.' If a majority of 'the herd' were smart enough, the manipulations (see [2]) would not work. Oh, what a mighty big "IF!"
I should not need to offer proof of this, but I will anyway: right after air and food, the sheople need medical care. The US is a 'world leader' in *denying* their own population fair access to health care, Aus is trying to 'ape' the US in this (as in almost all other ways). It is a measure of the contempt of the Lib/Repugs that they dismantle health care for the sheople, it's a measure of the failure of the Lab/Dummos that they don't build 'world class' health systems (except for Whitlam, Aus would be down in some similar mess as the US), and it's a measure of the failure of the sheople that they don't put the torch to the politicians to adequately deliver on health; indeed, they vote in large enough numbers *for* the dismantlers. This is also a measure of the failure of our so-called democracies; the sheople have no effective choice, the representatives do not properly represent - and the whole show is manipulated via the lying, venal MSM.
[2] The Century of the Self
Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty
Tuesday March 21st, 2006
«"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."
- Edward Bernays»
[Adam Curtis/The Century of the Self]
G'day Phil, good news - "we will not be moved", protests to go ahead.
Chris Floyd looks at several articles on how the system work .. an example:
Mike Whitney: The housing market is freefalling, setting new records every day for foreclosures, inventory, and declining prices. The banking system is in even worse shape; undercapitalized and buried under a mountain of downgraded assets. There seems to be growing consensus that these problems are not just part of a normal economic downturn, but the direct result of the Fed's monetary policies. Are we seeing the collapse of the Central banking model as a way of regulating the markets? Do you think the present crisis will strengthen the existing system or make it easier for the American people to assert greater control over monetary policy?
Michael Hudson: What do you mean “failure”? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down? The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept.
You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.
Perhaps a war to clear the decks ... Manuel Garcia contemplates a US/Russia war.
Commonsense suggests ... but ...
G'day Phil, a sort of shoot the messenger - Amy Goodman and two DemocracyNow! arrested while covering demonstrations.
ST. PAUL, MN -- Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota at approximately 5 p.m. local time.
Goodman was arrested while attempting to free two Democracy Now! producers who were being unlawfuly detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. Kouddous and Salazar were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.
Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were being arrested on suspicion of rioting. They are currently being held at the Ramsey County jail in St. Paul.
Democracy Now! is calling on all journalists and concerned citizens to call the office of Mayor Chris Coleman and the Ramsey County Jail and demand the immediate release of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar. These calls can be directed to: Chris Rider from Mayor Coleman's office at 651-266-8535 and the Ramsey County Jail at 651-266-9350 (press extension 0).
Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amenmdent rights of these journalists.
During the demonstration in which they were arrested law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. Several dozen others were also arrested during this action.
More on the raids.
Pepper with that? (Video).
Another report.
What does the First Amendment of the US Constitution protect? Well, supposedly ....
G'day Phil, an article on Palin that made me exclaim "Oh no, not another one?"
Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.
Her speech in June provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.
But what did she say?
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Must be one of those religious extremists out to kill people we read about. But I wonder if some who say such things will say it about Palin?
And God has plans on other fronts:
Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Yes, well. More on the attitude of her pastor in the article. And dare I remind readers of the fuss over Jeremiah Wright? Will we see similar in this case?
There is discussion in the US on how long Palin will remain on the ticket. Odds seem to be against her remaining.
G'day Phil, on protests and arrests - given what happened to Amy Goodman and other s of the DemocracyNow! team, let's start there.
And then Glenn Greenwald.
Marjorie Cohn.
More on Palin and her knowledge of the Constitution.
"In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected
governor?"
This was Sarah Palin's response:
"1) Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children; 2) Preserving the definition of "marriage" as defined in our constitution, and 3) Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights."
Palin's answers 1 and 3 were fairly predictable. They might even be embraced by some Democrats.
It's answer number 2 that should worry us.
"Preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution."
It should worry us because the word 'marriage' never appears anywhere in our Constitution.
Not to worry, the Constitution seems to be optional in those quarters.
If you look at Palin's comments in context then you won't be worried about her constitutional knowledge, at least you shouldn't be as far as the comments you cited.
Palin's answer to the question was quoted correctly in the piece you linked to, as it also was in the extract you quoted in your comment. What is misleading, though, is the context it is placed in. Palin is not referring to the Constitution of the United States but the State Constitution of Alaska.
The questions were asked - as the link alludes to - in the context of a race for Governor. Palin's reference to "our constitution" was in reference to the constitution of Alaska that was amended in 1998 to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
You can see a list of amendments to the Alaskan Constitution here and - the '11/03/98 Definition of Marriage' amendment is the specific one Palin had in mind.
People might disagree with her position on marriage (and many do, though seemingly not in Alaska where the amendment passed ith 2/3 of the vote) but critics of her knowledge of 'our constitution' should at least make sure they are referring to the same constitution she is.
G'day Anonymous, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you have some thoughts on other issues you'd like to share - both on Palin and other matters aired on this thread such as the police raids?
ON Palin, Glenn Greenwald deals with the media coverage of her in this piece.
Given an investigation is going on surrounding a former family member, this extract is interesting:
The first thing Palin did after being elected was fire six department heads in the City, including the Police Commissioner and the librarian. As The Anchorage Daily News put it: "the newly elected mayor of Wasilla has asked all of the city's top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration." It added:
She's also been criticized by the local semiweekly newspaper for a new policy requiring department heads to get the mayor's approval before talking to reporters. An editorial in The Frontiersman labeled it a "gag order."
In January of 1997, Palin seemed actually to lie about what she did, as the same paper reported:
Palin said she planned to meet with [librarian Mary Ellen] Stambaugh and [Police Chief Irl] Emmons this afternoon. She also disputed whether they had actually been fired. "There's been no meeting, no actual terminations," she said.
Stambaugh's response was to read part of the letter given to him.
"Although I appreciate your service as police chief, I've decided it's time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment. . . . "
"If that's not a letter of termination, I don't know what is," he said.
And this:
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation about Palin yet appeared in the Time article linked above -- that one of the very first things she did after being elected Mayor was pressure the librarian to ban books which she found offensive in some way:
Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Indeed, while reading through the early accounts of Palin's tenure as mayor, the most mystifying aspect was that she not only immediately fired people like the Police Chief and Finance Director -- one could argue that a new Mayor would want loyalists in those positions to carry out her new agenda -- but also the City Librarian:
Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin fired the city's police chief and the library director without warning Thursday, accusing them of not fully supporting her efforts to govern. Irl Stambaugh and Mary Ellen Emmons said letters signed by Palin were dropped on their desks Thursday afternoon telling them their jobs were over as of Feb. 13 and that they no longer needed to report to work.
Emmons has been the city's library director for seven years. Stambaugh has headed the police department since it was created in 1993. Before that, he served 22 years with the Anchorage Police Department rising to the rank of captain before retiring.
Other than banning books which Palin disliked, what possible agenda could a librarian be expected to serve upon pain of firing? Community anger over Palin's attempt to fire the librarian was apparently intense, forcing Palin to reverse her decision. From the The Anchorage Daily News on February 1, 1997:
City librarian Mary Ellen Emmons will stay, but Police Chief Irl Stambaugh is on his own, Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin announced Friday.
The decision came one day after letters signed by Palin were dropped on Stambaugh's and Emmon's desks, telling them their jobs were over as of Feb. 13.
The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ..." the letter said.
Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh.
As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons' assurance that she is behind her. She refused to give details about how Stambaugh has not supported her, saying only that "You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you."
More here.
As Greenwald points out:
Has there ever been an individual on a major party presidential ticket about whom less was known than Sarah Palin? Infinitely more scrutiny is required before it can be said that the media has fulfilled its obligations here, let alone that it has done so excessively due to "anti-Republican" media bias that exists only in Mark Halperin's head.
If McInsane was elected then Palin would be a heartbeat away from the presidency. People should have a good idea of what they will be getting. At least she's checked in with AIPAC and they're happy. But that's SOP.
G'day Phil, now the Palin issue gets funny ... so maybe it's not just the "Liberal media" who think it was a mistake:
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speech writer, and Mike Murphy, writer for Time, McCain Advisor (soon to be former?) and contributor to MSNBC were speaking with MSNBC political director Chuck Todd.
So what did they have to say?
Murphy says, "This is not going to work.
Noonan adds, "It's over."
Then, Chuck Todd asks, "is this the most qualified woman they could have picked?"
Noonan replies, "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. ...Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."
Murphy adds, "You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism.
Chuck finishes his sentence-- "and this is so cynical, and, as you called it, gimmicky. "
There's video.
Follow up here.
And now for something completely different .... It's ...
Holding murderers accountable.
The crime
Title 18, Section 2 of the U.S. Code says, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Section 1111 defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” and specifically holds that murders perpetrated by any kind of “willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing” are murders “in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree.”
If Bush willfully and deliberately misled Congress into authorizing him to engage in an unlawful war in which American troops and Iraqis were killed, he is guilty of murder. Not only would such killings be premeditated, but they would also be the legal result of his lies to Congress.
Title 18, Section 1001 prohibits anyone from “knowingly and willfully” making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in “any matter within the jurisdiction of the . . . legislative . . . branch of the Government.” Felony prosecution under the statute was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1955, and a violation of the statute is a crime.
The case is then laid out. But to the summation:
Summation
From childhood, George Bush displayed a disturbing lack of empathy. “Slapped around” by his mother as a boy, Bush enjoyed blowing up live frogs by putting firecrackers in their mouths and shooting at his brother with a BB gun. As he grew older, Bush presided over and defended the branding of pledges to his fraternity at Yale using red-hot wires and cigarettes; he became addicted to alcohol; he was arrested for drunk driving and he abused illegal drugs.
During the Vietnam War, Bush avoided military combat and was absent without leave from his stateside reserve assignment for more than a year. Using his father’s influence to gain political office, he smirked, giggled, and displayed other inappropriate behavior in response to the most serious of subjects.
Untreated, Bush’s sociopathy evolved as he achieved command of the most powerful military on earth and used its weapons to commit mass murder. Whenever a roadside IED explodes in Iraq and another American soldier dies, every time another wedding party is mistakenly bombed and children die, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney commit murder. Are we not willing accomplices if we continue to allow these crimes to continue?
Those whom we empower by our vote to either serve us in Congress or to lead our nation as president have a duty to use the power we give them to ensure accountability for its abuse. They have a duty to focus and to maintain attention on the most egregious and deadly violations of our laws and to not allow murder to go unpunished. They have a duty to do whatever it takes to make such crimes the headline of every newspaper and the lead of every radio, television and cable news program during every news cycle until such time as the murderers who occupy our nation’s highest offices are held fully accountable.
It would be part of the healing process.
G'day Phil, Chris Floyd finds an answer in Albert Camus and his definition of a rebel.
A commenter links this.
In what appears to be the first use of criminal charges under the 2002 Minnesota version of the Federal Patriot Act, Ramsey County Prosecutors have formally charged 8 alleged leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee with Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism. Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, Luce Guillen Givins, Erik Oseland, Nathanael Secor, Robert Czernik, Garrett Fitzgerald, and Max Spector, face up to 7 1/2 years in prison under the terrorism enhancement charge which allows for a 50% increase in the maximum penalty.
Affidavits released by law enforcement which were filed in support of the search warrants used in raids over the weekend, and used to support probable cause for the arrest warrants, are based on paid, confidential informants who infiltrated the RNCWC on behalf of law enforcement. They allege that members of the group sought to kidnap delegates to the RNC, assault police officers with firebombs and explosives, and sabotage airports in St. Paul. Evidence released to date does not corroborate these allegations with physical evidence or provide any other evidence for these allegations than the claims of the informants. Based on past abuses of such informants by law enforcement, the National Lawyers Guild is concerned that such police informants have incentives to lie and exaggerate threats of violence and to also act as provacateurs in raising and urging support for acts of violence.
"These charges are an effort to equate publicly stated plans to blockade traffic and disrupt the RNC as being the same as acts of terrorism. This both trivializes real violence and attempts to place the stated political views of the Defendants on trial," said Bruce Nestor, President of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. "The charges represent an abuse of the criminal justice system and seek to intimidate any person organizing large scale public demonstrations potentially involving civil disobedience, he said."
The criminal complaints filed by the Ramsey County Attorney do not allege that any of the defendants personally have engaged in any act of violence or damage to property. The complaints list all of alleged violations of law during the last few days of the RNC -- other than violations of human rights carried out by law enforcement -- and seeks to hold the 8 defendants responsible for acts committed by other individuals. None of the defendants have any prior criminal history involving acts of violence. Searches conducted in connection with the raids failed to turn up any physical evidence to support the allegations of organized attacks on law enforcement. Although claiming probable cause to believe that gunpowder, acids, and assembled incendiary devices would be found, no such items were seized by police. As a result, police sought to claim that the seizure of common household items such as glass bottles, charcoal lighter, nails, a rusty machete, and two hatchets, supported the allegations of the confidential informants. "Police found what they claim was a single plastic shield, a rusty machete, and two hatchets used in Minnesota to split wood. This doesn't amount to evidence of an organized insurrection, particularly when over 3,500 police are present in the Twin Cities, armed with assault rifles, concussion grenades, chemical weapons and full riot gear," said Nestor. In addition, the National Lawyers Guild has previously pointed out how law enforcement has fabricated evidence such as the claims that urine was seized which demonstrators intended to throw at police.
G'day Bob,
when a government breaks the law (as GWBush&Co did: Iraq, illegal invasion thereof - just a single, truly awful example among far too many), then that government loses any legality (if it ever had any; arguable in 2000 & 2004 both); it makes itself into a regime to be removed. So acting against GWBush&Co would, IMHO, be no act of rebellion, rather one of duty.
Then, if one or both candidates, rather than repudiating such illegal acts, go on to promise more of the same ("All options!" vis-à-vis Iran, say) then such candidates make themselves criminal before the threatened act.
G'day Phil, a duty, such as in:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
But, if «Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed», *AND* the sheople are psychologically manipulated, are deliberately misinformed via and by the venal MSM, those sheople's 'consent' has been well and truly violated, abused and/or fraudulently obtained in the 1st place. Eh?
G'day Phil, I wonder how many Merkins know more than the first few lines. If they don't they should do some reading and thinking.
G'day Phil, and their representatives can get really low in pursuit of power ... Glenn Greenwald on Repuke tactics.
With last night's cheerfully vicious speeches from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, the Republicans did what they always do in order to win elections: they exploited raw cultural divides while mocking, belittling and demonizing Democratic leaders. Yet again, they delivered brutally effective and deeply personal blows to the Democratic presidential candidate grounded in the same manipulative and deceitful yet very potent themes they've been using for the last three decades.
Ever since Ronald Reagan's election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited "negativity" and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.
As far as Palin's speech goes - a comparison with reality would be effective. As is Jon Stewart's piece on a few notable figures.
Wednesday night on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart hit Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly with damning evidence of their hypocrisy regarding Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
While Rove recently praised Palin's experience as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Stewart showed video of Rove trashing Virginia Governor — and former Richmond Mayor — Tim Kaine's executive experience, listing all the cities that are bigger than Richmond and calling such a pick "political."
Then, after recent video of O'Reilly describing Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a family issue, Stewart showed a clip of the Fox News host blaming Jamie Lynn Spears' parents for her teenage pregnancy.
Finally, after showing video of Dick Morris complaining about the rampant sexism in the media coverage of Sarah Palin, Stewart unveiled a clip of Morris saying that Hillary hides behind the sexism defense, and that anytime "the big boys" pick on Hillary, "she retreats behind the apron strings."
"In Dick Morris' defense," Stewart said, "he is a lying sack of sh*t."
Watch the video if you can. It's a hoot. Should be more of it and in the MSM.
The Real McCain.
Ron Jacobs on the protests.
And this.
They're rounding up journalists now.
Covering breaking news has always been a Constitutionally protected activity in the United States. The Bush administration, however, seems intent on changing the rules -- or at least in seeing how far the government can push its police state mentality and get away with it.
You'd think the mainstream media would be all over a story like this. But so far, the biggest media outlets have been eerily silent. Dozens of journalists, photographers, bloggers and videomakers have been arrested in an orchestrated round up of independents covering the Republican National Convention. Journalists covering protests have been pointed out by authorities, blasted with tear gas and pepper spray, and brutalized while in custody.
DemocracyNow!
A couple of pieces from "that scrap of paper":
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Will keep an eye on developments - including any legal matters that are raised.
G'day Phil, continuing the theme - in light of the police raids Oped News thought it worth revisiting this piece.
A lengthy piece which begins thus:
In the spring of 2007, a retired senior official in the U.S. Justice Department sat before Congress and told a story so odd and ominous, it could have sprung from the pages of a pulp political thriller. It was about a principled bureaucrat struggling to protect his country from a highly classified program with sinister implications. Rife with high drama, it included a car chase through the streets of Washington, D.C., and a tense meeting at the White House, where the president's henchmen made the bureaucrat so nervous that he demanded a neutral witness be present.
The bureaucrat was James Comey, John Ashcroft's second-in-command at the Department of Justice during Bush's first term. Comey had been a loyal political foot soldier of the Republican Party for many years. Yet in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he described how he had grown increasingly uneasy reviewing the Bush administration's various domestic surveillance and spying programs. Much of his testimony centered on an operation so clandestine he wasn't allowed to name it or even describe what it did. He did say, however, that he and Ashcroft had discussed the program in March 2004, trying to decide whether it was legal under federal statutes. Shortly before the certification deadline, Ashcroft fell ill with pancreatitis, making Comey acting attorney general, and Comey opted not to certify the program. When he communicated his decision to the White House, Bush's men told him, in so many words, to take his concerns and stuff them in an undisclosed location.
Comey refused to knuckle under, and the dispute came to a head on the cold night of March 10, 2004, hours before the program's authorization was to expire. At the time, Ashcroft was in intensive care at George Washington Hospital following emergency surgery. Apparently, at the behest of President Bush himself, the White House tried, in Comey's words, "to take advantage of a very sick man," sending Chief of Staff Andrew Card and then–White House counsel Alberto Gonzales on a mission to Ashcroft's sickroom to persuade the heavily doped attorney general to override his deputy. Apprised of their mission, Comey, accompanied by a full security detail, jumped in his car, raced through the streets of the capital, lights blazing, and "literally ran" up the hospital stairs to beat them there.
Minutes later, Gonzales and Card arrived with an envelope filled with the requisite forms. Ashcroft, even in his stupor, did not fall for their heavy-handed ploy. "I'm not the attorney general," Ashcroft told Bush's men. "There"—he pointed weakly to Comey—"is the attorney general." Gonzales and Card were furious, departing without even acknowledging Comey's presence in the room. The following day, the classified domestic spying program that Comey found so disturbing went forward at the demand of the White House—"without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," he testified.
What was the mysterious program that had so alarmed Comey? Political blogs buzzed for weeks with speculation. Though Comey testified that the program was subsequently readjusted to satisfy his concerns, one can't help wondering whether the unspecified alteration would satisfy constitutional experts, or even average citizens. Faced with push-back from his bosses at the White House, did he simply relent and accept a token concession? Two months after Comey's testimony to Congress, the New York Times reported a tantalizing detail: The program that prompted him "to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases." The larger mystery remained intact, however. "It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate," the article conceded.
Another clue came from a rather unexpected source: President Bush himself. Addressing the nation from the Oval Office in 2005 after the first disclosures of the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance became public, Bush insisted that the spying program in question was reviewed "every 45 days" as part of planning to assess threats to "the continuity of our government."
Few Americans—professional journalists included—know anything about so-called Continuity of Government (COG) programs, so it's no surprise that the president's passing reference received almost no attention. COG resides in a nebulous legal realm, encompassing national emergency plans that would trigger the takeover of the country by extra-constitutional forces—and effectively suspend the republic. In short, it's a road map for martial law.
Likely? There is a pattern.
forget what Ms Palin did or did not say or do ...
.. it's a case of symbolism over substance
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
there are some astute observers worth reading; here's one such:
George Lakoff
The Palin Choice and the Reality of the Political Mind
September 1, 2008 | 05:27 PM (EST)
«What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.»
[huffpo/lakoff]
My comment: Lakoff's book "Don't think of an Elephant!" acquaints us with the 'framing' concept, one of the multitudinous nefarious tricks that can be deployed against the sheople®. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's all part of propagandizing; saying one thing but doing another - often the exact opposite (claiming they want peace, but creating permanent war, say). What we need is truth, justice and compassion, what we get from the US kleptocracy (so-called 'world rulers') are predominately lies, theft and murder.
For any who may think that 'propagandizing' is not what's going on, recall that the man who quite literally 'wrote the book' (Bernays) then invented a 'frame' as camouflage: PR.
Here's another observer:
Jane Smiley
Already Lying
September 3, 2008 | 05:09 PM (EST)
«When we look at Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Palin, what we see are different varieties of selfishness. Bush's selfishness is defensive, stubborn, and dumb. Cheney's is power-mad. Those were bad enough, and even the Republican platform agrees that they have been destructive. McCain's selfishness is impulsive and hotheaded, while Palin's is simply heedless (and, judging by reports from Wasilla, vengeful). So, there you have it. The Republicans think that selfishness is a winning ticket that always appeals to something in the American people--would that be selfishness? Obama has made his opposition to selfishness explicit. That doesn't mean he will win--unless the bookies are right. I hope they are. Because four or eight more years of lying, cheating, opportunism, war-mongering, refusal to prepare for things, and a lack of "vetting" will surely do us in. And let's be clear. There is no one in the world, not even Putin, who can do us in. It can only be suicide.»
[huffpo/smiley]
My comment: Suicide by the US would be no bad thing, except for one slightly inconvenient side-effect; they'd likely take the rest of us and the world down with 'em.
There's time and place for one more:
September 4, 2008
Does Thomas Frank Have a Clue?
Who is Wrecking America?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
«What is wrecking America is the Democratic Party, which was put in control of the House and Senate in the 2006 congressional elections to stop the gratuitous wars and gestapo police, but, instead, has continued to cooperate with the Cheney/Bush regime in behalf of war and police repression, such as we witnessed at the Republican National Convention.»
[counterpunch/roberts]
My comment: The US regime's criminality is bipartisan, but we don't just observe the US and shudder. Israel, the UK and Aus are all, more or less, in the same basket, even France and Germany 'play along.' What we need, what the world needs, is enlightened leadership; if it can't or won't come from the current 'establishment,' then they've gotta be taken down - again, without taking us and rest of the world down with 'em. And if you wish to know how, then this: put candidates from both Lab/Lib, Repug/Dummos etc. *last* in your choice.
And on the matter of police repression - Chris Hedges.
St. Paul is a window into our future. It is a future where, as one protester told me by phone, “people have been pepper-gassed, thrown on the ground by police who had drawn their weapons, had their documents seized and their tattoos photographed before being taken away to jail.” It is a future where illegal house raids are carried out. It is a future where vans containing heavily armed paramilitary units circle and film protesters. It is a future where, as the protester said, “people have been pulled from cars because their license plates were on a database and handcuffed, thrown in the back of a squad car and then watched as their vehicles were ransacked and their personal possessions from computers to literature seized.” It is a future where constitutional rights mean nothing and where lawful dissent is branded a form of terrorism.
The rise of the corporate state means the rise of the surveillance state. The Janus-like face of America swings from packaged and canned spectacles, from nationalist slogans, from seas of flags and Christian crosses, from professions of faith and patriotism, to widespread surveillance, illegal mass detentions, informants, provocateurs and crude acts of repression and violence. We barrel toward a world filled with stupendous lies and blood.
What difference is there between the crowds of flag-waving Republicans and the apparatchiks I covered as a reporter in the old East German Communist Party? These Republican delegates, like the fat and compromised party functionaries in East Berlin, all fawned on cue over an inept and corrupt party hierarchy. They all purported to champion workers’ rights and freedom while they systematically fleeced, disempowered and impoverished the workers they lauded. They all celebrated the virtue of a state that was morally bankrupt. And while they played this con game, one that gave them special privileges, power and wealth, they unleashed their goons and thugs on all who dared to challenge them. We are not East Germany, but we are well on our way. An economic meltdown, another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil, a war with Iran, and we could easily swing into an authoritarian model that would look very familiar to anyone who lived in the former communist East Bloc.
Indeed. And where is the outrage and the what have the Dems done? Roberts is right.
G'day Phil, one of the Reps themes is "liberalmedia" ...well, here are a coupleof articles on the liberal media" at work - concerns largely Keith Olbermann;
Glenn Greenwald;
MSNBC's announcement that it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory as anchors for its main political events (the upcoming presidential debates and election) vividly illustrates several long-obvious facts. First, nothing changes the behavior of our media corporations more easily than vocal demands and complaints from the Right, which petrify media executives and cause them to snap into line. From today's New York Times article identifying some of the causes for MSNBC's decision:
The change -- which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle -- is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel's perceived shift to the political left. . . . When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted "NBC" . . . . Mr. Olbermann, a 49-year-old former sportscaster, has become the face of the more aggressive MSNBC, and the lightning rod for much of the criticism. . . . The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. . . . Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann.
This was preceded by an episode in May in which White House Counselor Ed Gillespie "sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of 'deceptively' editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran." Gillespie warned NBC as follows:
I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
Yesterday, Gillespie got exactly the "response" that he demanded from a super-compliant MSBNC. There is no question whatsoever that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and the Right generally have recently made it a top priority to force MSNBC to remove Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from playing a prominent role in its election coverage, and MSNBC has now complied with the Right's demands. Does it need to be explained why it is disturbing in the extreme that the White House and the McCain campaign can so transparently dictate MSNBC's programming choices?
Anthony Wade.
The myth of the liberal media bias was created decades ago but the talking points eventually stuck. Thankfully the only good thing from the past eight years is the obvious fact that there is no liberal media bias. In fact, it is quite obvious that the opposite is the case. There is a corporate media bias. Thanks to the concerted deregulation efforts of the Bush Administration in the media, all mainstream media is now owned and controlled by less than 10 companies. They are also primarily owned by pro-GOP companies. NBC for example is owned by General Electric, who does millions of dollars worth of business with the Bush government. Recently, I saw a new McCain ad extolling the gracious press for Sarah “The Empty Moose” Palin. Featured prominently was a recent gushing report from the Wall Street Journal. Of course many may have forgotten that the WSJ was recently bought by Rupert Murdoch, who promptly fired all independent thinkers and replaced them with GOP henchmen. This is the damage that is done by a corporate media. The truth is packaged instead of reported.
Of course there are good reasons why they want the media muzzled ...one is that they can release campaign ads that are somewhat suspect ...
One would think that the definition of stopped would be as unambiguous as that of the word is, but John McCain's campaign seems to be in need of a dictionary as it hits the airwaves with a new ad making the discredited claim that Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
The Republican presidential ticket has adopted the "change" mantle and is trying to paint the Alaska governor as a "true maverick" standing up to government waste for not building the nearly $400 million bridge to an island with 50 residents. Problem is, as the Associated Press is quick to note, "Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it."
Democratic candidate Barack Obama's campaign was quick to pillory the latest McCain ad, pointing reporters to at least five articles noting the false claim and accusing McCain of continuing to "repeat the lie," in a separate statement.
“Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said. "John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and he and Sarah Palin will continue Bush's economic policies, his health care policy, his education policy, his energy policy, and his foreign policy. McCain and Palin will say or do anything to make people believe that they will change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. That's the kind of politics people are tired of, and it's anything but change."
Video of the ad is included.
A follow up.
Juan Cole on fundamentalism.
Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.
McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."
Just keep on pushing the mantra "war on terror" and "national security" and you never know what you can destroy.
doubleplusungood (fascist paramilitary-style attacks on demonstrators) ...
.. but most sheople® don't even notice
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
one observes the brutal tactics deployed against rightful, democratic dissent 'over there' with extreme alarm, but at the same time, there's no room for any equanimity over here; the same fascistic signs are appearing here too, starting - innocently enough (I didn't think!) - with the cops adopting (silly, impractical) baseball caps as uniform garnishes, but now having reached a full paramilitary style. Recall APEC. The sick 'gimmick' they deploy behind is "You've got nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong," with the obvious implication: any time the cops start 'busting heads,' it *must* be because those owning the heads have - done something wrong, eh? (Fazit: Better not demo!)
Protesters have been maligned as far back as I can recall; who could ever forget Askin's "Ride over the bastards?" Then came the disgusting "rent a mob" taunts, lately abbreviated by Howard to just "A mob." All the same arrogance, and not 'just' from the Libs, the definitive, infamous contemporary example is Blair's (now also Brown's) 'All the way with the USA' filthy, criminal complicity. Note that the true "rent a mobs" are these fascist paramilitary-style new-cops.
Our so-called leaders make a total travesty of our dysfunctional democracy - but most sheople® don't even notice.
See this comment from chris-floyd/Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq:
«The largest tragedy of our day, I think, is that we are now led everywhere by people whose technological grasp is exceeded only by their arrogance and stupidity. If this is the "best and brightest" rising to the fore as a result of the hegemony of the "free marketplace", we're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than this.»
My comment: We've recently visited a good half-dozen prosperous-style homes; all of them were quite 'up to date' in that they all possessed the latest ne plus ultra must-have: a wide/flat-screen TV. Nothing actually wrong with that - if used 'sensibly,' just as long as it's recognised that it's through the TV that the sheople get their cruelly twisted pushed-paradigm 'programming.' And also, it's not really the sheople's fault; I myself once took the AusBC at its 'face value' - until I realised that they and the (corrupt, venal) corporate MSM functioned as one, when it comes to telling us the ruling establishment's lies. A true caveat emptor!
perhaps the Dummos ...
.. just don't wanna win.
-=*=-
There's some saying, goes something like "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
-- Henry Mencken
But, it would seem, that getting elected 'over there' is something else.
Exhibit (a):
September 9, 2008
It's the Issues, Stupid
The Obama Poll Drop
By MICHAEL COLBY
«On the Iraq War, Obama was pushed into saying that the “surge worked beyond anyone’s wildest expectations” to the Fox News blowhard, Bill O’Reilly. Despite being an inaccurate - if not completely spineless - position, it effectively handed what was the number one issue directly over to Mr. Surge himself, John McCain.»
Obama appears to be betting that the sheople are even more stupid than they usually look; the Dommos are *supposed* to be the anti-war party (didn't do anyone too much good after 2006), but here (as almost everywhere) Obama is being pro-war. Why? Perhaps he & the Dummos just don't wanna win.
Exhibit (b):
September 9, 2008
When Two Plus Two Equals Five
The New Face of Republican Power
By BRIAN J. FOLEY
«Such hypocrisy didn’t begin at the Republican Convention, of course. Our leaders defrauded us into an illegal war and occupation while claiming to support the rule of law. Our leaders run torture camps at Guantanamo and elsewhere while claiming to support human rights. Our leaders eavesdrop on our phone calls and emails while claiming to oppose “Big Brother” government. Our leaders’ crimes have been exposed, their contradictions luxuriate out in the open.»
What does this tell us about the sheople? The Repugs, at the same time as pushing policies damaging to the sheople, consistently insult the sheople's intelligence - and yet the polls almost continually favour the Repugs.
Mysteries abound - the miracles of marketing.
G'day Phil, when the Dummo leadership turned its back on the impeachment option after the 2006 mid terms they threw away the opportunity to begin the healing process. Now Obama is pandering to the same old same old. I wrote earlier that a second revolution was required ... yes, a rebellion.
Al Jazeera speaks to Howard Zinn, the author, American historian, social critic and activist, about how the Iraq war damaged attitudes towards the US and why the US "empire" is close to collapse
09/09/08 "Al Jazeera" -- - - HZ: America has been heading - for some time, and is heading right now - toward less and less world power, less and less influence.
Obviously, since the war in Iraq, the rest of the world has fallen away from the United States, and if American foreign policy continues in the way it has been - that is aggressive and violent and uncaring about the feelings and thoughts of other people - then the influence of the United States is going to decline more and more.
This is an empire which is on the one hand the most powerful empire that ever existed; on the other hand an empire that is crumbling - an empire that has no future ... because the rest of the world is alienated and simply because this empire is top-heavy with military commitments, with bases around the world, with the exhaustion of its own resources at home.
[This is] leading to more and more discontent and home, so I think the American empire will go the way of other empires and I think it is on its way now.
Q: Is there any hope the US will change its approach to the rest of the world?
HZ: If there is any hope, the hope lies in the American people.
[It] lies in American people becoming resentful enough and indignant enough over what has happened to their country, over the loss of dignity in the world, over the starving of human resources in the United States, the starving of education and health, the takeover of the political mechanism by corporate power and the result this has on the everyday lives of the American people.
[There is also] the higher and higher food prices, the more and more insecurity, the sending of the young people to war.
I think all of this may very well build up into a movement of rebellion.
We have seen movements of rebellion in the past: The labour movement, the civil rights movement, the movement against the war in Vietnam.
I think we may well see, if the United States keeps heading in the same direction, a new popular movement. That is the only hope for the United States.
Q: How did the US get to this point?
HZ: Well, we got to this point because ... I suppose the American people have allowed it to get it to this point because there were enough Americans who were satisfied with their lives, just enough.
Of course, many Americans were not, that is why half of the population doesn't vote, they're alienated.
But there are just enough Americans who have been satisfied, you might say getting some of the "goodies" of the empire, just some of them, just enough people satisfied to support the system, so we got this way because of the ability of the system to maintain itself by satisfying just enough of the population to keep its legitimacy.
And I think that era is coming to an end.
Throw in a bit of fixing to make sure the votes fall in the right place ... 2006 was a miscalculation - the Repubs underestimated the swing to the Dummos. Given the swing, it is even more reprehensible that the Dummos did not respond to the public mood.
The Repubs are responding to something else. The process began when the religious right decided not to be a mere lobby group but to take over the GOP from the grass roots. And thus.
09/09/08 "Toronto Sun" -- - PARIS - Trying to explain American politics to my French friends and Paris media is not easy. They are still struggling to understand how Barack Obama popped out of nowhere to run for the world's most powerful office.
Now the French are even more stunned and confused by Sen. John McCain's surprise vice-presidential choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Wasilla, Alaska, a hamlet just a snowball's throw from the North Pole.
Frenchmen, being French, think she has nice legs. But no one here can understand why Republicans picked a lady whose primary experience was being mayor of a one-husky town and making moose stew.
"Mon dieu," one Parisian told me. "Those crazy Republicans must have the wish of death." No, no I explained. The party is being born again.
Palin's emergence simply confirms the final dumbing down and ruralization of the Republican Party, and its metamorphosis into a right wing politico-religious movement.
The pistol-packing Sarah Palin is the party's new housewife saint, a cross between Annie Oakley and Joan of Arc.
Two factors led McCain to his dramatic decision. First, 53% of American voters are women. The choice of Palin clearly was an attempt to grab disgruntled Democratic female voters who are still fuming that their heroine, Hillary Clinton, was a woman scorned.
CLUMSY PLOY
But McCain's clumsy ploy may insult more Democratic female voters than it will attract. Palin, save for being a woman, is against almost everything Hillary Clinton supports.
Far more important, McCain chose Palin as his running mate because she is an in-your-face, born-again, evangelical Christian. Some 44-50% of Republican voters now call themselves evangelical Christians.
Concentrated in America's deep heartland and southern Bible Belt, these ultra conservative, fundamentalist white Protestants provided the Bush administration's core support in a nation where 63% believe every word in the Bible is true. Evangelical TV ayatollahs have become major political figures on America's right.
Many evangelicals believe in the absolute literal nature of the Scriptures, biblical prophecy, the Messiah's imminent return, and mankind's destruction. They oppose evolution and ecology. Evangelism has become the Republican Party's official religion, and Mrs. Palin its new high priestess.
The evangelist's view of foreign policy is simple. Either wicked France, Russia or the UN is the anti-Christ (take your pick). Muslims are evil and a menace. Israel is the paramount foreign policy issue. Support for Israel must be absolute and unlimited. All Palestinians must be expelled from the biblical Holy Land, the world's Jews gathered therein, and converted. Then the Messiah will return, Armageddon will come and Earth will be consumed by fire and brimstone.
Only born-again Christians will survive and be teleported up to heaven. The rest of us will roast.
"fire and brimstone" - not by a black hole, well, not by a man-made one.
These religious people intent on mass killing have a huge advantage over others - the US has bigger and better and far more numerous means of inflicting death and destruction.
So one hopes the LHC does uncover other dimensions - might give people a whole different perspective.
uncivilized and unsocialized ...
.. not only unjust, but lying, criminal murderers
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
by «the Repubs underestimated the swing to the Dummos,» did you mean that the Repugs didn't dial sufficient bias into the Diebold Voting Machines?
Newton's first law (law of inertia)[1] combined with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy tends to increase)[2] seems to me to imply that not only will things not easily change, but any change is likely to be *not* in the direction of better. Of course, we are continually confronted with the reverse of the 2nd law by life itself, but having achieved this 'miracle,' life seems to have immediately surrendered, see «life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,"» Thomas Hobbes[3].
Hobbes had to do with social contract theory[4]; in our sort'a democracy, the contract is between voters and representatives. A voter may choose between candidates, based on whatever information s/he (the voter) can fathom.
In the US (as in UK, Aus, Israel etc.), we the voters, aka sheople®, do not have 'perfect information,' sadly - far, far from it; it's a disgusting scandal. Not only do "All politicians lie!" (thanks, Mr Howard, but "No, thanks!") - but they (politicians, pundits and the corrupt and venal MSM on their own account) actually dare to go so far as to propagandize us.
Since the illegal invasion of Iraq (murder for oil!) I have come to realise that our so-called representatives are largely failing to properly represent us.
Basically, I'd say any social contract we might'a ever had is totally cactus.
The implications are interesting. Not only is the US (and UK, Aus, Israel etc.) involving itself/themselves in brutal illegal invasions, the governments themselves, being in violation of the social contract, take themselves outside the law, and so any actions they may take are also illegal, i.e. have no actual legitimacy. No laws - and no lawful orders. One follow-on implication is that no soldier should 'serve' these crims' illegal orders. Nuremberg!
-=*=-
Ah! But they've still got - and deploy - guns.
Precisely. Criminal, outlaw thugs.
-=*end*=-
Fazit, BobW/Zinn: US 'In Need of Rebellion:'
«Ultimately power rests on the moral legitimacy of a system and the United States has been losing moral legitimacy.
My hope is that the American people will rouse themselves and change this situation, for the benefit of themselves and for the benefit of the rest of the world.»
IMHO, Zinn is too 'soft,' he just doesn't go the final step. The US (as uncontested leader of the (illegal) pack) has lost whatever legitimacy it might ever have had, it is truly a rogue nation.
No person should vote for any candidate known to be in contempt of the social contract, that means Lib/Lab, Repug/Dummo et al.. Put 'em all last on any preference list - or just don't vote. Their illegitimacy must be illustrated in the starkest form, i.e. no votes. It is useless to call for rebellion or revolution, anyone trying it will just get shot.
No person should relate to the US in any way outside unconditional condemnation. People like Merkel and Sarkozy disgrace themselves.
I just can't understand this utterly shameful failure of leadership.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] «A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced net force.»
[wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion]
[2] «The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.»
[wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics]
[3] «Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) was an English philosopher, whose famous 1651 book Leviathan established the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory.»
[wiki/Thomas_Hobbes]
[4] «Common to all of these theories is the notion of a 'sovereign will', to which all members of a society are bound by the social contract to respect. The various theories of social contract that have developed are largely differentiated by their definition of the 'sovereign' will, be it a King (monarchy), a Council (oligarchy) or The Majority (republic or democracy).»
[wiki/Social_contract]
G'day Phil, yes, the social contract has been broken. The electorate has not been informed and the rulers have been trashed. More on the latest example shortly. Elsewhere, in the lead up to the mid terms,I posted an article about how and how much.But it wasn't enough. Trying to make the fix "just enough" reduces the likelihood of people suspecting electoral fraud, results that are not reflective of predictions, op polls etc, can be put down to glitches in machines and other minor but "legitimate" occurrences. And the method of the fix is not limited to voting machines, removing voters from rolls is one used regularly - Fla in 2000 was a notable example.At the national level, the number removed gets into the millions.
Now to the latest campaign kerfuffle ... and how to take one person's use of an old saying and twist it and spin it.
Here.
Here.
And Glenn Greenwald.
We're fighting multiple wars; our oldest and most established financial institutions are on the verge of collapse; we've fundamentally transformed and then dismantled our constitutional framework over the last eight years, etc. etc. But the Right and their media partners are striving to ensure that our election this year is going to be dominated and determined by whether John Kerry looks stupid in wind-surfing tights Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig" when he invoked a meaningless cliché.
It isn't surprising that the McCain campaign wants this sort of tawdry, Freak Show/Reality Show vapidity to determine the outcome of the election. If you were them, wouldn't you want that, too? And though it's not news that establishment media outlets are so easily and happily manipulated by these tactics, tactics which enable them to cover "stories" which their empty-headed reporters can easily comprehend, it is still striking to watch the now-decades-old process unfold and observe how absolutely nothing has changed:
And thence follows the examination in detail.
seven years of bad luck ...
.. can we please stop now?
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
things to do will keep me busy this morning, but before I rush off, here're two 'quickies:'
1. Empire and Imperialism and the USA
By James Petras
09/09/08
«The world of competing imperial countries has created complex international organizations, which conflict, compete and collaborate. They operate on all levels, from the global to the cities and villages of the Third World. Imperialist powers enter and exploit through a chain of collaborator classes from the imperial center through international organizations to local ruling, economic and political classes. The imperial system is only as strong as its local collaborators. Popular uprisings, national anti-colonial struggles and radical mass movements, which oust local collaborators, undermine the empire. Anti imperialists attempt to establish diverse ties among imperial competitors and among the newly emerging powers to isolate the US military-centered empire.»
My comment: note the word 'collaborator,' and recall the story of some US-flunky boasting about such bribery: "We just buy them!" - another name for this sort'a sell-out is filthy traitors!
2. The Voice of War and Oil
By Rand Clifford
09/09/08:
«The vast scope of elite control over the American system has made "what can we do?" the dominant refrain of American people who still think for themselves. "WHAT CAN WE DO!?" Though our realistic options are so choked, a meaningful method of influence endures: Turn Off mainstream corporate media (CorpoMedia). Ignore it, avoid it, wither it. The elite and their government still cannot force CorpoMedia on an individual. The programmed brain drain is still optional. The insanity of continuing to believe the lies and propaganda can end with the flick of a switch.»
My comment: using the word 'élite' is incorrect here; there's nothing élite about lying, murdering criminality.
G'day Phil, presenting: The Free Speech Committee.
This is your Independent Journalista's on-the-ground account of what happened and how local elected officials collaborated with the authorities and again abandoned their Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution from All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. This is the news that you will not hear from the corporate media, Air America, the Nation magazine or other so called progressive, alternative media outlets. This is true, muckraking journalism that honestly speaks truth to power, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some folks.
Now, before we get to the facts surrounding how our elected officials betrayed us and the Bill of Rights, a truth must be stated. No matter what the local City Councils of St Paul and Minneapolis did, the authorities would have done what they did.
This story is not about that. It is instead about how the local government knowingly collaborated with them, with no input from citizens and finally passed a Resolution granting them legal authority to use rubber and plastic bullets, wooden baton rounds, tasers and chemical weapons that were deployed against peaceful protesters, journalists and street medics treating the victims of their brutality in a secret meeting with no public allowed.
Who better to look to than Chris Floyd - The Falling Land.
There is, apparently, to be no end to our falling. No bottom to the pit of moral nullity through which we keep plunging, no act of evil which we will not accept, and countenance, and even cheer.
At one time, it required great lies -- elaborate, monstrous deceits, wrapped in myths of goodness and light -- to disguise the brutal machinations of raw power. Otherwise, it was thought, the people might rise up in anger at the crimes being committed in their name, thus threatening the primacy and privilege of the elite.
But this proved to be unnecessary in the end. The foulest deeds could be done in broad daylight, in full view of the world, before the eyes of our children, without the slightest consequence for the perpetrators. The crowd would applaud, or, at worst, simply shrug and move on.
Actions and policies drawn from the horror stories of history -- things which the people had been taught to abominate from the day they were born -- were freely and openly embraced.
The Nazis launched unprovoked wars of aggression and despoiled whole nations. So do we now; who cares? The Gestapo and the KGB snatched people from the street and held them without charges in secret prisons, tortured them with brute force and with exquisitely calibrated techniques approved by the highest authorities. So do we now; who cares? The Soviets spied without qualm or restraint on their own people, no warrants needed, no evidence required, just a nod from some faceless official in the security organs. So do we now; who cares? The Nazis believed that the national leader is beyond the law, that any order he gives is rightful and just and cannot be punished, simply because he has given it. So do we now; who cares? The Soviets and the Nazis treated protests against the established order as security threats and acts of terror, and repressed them with mass arrests and police violence. So do we now; who cares?
All of these things, and many more besides, have been done and are being done by the government of the United States today, with either the full-throated approval or the meek acquiescence of the political opposition and the nation's institutions. The people too seem largely in agreement, or completely indifferent. We have just finished a primary campaign in which tens of millions of people voted for candidates who support the system described above in almost every particular -- quibbling about some of the details and tactics perhaps, but expressing absolutely no dissent from its basic premises.
Post a Comment