THE DEBATE THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN HAS HAPPENED: SLC MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON TROUNCES FOX'S HANNITY, MEDIA SILENT OVER RESOUNDING DEFEAT

"We are in the midst of a tragic, disastrous, illegal war of aggression in which this nation was led by a disastrous presidency. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been tragic, unnecessary, unprovoked and illegal. We attacked a nation that posed no threat to our security and now the United States is an occupying force."--SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson in his opening-remarks at the debate that will never happen (because there won't be any coverage on tv.)


SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH--Utah doesn't seem so backwards now! It was a hands-down defeat for Fox's pundit Sean Hannity at-the-hands of Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. Hannity came-off as an inarticulate balloon of hyperbole and tired genuflections at the Maoist altar of Ronald Reagan (and he's not even running for president). Most of Hannity's tactic was attacking and impugning on the mayor's integrity by constantly repeating that he was "a part-time mayor, and a full-time activist." Christ, what I would give for a mayor like that! Ignoring any logical and researched course, we got such statements from Hannity as:

"If Rocky Anderson will not be equally intelligent, honest and open and criticize the very same people that made the very same arguments, it's not George Bush who should be impeached or removed from office. It's your mayor [Ed.-the "I know you are, but what am I" strategy.]," Hannity said. and... "They're hurting troops, hurting morale, they're undermining what it is we're trying to accomplish,"... (Salt Lake Tribune, 05.05.2007)

He prepared for this? You're shitting me, man. You could have just propped a monkey in-front of a microphone (just like at the White House), and it would have worked the same--in fact, they did. No, that last quote doesn't sound like the Bush administration's, the GOP's, and Fox's talking-points--not-at-all. What's most interesting is that Hannity threatened to cancel the debate over a film crew who are making a documentary on Mayor Rocky Anderson. His reason? Don't laugh:

On April 23, Hannity threatened to cancel the debate because a documentary crew making a film about Anderson was planning to attend. Hannity worried that if a documentarian's request to film the debate was honored, the documentary could be edited unfairly [?!]. Anderson consented to Hannity's request that the film crew not be allowed. (AP/KSL News, 05.04.2007)

No, editing footage out-of-context, or re-contextualizing it to mean something-else--that never happens at Fox News, CNN, or any of the major networks. Not ever. Never. What a stupid, blustery, frightened male, that Sean Hannity. What he doesn't get is that the film crew doesn't need to have been there, they can just obtain the footage elsewhere and do with it as they wish. You see, in documentaries, you have to take a side, it's what makes them documentaries. It's an inherent-part of what they are.

But forget that for a moment, and remember that spin is what Fox does, and that Hannity regularly misrepresents facts with his own brand of hyperbole (TM), phony patriotism (TM), hate, inhuman greed (TM), and insensitivity. His audience is the same, excepting the white-trash males and old Republican geriactrics who need their hour of hate. He's pathetic, but not nearly as much as his tv and radio audience. What's interesting is that Hannity was trying to imply that the film crew making the documentary were affiliated with the SLC mayor. That's completely untrue. The irony is that it's Hannity's fault that they began making the documentary, he challeneged Anderson in-the-first-place:

[Rhea] Gavry and her husband Doug Monroe, who head Salt Lake City-based Gavry & Monroe Productions, have been following Anderson this spring through some of the most high-profile events of his political career, as he has become a national figure on the war in Iraq, global warming and calls to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney."You've got to admit he's a great story," Gavry said. The film crew became part of the story when conservative pundit Sean Hannity threatened April 23 to cancel his plans to visit Salt Lake City on May 4 for a debate with Anderson at the University of Utah. (KUTV.com, 04.28.2007)

Gavry was the cinematographer on "Fahrenhype 9/11," so it's a strange allegation to say that they're "with" the mayor, who has signed-off on any creative control over the film. She and her husband aren't exactly biased towards Anderson with such credentials. Why the fear on Hannity's part? Probably because he's a stupid and paranoid blowhard, who's intellectually-lazy like most of his listeners and viewers. They should be, they're criminally-irresponsible and ignorant as citizens.

I haven't seen even a blip on this story at: CNN, Fox News, or any of the major networks. I wonder why? Because Hannity lost, naturally. If he had won the debate, we'd never hear the end of it. It would be ubiquitous, but since it doesn't serve power, it doesn't exist on television (sorry, it exists on the internet, a fact that isn't going to change).

KUTV.com, 04.28.2007: http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_115124559.html

Salt Lake Tribune, 05.05.2007: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5823189

AP, 05.04.2007: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600AP_UT_Mayor_Hannity_Debate.html

Kent State & The Boston Massacre: What they Share ("FIRE!")

 "They're worse than the brownshirts and the communist element and also the nightriders and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people [Ed.-biker rioters and students at Kent.] that we harbor in America. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America." --Ohio governor James A. Rhodes, May 3rd, 1970.

The United States of America--Examining events like these usually serve as a reminder that human history is cyclical, and that the same themes and problems face most generations. Kent State (May 4, 1970) was over the frustrations and division surrounding that other unpopular conflict, the Vietnam War. The Boston Massacre (March 12, 1770) was more complicated--it was a riot over the billeting (housing) of British soldiers and sailors in Boston's households, and rising taxes and duties on nearly everything to pay for the Crown's costs in defending the American colonies during the Seven Year's War (aka"The French and Indian War"). But most of all, American colonists simply hated having an open military presence in their communities.

But both incidents were confrontations with the symbols of the state, which in 1770 was a monarchical one, while in 1970, a parliamentary one with an imperial presidency ruled by money (we still are). It's in the particulars of both events where we can see the similarities: there is considerable ambiguity over what actually caused the British troops and the Ohio National Guard to fire on Americans. The numbers of dead and wounded are also similar, with four dead at Kent State, and five in the Boston Massacre.

Captain Thomas Preston was in command of these soldiers. All could tell the soldiers were nervous and the crowd began chanting. Above the chants and yelling someone rang the church bell, which meant to come outside because of a fire. The crowd then was huge. A soldier shot and then others followed his act. Other weapons such as clubs, knives, swords, and bare hands were also used to fight. The smoke cleared and five innocent Americans, fighting for freedom, died. The most known of the dead was Crispus Attucks, an African-American sailor and escaped slave. Others were: Samuel Gray, worked at a rope walk; James Caldwell, mate on an American ship; Samuel Maverick, seventeen-year old boy; and Patrick Carr, feather maker. ("What Made the Boston Massacre a Massacre," bostonmassacre.net)

It's interesting to note that in both incidents, there is confusion over who--if anyone--ordered the soldiers to fire on the civilians. What's also similar are the allegations in both cases of a cover-up. Both events were riots, not insurrection. This is what makes the actions of the British colonial authorities and the governor of Ohio obvious overreactions. Another similarity is that both events became examples of the brutality of the state (and the powers they represent) in our political iconography, and are likely to remain so as there is an United States of America.

To say both groups of soldiers blundered is an understatement. We'll probably never know precisely what happened in Boston in 1770, but we still have evidence that needs serious examination regarding Kent State--it's within living memory. A serious inquiry never really happened. It should be remembered that the riots at Kent State were over President Richard Nixon's illegal bombings and incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War after promising the public an early ending to the conflict.

It should be noted, however, that Kent State SDS confronted Nixon in 1968 by heckling him when he spoke at the university during his campaigning for president--he was a man who remembered his enemies and who held a grudge. Before the invasion of Cambodia, Kent State was known as a "hotbed" of university radicalism, arguably more intense than at the Columbia or Berkeley campuses. As a result, they stirred the interest of the Executive and legislative branches:

Canfora points to definitive proof that Kent State's SDS was on Uncle Sam's radar by citing hearings held by the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Internal Security on June 24 and 25, 1969. The subject of the hearings? SDS activities at Kent State during the 1968-69 school year. These hearings are detailed in the July 1970 issue of American Legion magazine in an article which tries to blame the SDS for the May 4 killings, accusing the group of consciously working toward achieving a violent conflict to produce martyrs. The story notes an April 21, 1969 article in The Daily Kent Stater that spelled out SDS strategy's goal as "a major confrontation." (associatedcontent.com, 07.10.2005)

Like most campuses at that time, it was thought by many student activists that there were a number of "infiltrators," informants, and provocateurs on the government payroll. Their goal was likely causing disturbances under the guise of being students to direct blame for their own criminal acts onto local activists. In other cases involving such COINTELPRO actions, they also attempted to persuade activists towards violent and illegal actions.

On May 1st, there had been a riot outside of a bar on North Water Street where bikers, townies, and students hurled rocks, bottles, and insults at Kent Police. Were there provocateurs yelling at the cops? A series of FOIAs could answer these questions. A fire was built in the street, and Mayor Leroy Satrom read the riot act to the crowd, declaring a state of emergency. Did an infiltrator start the fire? It's not an impossibility.

Regardless, tensions were extremely high. Also on that day at Kent State was a large protest of around 500 students after President Nixon's aforementioned announcement of the invasion of Cambodia. Somehow, these two events became fused in the minds of the authorities. Were they itching for a confrontation? There was an air of panic throughout American universities at this time over student radicalism that reached points of total hysteria, and Kent State was no exception.

From May 2nd-to-3rd, there were violent confrontations between Kent State students, anti-war protesters and the Ohio National Guard. By May 4th, two students had been bayoneted. What were the soldiers told about the students by their commanders and the governor? When the Guard arrived at the university, the ROTC was burning-down. The arsonists have never been identified, just like the Haymarket bomber(s). Also within this context was the student activist call at that time to "bring the war home," and there were several acts of vandalism and taunting of the authorities (informants? provocateurs?). Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes only fanned the flames by referring to the protesters as "brownshirts," "communists", and as "dangerous revolutionaries." Similar conditions existed in the run up to the Boston Massacre.

Now, it seems we have something that got scant attention from the FBI's original investigations. A Kent State survivor, Alan Canfora, has unearthed an audiotape from the archives at Yale that could have a recording of the orders to fire on the students. Canfora played the tape at Kent State on Tuesday. Predictably, the media's reaction was dismissive.

He played two versions of the tape -- the original and an amplified version -- in which he says a Guard officer issues the command, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" Background noise on the recording made it difficult to understand as it was played for students and reporters in a campus theater Tuesday. The word "point" is clear, followed by the sound of shots being fired. There is no indication on the tape of who said the word. The tape was given to Yale in 1979 for its Kent State archives by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting. Canfora said he found out about it six months ago while researching the shooting.(CNN, 05.02.2007)

The FBI only reviewed segments of the tape in their investigations, and so, the sections that Canfora has unearthed are new evidence that was never seriously considered. The question is: why? The likely answer is that the authorities, and much of the public, wanted to put the incident behind them. All this ever did was submerge the divisions, and revealing the truth is the only way things will ever be healed, including the mistrust that the whole event generated in our government.

Roughly a year after Kent State, unknown activists broke-into the FBI's field office in Media, Pennsylvania, and subsequently outed the COINTELPRO programs to the New York Times and other papers. The FBI's investigations into Kent State during the era it happened cannot be take at face value in the context of their actions against the anti-war movement (and sundry others). It's akin to asking a burglar who's been caught if they're innocent, then taking them at their word. It's faulty logic, and expected from cultural managers in academia (historians) and the media (the press).

The mistrust created by such events can be allayed with transparency and declassification. The privacy of government informants is not important in this light, and they should be outed. Many of them are probably still alive today, and might know an entirely different story about Kent State than we all do. The truth must be known, and it will eventually, but we've waited long enough. A serious and honest investigation is in order.

Just six years after the Boston Massacre, America declared her independence from the Crown. History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but there are things about our peculiar system of governance that are worth saving. Ignoring these problematic events isn't going to preserve these liberties, and these issues affect us all, even 37-years-later. It's important to remember that Kent State wasn't the only incident of this type. That same month, on May 14-15, two Black students at Jackson State University were shot-and-killed by Mississippi Police (who were armed with carbines and submachine-guns).

12 other students were wounded in the hail of bullets fired by the 75 officers. This was the atmosphere throughout the nation in the Spring of 1970, and many feared a civil war had begun. What we should all learn is that communication is vital, and that we have to look at each other as human beings when this kind of social division and tension are prevalent. Fortunately, things aren't quite as contentious regarding Iraq--2/3rd's of the public want the war to end soon and think it was a mistake. Before the war, the numbers were the same over whether we could tolerate a prolonged-conflict: 2/3rd's said "no." Today, we have a silent minority, praise God.

Kent State, the Boston Massacre, and Virginia Tech didn't have to happen, but they did. We should heed the warnings of this senseless violence. It was more dangerous to be a college student in 1970 in many respects, but the Virginia Tech shootings are Kent State eight-times-over. Communication is the key, even if it's acrimonious and angry, it must be present for civil society to exist. Mediation should have occurred in all of these kinds of incidents, though this writer acknowledges that there are some gulfs that are too-far to bridge.We can't prevent every slaughter, but we can at least try. To do nothing is criminal, insuring more disaster. Moralizing isn't understanding or solving. We need to face the hard-truths and confront them, non-violently. That being said, people also have the right to defend themselves from undue force. Nobody said any of this was simple or clear-cut.

On the Boston Massacre: http://www.bostonmassacre.net/academic/essay4.htm

CNN on Canfora's discovery, 05.02.2007: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/02/kent.state.ap/index.html

More Sources on the Kent and Jackson State shootings: http://www.may41970.com/Books%20and%20Sources/books_and_reference_on_may_4.htm

Jackson State, May 14-15: http://www.may41970.com/Jackson%20State/jackson_state_may_1970.htm

Kent State Timeline: http://www.may4.org/4.html & http://members.aol.com/nrbooks/chronol.htm

Alan Cafora's website: http://alancanfora.com/?q=node/10

ABC'S HOOKERGATE COVERAGE ON FRIDAY'S 20/20: UNDERWHELMING

ABC--Are they playing poker or what? The report asserted that in all of the phone records that Deborah Jeane Palfrey turned over to ABC (gratis, with no conditions) they haven't found any names that are especially interesting. Yet, listening and reading Palfrey's comments from the show, she's saying the opposite of ABC's assertions.

She didn't turn everything over, obviously, and ABC probably does have names (they asserted as much on "the blotter" at their site) that are explosive. I think they're trying to figure out what to do with them, and what the repercussions will be. Curious.

See the articles on this topic in the links below for ABC's prior statements on Palfrey's phone records and the whole scandal. She has copies of them (for her protection), and has posted just one day in 1996. The reality is, they've (primarily Palfrey and various elements of the press and the prosecutors) already outed at least four people in this since the Fall of 2006. As the 20/20 piece noted, one has committed suicide, while Randall Tobias has lost his Bush appointed job at the State Department.

Is ABC engaging in damage control? We'll see.

One thing's certain: Deborah Jeane Palfrey is no victim, and she's got a pretty sharp mind. I admire her will to survive all of this, and these idiotic laws that cover prostitution.

She might just be the woman who ends them here in the United States. What cultural managers and elites are going to try to do is limit any fundamental damage to their power. She's a direct threat to it, which makes her important and she could end up a cause.

OFF-THE-RADAR: MAINSTREAM MEDIA UNDER-REPORTING 2/3RD'S SENATE VOTE PASSING DRUG IMPORTATION AMEMENDMENT

Washington D.C.--I have yet to see even a blurb on network news outlets, their local-affiliates, CNN, FOX, or anywhere else but the wires on the internet. In-character, Yahoo didn't appear to have thought it was worth posting as a visible headline on their homepage. This is great people! The FDA can now authorize the importation of pharmaceutical drugs from other countries, but there appears to be a curious omission: The Secretary of Health and Human Services still doesn't have the ability to negotiate for prices of drugs within the United States.

This is the description of the amendment and the bill it's attached to for those of you who want to do your own research: S.1082 (the bill), S.Amdt. 990 (Senate Amendment 990). Yes, now (in-theory) we'll be able to purchase cheaper drugs from importers who purchase drugs in countries with a better political culture, where corporations don't have as much of a stranglehold on the public (thanks to our apathy and the evil of politicians and lobbyists). In a sense, the bill is ridiculous because of this. Why not just collar the pharmaceutical companies (like Eli Lily, a corporation that the Bush and Quayle families have controlling-shares in) and make them lower their prices? You know: have the government set the prices!

SEC. X02. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) Americans unjustly pay up to 5 times more to fill their prescriptions than consumers in other countries;

(2) the United States is the largest market for pharmaceuticals in the world, yet American consumers pay the highest prices for brand pharmaceuticals in the world;

(3) a prescription drug is neither safe nor effective to an individual who cannot afford it;

(4) allowing and structuring the importation of prescription drugs to ensure access to safe and affordable drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration will provide a level of safety to American consumers that they do not currently enjoy;

(5) American spend more than $200,000,000,000 on prescription drugs every year;

(6) the Congressional Budget Office has found that the cost of prescription drugs are between 35 to 55 percent less in other highly-developed countries than in the United States; and

(7) promoting competitive market pricing would both contribute to health care savings and allow greater access to therapy, improving health and saving lives. (govtrack.us, 05.03.2007)

What a weird conclusion: we won't confront corporations and their supremacy, so we'll make the market more competitive by allowing the importation of pharmaceuticals from other nations. How pathetic, how cowardly. I know, it's that (pathological) conventional wisdom again. Besides, under American law, it's illegal for corporations to do anything for the common good, they can only make profits for their shareholders. Check it out, it's actually illegal for them to move towards a social marketplace economy where the needs of the public are considered in business decisions and public policy regarding this economy.

Highly illogical, Captain (he's dead, Jim). It's interesting who didn't even bother to vote on the amendment: Joe Biden (D-Del.), John McCain (R-Az.), Sam Brownback (R-Ks.), Jeff Bingaman (D-Nm.), Lindsey Graham (R-Sc.), Tim Johnson (D-Sd., though all we know why, and it's understandable), Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.), and John Warner (R-Va.). Most of these idiots are simply dead-beats. Get out of office if you don't listen to the public. You had better heed the November 2006 midterms--even Indiana experienced a historical shift in our voting-patterns. There is a political price for not attending to the common good.

It appears Sens. Biden and McCain are too preoccupied with their respective campaigns for the presidency. This isn't smart for McCain, considering his state is heavily-populated with senior citizens who have to pay the highest-prices in the world for the medicine many of them need to survive. One can be assured that the AARP is going to remind them that he was absent for this vote, but he's nuts anyway (shell shock). Huh. It appears that the Senate was the last to know that we all pay too-much for our medicine. Morons.

Govtrack.us, 05.03.2007: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s990

Coming next-week: 1995 Noam Chomsky interview, much of it covering domestic surveillance

J-7-It took a lot of searching through all the boxes of my personal archives, but I've finally located my Winter 1995 interview with Dr. Chomsky. It gives you an idea of how long-term the issue of domestic surveillance has been, and that the current political generation cannot be trusted to make genuine (fundamental) reforms without being pushed very-very hard by the public to end these activities by the FBI, the NSA, and military intelligence. It appears there are those at the Pentagon who want it too. The core operating-principle behind most of the sixteen intelligence agencies populating our government is to watch all of us.

The worst of these programs was--from 1956-1971--called "COINTELPRO" (counterintelligence program), and was run by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. There were several other programs run by the NSA and the Pentagon during this period as well, particularly "GARDEN PLOT", a Defense Department program that utilized domestic surveillance and the running of contingency plans in the case of a domestic insurrection. Now why would America's ruling-classes think we would want to do that? I cannot imagine why, they're just so good to us. A couple of other illegal surveillance programs were "CABLE SPLICER" and "OPERATION CHAOS," "CHAOS" being a program to subvert the anti-war movement.

Nearly ever major social movement group was spied-on by COINTELPRO, even Boy Scout dens (alright, these bastards are really dangerous), PTA boards, students, housewives (very dangerous to national security no-doubt), not just the Black Panther Party (for Self-Defense), Dr. King, the civil rights movement in-general, Puerto Rican nationalists, the American Indian Movement, feminists, the Socialist Workers Party, gay rights activists, communists, unions, private citizens, SDS, the antiwar movement, and-on-and-on.

In 1983, it was revealed that these activities continued under a different name, and it was the FBI who was caught spying-on CISPES (Committee In-Solidarity with the People of El Salvador), but there are numerous examples since the Church Committee's limp-wristed response to Watergate, COINTELPRO, Chile, and much more.

All these programs were run under the auspices of the Executive Branch, with Congress supplying cover (and a wink-and-a-nod) and tolerance of these activities. It was all to undermine to democratic movements within the territorial United States, and still is in other forms. Yet, Americans are only now remembering and learning about COINTELPRO, whereas Watergate is common currency. There are subtle reasons of social control at play here. It was easy for historians and news editors to sweep all this under the rug before the internet was widely-accessible. Since the original publication of this interview, all that has changed.

As Dr. Chomsky states in the interview, "Simply consider the relative attention given to Watergate and to COINTELPRO. It's a very revealing comparison. They were disclosed at the very same time. COINTELPRO was vastly more significant: it was a program by the national political police, acting on the highest authority through three administrations, to undermine and destroy independent thought and political action; its methods reached as far as Gestapo-style political assassination, under Nixon. The facts are not contested. In contrast, Watergate was a tea party."

Statement of intellectual-ownership: The upcoming interview with Dr. Chomsky is the intellectual-property of Dr. Chomsky and the editor & publisher of this blog, Matt Janovic. Reproduction of quotations are fine up-to four lines. After that, permission is required from the editor & publisher of this blog.

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, & HAUER VISIT J-7 FOR A LONG READ

J-7--In case you don't know already (see articles below), the law firm mentioned in the title of this piece is the one that employed the legal secretary who worked for D.C. madame, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Hookergate is growing, and it doesn't appear anyone with the connections is willing to quash the investigations into her escort business that worked Washington D.C. from 1993 to August of 2006.

That covers the entirety of the GOP's hold on Congress, and we can see they wasted no time in getting-laid once they were in-power in 1994. Funny, they promised to clean Washington up, as though they weren't "insiders" themselves.

Question: did Ms. Palfrey's service extend to Bohemian Grove? She was headquartered in California, and I grant that I'm begging-the-question, but they created Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan there. Oh sure, they existed before that, just not as the cuddly-fellas we got to know later. Akin, Gump, ... must be very-very concerned about the Palfrey scandal, because they read my blog for 26 minutes, then later for about 5 minutes. It almost appears that they had a legal secretary (!) doing the blog-searches, then had one of the attorneys looking at my blog to confirm they read what they thought they read.

But Akin, Gump... aren't alone: I'm getting hits from the Naval Academy, Harvard (the Gonzales 82' reunion), congressional aides in the House and Senate, and I think even Mr. Randall Tobias' people are skimming the blogs. They should, since the media is no-longer a monologue and cultural and perception management is going to be very-very difficult these days.

It's interesting looking at the site meter, you can see what's really going on out there in web. China must have millions of web-bots searching for sites to ban access to, and I get a lot of hits from Turkey as well. Very interesting.

THE ASS CEILING: FORMER CLIENT OF "DC MADAME" DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY ATTEMPTS TO BAR HIS NAME FROM ABC BROADCAST, AND MUCH MORE...

"Not God but a swastika, So black no sky could squeak through. Every woman adores a Fascist. The boot in the face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." --Sylvia Plath, "Daddy." From "Ariel", 1966.

Washington D.C.--It's beginning to look like Christmas in May. Beginning Friday, we're going to see Deborah Jeane Palfrey month, starting at ABC. Tony Blair is leaving office this month. Also, a 20/20 segment has already been taped with Palfrey's interview--and more names of clients who used her prostitution service.

Now, more of these "Johns" are coming forward through their attorneys to quash them being named. Some, it is being reported, are offering Ms. Palfrey out of court deals and inducements. We can only guess what they would be. If they don't include immunity from prosecution or funds for her defense, she isn't going to be interested.

Ms. Palfrey is a petite lady, and we all know what that means: hot-blooded, vindictive, with a knife gripped in her teeth. Big girls are friendlier. The unidentified John's attorney--Steven Salky--must have a lot to lose. One has to wonder if he's another Bush administration member, or if he is a she. Any hints at their identity are to be regarded as suspect. Forget the glass-ceiling...this is the ass-ceiling.

One thing we do know is that there were many-many members of the Pentagon's officer class involved. A multi-part series on the scandal can be expected from ABC, based on the scope of the scandal. The Washington Post is reporting today that Palfrey's lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley has estimated (before his replacement) 1,000 former-clients have been identified, with five to ten of them being slated to be "publicly identified" soon:

ABC News spokesman Jeffrey W. Schneider said yesterday that such estimates are premature. Although the program is being promoted with excerpts on ABC's Web site, he said "20/20" has not finished its reporting. "I don't think anybody can tell you what we're going to do," Schneider said. He declined to comment on how ABC will determine whom to name, but he said it typically would consider the public interest and possible hypocrisy by public officials. (Washington Post, 05.03.2007)

It doesn't appear that there are any solid inducements coming from Palfrey's former clients, or any testimony from many of them that her business was legitimate--unless you count Randall Tobias who resigned from his State Department post last Friday.

His example is probably the reason why Deborah Jeane Palfrey is only being contacted through attorneys, but the D.C. madame illustrates a good understanding of the law. She should, she has a Bachelor's in pre-law and a nine month paralegal certification. She's done her homework on this, and she's not the type to go down quietly. Somehow, we all knew the GOP's reign would end like this, but that's because its all happened before in other eras. Human venality is timeless and unalterable. There are only so many ways to be corrupt. Knowing this, Palfrey kept a staggering 46 pounds of phone records, which she has put in the custody of ABC so as to avoid a court injunction against her releasing them. ABC gets the scoop while she gets the satisfaction of releasing the names anyway.

It's all her gambit to save herself by pressuring the former-clients into coming to her assistance. Palfrey's former lawyer--Sibley--has also alleged that a current-or-former-Naval Academy Instructor was an employee of the madame. Another one caught this writer's attention, but there are no specifics whether they are a standing Bush administration economist, or a former one:

ABC plans to air a report about Palfrey on Friday night on its “20/20” newsmagazine. The network has said that the list of Palfrey’s customers also includes a Bush administration economist [Ed.-my emphasis], a prominent chief executive officer, the head of a conservative think tank, lobbyists and military officials. Also, Randall Tobias resigned last week from a senior State Department post after ABC confronted him about his use of the service. Tobias confirmed to ABC that he used the service but denied that he had sex with the escorts. (AP, 05.03.2007)

If the individual named as "A Bush administration economist" falls into the "former" category, his name could be current Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels. I always wondered where he got that scar on his right-cheek. Maybe he got it as a mob enforcer collecting gambling debts. Watching "our man bitch" fall could be very satisfying to this native of Indiana. The state has been a proving-ground for neocon privatization, a model slated for the rest of the country; his downfall would aid the common good beyond the confines of the state.

Many Hoosiers are more-than-ready for this to become a reality. It should also be noted that federal investigators moved on this case right before the 2006 midterms, with the U.S. Attorney firings in the backdrop. It could mean someone was trying to put out a lot of fires, though it's doubtful any of them were U.S. Attorneys. Palfrey has created a legal defense fund site for herself, and is posting a selection of her 1996 phone records. There aren't any names, but what she's listed is 124 phone numbers with the city-of-origin listed beside them, the times, the duration of each call, and the charge for each.

This is hard evidence, and allows the clients to peruse them for their own (previously unlisted?) number(s). Give them a call, it's easy. I'm sure several of them are defunct, but it's certain a few aren't. Several might get you a line at the Pentagon, or even the White House. Others will likely get you a lobbyist's office, while others will take one down the rabbit hole. I'm happily surprised by ABC's decision to do this story, it's real journalism, the juiciest kind. Your best bet is watching ABC's blotter online.

A new story surrounding the case today is the fact that a legal secretary who worked for the D.C. law firms Akin Gump Strauss Houer & Feld LLP also did some moonlighting for Palfrey's escort business, ostensibly manning phones and servicing the clients. It seems nobody pays decent wages anymore. It might behoove many such firms to do so, since loyalty is at-a-premium these days.

This is how influential Akin Gump is:

Considered one of the most powerful firms in Washington, Akin Gump partners make up a who's who of Washington insiders, including Vernon Jordan, former Speaker of the House Tom Foley, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and co-founder Robert Strauss, an adviser to numerous presidents. (ABC, "The Blotter", 05.03.2007. Don't take the brown acid.)

One has to speculate if this is all a front for a system of rewards (prostitutes, money & boardroom ghost-jobs) to politicos who follow the agendas of lobbyists, the RNC, and the string-pullers behind them all. Carrots and sticks don't cut it anymore. Add-to-the-mix the fact that the FBI's enforcement of white-collar crime has plummeted, and you understand better why it's the IRS who initiated this whole case.

ABC's "The Blotter" Today:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/in_newsletters_.html

AP Today: http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/NEWS01/70503029/1002

The Washington Post Today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202537.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Want to read some of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's phone records from 1996?: http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/

THE ANTIWAR BLOC IN CONGRESS HAS ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD: WHY THE VETO MEANS VERY LITTLE

"The only thing that is slowing some of them down is the fear that somehow they will be accused of doing something that will put the troops at risk. The desire for political comfort is still overwhelming the best judgment even of some Democrats." --Sen. Russ Feingold yesterday (IHT, 05.02.2007)

Washington D.C.--While the mainstream media is banging the drum of defeat for the Democrats, the reality is that the necessity on Bush's part to enact a veto is his loss. He has lost valuable time as Iraq sinks into anarchy. Just two-days-ago, 98 Iraqis were found dead or decomposing around Baghdad, and these numbers are becoming a common occurrence, even outside the Capital. The lack of GOP defections (and some Democratic ones to the far-right) in the House's attempt at overriding the veto speaks-volumes for a party and a political generation that simply don't get it.

What they don't get is that the public has had enough of this war, and that it can change the context in the next elections in an even more radical washout--the ending of this political generation as office-holders. It's hard to steal an election when a landslide has occurred, which we saw in November of 2006; it breaks-the-spell and ends any uncertainties. Also, with numerous scandals waiting to explode in the GOP's collective faces, one can easily discern that this war-funding vote is all they have as a defense against the prevailing-winds in Washington. Sen. Russell Feingold, one of the so-called antiwar bloc in both houses, wrote this yesterday at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/:

The next step to ending the war isn't to give in, but to step up the pressure on the President. I'm pleased to be working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a bill to end our open-ended military commitment in Iraq. Now that the President has rejected the will of the American people with this veto, our bill, or some other proposal to end funding for a failed policy, should be the next step to end the war. (Huffingtonpost.com, 05.02.2007)

It's unlikely the Democrats are going to back down with so much to win, and it's going to be easier on them than the Bush administration and the GOP. Comparatively, they're hardly embattled at all. It's also common knowledge within the departments of the Pentagon that funds can be shifted into July--not good for an administration and a party that doesn't want the war to end while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are in office. Yet, by prolonging the war, they're paradoxically making this inevitable. This is the pedagogy of power: a descent into the irrational.

The troops will only suffer if the president doesn't shift funds within the Pentagon, which he can do with the stroke of a pen. He could do it within the next five-minutes, and there would be funding through July. His only resort is to do what he's always done: to deny the reality of the situation, to box-himself-into a corner, and to lie. This is all he has left. Interestingly, many of the wire stories seem to be implying that this is where the Democrats are. One has to wonder if he'll have anything left after the U.S. Attorney and Deborah Jeane Palfrey ("Hookergate") scandals. Barack Obama began to back-peddle yesterday before his more terse statements on the president's veto:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who found himself under fire when he previously suggested that Congress ought to remove any conditions from the financing bill after the veto, said he believed that Democrats needed to settle on legislation that would "constrain the president" but that at the same time "might be short of a timetable." "I don't know whether there are sufficient options out there," Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. "I'm concerned about simply putting in advisory benchmarks that the president is free to ignore, without any consequences." (IHT, 05.02.2007)

Senator Obama should realize the only way to break the Republican spell over the Democratic Party is to hit-back much harder--that is, if he wishes to be president. There seem to be stirrings of this in the agenda of Congress these days, but this writer feels the investigations, oversight, and general hitting-back need to be escalated dramatically. Again, Obama went back on-the-attack after he received an avalanche of criticism for his back-peddling. This is how the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be contentious and it has periods where politicians are swept-up by events. Expect more to originate from Iraq.

What the media fails to report--because their ownership has an agenda congruent with the Bush administration and the GOP--is that this bill was merely a first-step, and one that Bush was doing his best to prevent. You can see that in his reactions to all these measures, which have been emotionally-propulsive and violent, if not extremely acrimonious. Even an armchair analyst can see that doing the opposite of what Bush wants is probably the best-route for any push to end the war, and separates the adults from the children in this political conflict.

With a number of Senate and House seats opening-up in 2008, as well as the Oval Office, it's normal for some candidates to get cold-feet occasionally. However, the polls and the November midterms illustrate that the Democrats could benefit greatly from ending the war in Iraq by next Spring. As fast as events are overtaking us all, it's beginning to dawn on many incumbents (and the White House) that this could become a tangible reality regardless of whether funding for the war is appropriated without strings-attached or not.

"It's a frustrating step on his part," Obama said. "Because by failing to sign this bill that would actually increase funding for troops on the ground, not only do I feel like he ignored the will of the American people, but I still feel like he's not understanding the realities on the ground."..."We're 16 Republican votes short from really being in a position to bring this war to a close," Obama said, referring to the number of votes needed to override Bush's veto. (Chicago Tribune, 05.02.2007)

Yes, the reality on the ground is most-likely to determine everything, forcing the hands of the GOP towards further defections, as well as Democrats who have voted with them on the emergency appropriations. Rhetoric and lies aren't very effective against the violent inertia of the insurgency and sectarian attacks. History will not be denied, just as it had its way in Vietnam.

The laws of physics are still holding, thank God. George W. Bush, his allies in Congress (both GOP and DNC), and his administration are responsible for the continuation of this pointless and wasteful war. It's time to turn up the heat, it's not hot enough for them. Again, it has to be reiterated that Congress has all the time it needs, not the Bush administration.

This aspect will continue to be obscured and derided by the mainstream media, but it's the political reality of this debate. Who will blink? Time to up-the-ante, Democrats. The time for waffling is over. The alternative is to lose the new majority, and to continue to look like a bunch of wishy-washy wimps who don't know what they believe in. The current price of a gallon-of-gasoline should also aid them with solid-support from an angry American public. History is upon us.

Sen. Russell Feingold at Huffingtonpost, 05.02.2007: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/after-the-veto_b_47462.html

"U.S. Democrats regroup after veto, seeking unity on Iraq plan": http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/03/america/03dems.php

Obama to the Chicago Tribune, 05.02.2007: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070501obama-bush,1,5174110.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS & MEMBERS OF HQ, 5TH SIGNAL COMMAND (IN THE MIDDLE EAST) VISIT J-7 (BRIEFLY)

J-7--They came to read about...Deborah Jeane Palfrey, but who doesn't want to know about it? My heart goes out to dog faces everywhere, you're the ones who get caught in the middle of all of the bullshit politics in Washington.

Now, I'm not saying any soldiers, sailors, or airmen should do this--because it would be illegal--but if I was over there, I'd desert and make a run for Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, or Holland. But that's me.

[Ed., 09.13.2008-A very early blurb. I sure wish I had pasted the meter entry, but there it is. A large number of deserters are running to Ireland. Shhhhh!]

WHO WANNA BE DOWN?: REAGAN'S DIARY ENTRIES REVEAL NOTHING NEW

They tell me I’m the most powerful man in the world. I don’t believe that. Over there in that White House someplace there is a fellow that puts a piece of paper on my desk every day that tells me what I’m going to be doing every 15 minutes. He’s the most powerful man in the world. --President Ronald Reagan Referring to the Director of Presidential Scheduling, February 23, 1984

DA' WIRES--The wires are running this stupid non-story about some of Reagan's diaries--there's nothing new in them, especially his comment that he thought Armageddon was coming in our lifetimes. Yes, he was a doddering, senile, religiously insane moron who was propped-up in the Oval Office chair by a bunch of crooks. Sound familiar? Why doesn't our current president tell us about God talking to him anymore? I think it was really the pink elephants, kids.

Reagan was a stupid president for stupid voters who thought (knew) there would be a short-term fix to the economy--never mind the kids or their kids, we want the money NOW. Even Neil Young became a pod person urging his fans to vote for Reagan in 1980. I think I agreed with Lynyrd Skynyrd after I found this out in the early-1990s. Go back to Canada dumbass (and I love his music). But hey, he bought a motorcycle for Charles Manson. Greed.

There was one entry that raised my eyebrows a tad: "January 30th, Couldn't remember own name. Mommy says she'll change my adult-diapers instead of the help." Now that's incredible transparency on-the-part of the Reagan Library, isn't it? Then there was the day of his assassination: "...getting shot hurts." Yeah, that's one for the ages, definitely, Abe woulda said that if his brains hadn't been blown-out. The question is how was Reagan able to in the same condition?

It was incredibly stupid for the Baby Boomers to vote for Reagan, and even worse for the "Greatest Generation Ever" (usually said by members of that generation). It's been 27 years of bullshit since then, and it's finally crashing-into that wall we always knew was there. The "city on the hill" looks like a slum, like Jerusalem. Happy fucking birthday to me (not you). Look hard at the quote above, and consider the implications--if the diaries of Ronald Reagan illustrate anything, it's that presidents aren't really in-charge. We shouldn't be surprised by any of George W. Bush's behavior when we all enabled it. The problem is, those of us who didn't have to live in this world too. Thanks a lot.

In his case--when he made the statement in 1984--that Director of Presidential Scheduling was one Frederick J. Ryan. Good luck finding much detail on this man's life, but he is noted as the author of "The Great Communicator", and one can assume was instrumental in the creation of the Maoist-cult of Ronald Reagan. He was also one of the public-figures responsible for the cancellation of Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" when he cancelled it from broadcast-lists at a Washington D.C. television station that he had considerable influence over. Happy hunting (just not with Cheney), this Ryan is one wily motherfucker!

Frederick J. Ryan, the most powerful man in the world: http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/oralhistories/detail/3232

HOOKERGATE: AMERICAN MEDIA RELUCTANT TO ISSUE FULL LIST, THOUGH ABC IS IN POSESSION OF 10,000-NAME MASTER

"Had he done so earlier along with the many, many others who have used my company's services throughout the years, I most likely would not be in my current predicament." --Deborah Jeane Palfrey today. (Reuters UK, 05.01.2007)

Washington D.C. (party town!)--She's still talking and Heidi Fleiss is chiming-in that she shouldn't be telling who her clients were. Yeah. Then, the wires are reporting that Deborah Jeane Palfrey "is sorry" for outing Randall Tobias, a Bush administration appointee in the State Department who resigned on Friday after ABC released his name from her list on Thursday. Now, she's asked a federal judge if she can sell-off shares in Dolby laboratories since they've peaked in value:

The woman accused of running a prostitution ring serving Washington's elite, including at least one U.S. government official, also appears to be something of a stock picker. The woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, asked a federal judge on Monday for permission to sell almost 5,000 shares of Dolby Laboratories that were in an account frozen by the government because she believed the stock had reached its high point. (Reuters UK, 05.01.2007)

The judge isn't going to do it, which could suggest there's also an SEC investigation here. One has to question why ABC is sitting-on that 9,997-strong list. We've only heard about three names so far. Let's hear some more, please. America's at least a partially Puritanical nation of serial voters, and those folks are waiting in rapt attention. So am I. ABC: what gives?

We should all be asking ourselves where Ms. Palfrey gets her stock tips. Could it come from people with access to data being mined in the warrantless surveillance programs being expedited by the Pentagon and the NSA? Certain Bush administration officials have such security clearances and could do it. This could take insider trading to a new level. Their access to such information must be unprecedented, skirting numerous federal regulations that are routinely enforced by entities like the SEC (and also investigated by the FBI under white-collar crime laws). Except...
Interestingly, the FBI's investigations into white-collar crimes have literally plummeted under the Bush administration, though this should be no surprise to even the most casual observer on the political scene.

Thousands of white-collar criminals across the country are no longer being prosecuted in federal court -- and, in many cases, not at all -- leaving a trail of frustrated victims and potentially billions of dollars in fraud and theft losses. It is the untold story of the Bush administration's massive restructuring of the FBI after the terrorism attacks of 9/11. Five-and-a-half years later, the White House and the Justice Department have failed to replace at least 2,400 agents transferred to counterterrorism squads, leaving far fewer agents on the trail of identity thieves, con artists, hatemongers and other criminals. Two successive attorneys general have rejected the FBI's pleas for reinforcements behind closed doors. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 04.11.2007)

And so, we have to assume that this was part of the whole design of the Bush agenda, perhaps before 1999. Surely, it didn't occur on-accident. There has been a bum rush on the system by a horde of criminals occupying our seat of government. It's as simple as that.

With the vast funds that have been appropriated for the failed war on terror, surely, these Special Agents could have been replaced by now. But if you're a criminal who's seized the levers of power, you would also defund the people who are supposed to guard the public from you and your accomplices.Why mention white collar crimes in all of this? There is smoke here, and Ms. Palfrey needs to be questioned about the particulars of her stocks and how she decided on their purchase (who, if anyone, advised her on the purchases?), the timing of the purchases, and a lot more. Maybe if we're lucky, we can find an FBI agent who isn't busy listening-in on our phone calls, watering Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's lawn, or doing...who knows under this war on terrorism? Of course, there could even be a connection here with the U.S. Attorney firings, but that's a wait and see.

It's hard to imagine what federal statutes cover a government employee working for Palfrey as a prostitute. Send in the paralegals and legal scholars, they're going to have to dust-off some very-very old laws here.

Assuredly, there is some element of criminal conspiracy here, with the possibility that Ms. Palfrey was given preferential treatment in a number of arenas such as the stock trading. It would be interesting to learn whether the federal prosecutor leading the investigation into Palfrey's case was on the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Gonzales hit-list in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal.

Sibley said he did not know whether ABC would name other customers in the "20/20" segment. Jeffrey Schneider, executive vice president at ABC News, said the network is pursuing a legitimate news story, not performing legal work for Palfrey. Palfrey has described her business as a "legal, high-end erotic fantasy service." Prosecutors say Palfrey knew that her escorts were having sex with clients and that Palfrey generated more than $2 million in revenue over 13 years, with more than 130 women employed at various times to serve thousands of clients. (AP, 05.01.2007)

$2 million seems a conservative estimate (pun-intended), especially considering the hourly-rate ($300-per-hour), and the duration (13 years). Let's face it, with 10,000 customers, it doesn't fit, and one has to wonder if the former-madame was given access to offshore accounts through various clients.

This writer wagers there was a great deal of bartering going-on in Palfrey's firm. At this point, only Palfrey, ABC, her customers, and the rest of the media knows the story. It's the public that should know every sordid detail, no matter where the trails leads. So far, it leads directly to the Oval Office...again (and again-and-again-and-again). Today, she says she's sorry that she outed State Department official, Randall Tobias. What a Palfrey excuse.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 04.11.2007: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/311046_fbiterror11.html

Reuters UK: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN3043095920070501

AP Today: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003687865_madam01.html

DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S HOOKERGATE: WHORES SEEING WHORES, AND WHAT THE WIRES AREN'T REPORTING TODAY

"...the tentacles of this matter reach far, wide and high into the echelons of power in the United States.'' --Former D.C. Madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey in recent court-filings. (Bloomberg, 04.30.2007)

wArSHINtUhN--She's about to spill-the-beans, so someone at the GOP (and DNC) had better get some of those CIA contractors ready to ice her--ohhh, too late. She's going to reveal her list this week if she doesn't get some favors, since the federal prosecutors don't want to play nice with her by allowing specific evidence into the record. The Feds have also confiscated virtually everything she owns, including her assets (no, not those, silly, she's 50).

I'd imagine we'll all be very surprised--and not--by who's on her list of clients who needed to pay for sex--at least what wifey wouldn't do at home to/for them. This has been brewing since before the November 2006 midterms, and it didn't help putting them off as we all know.

It's interesting that nearly all of Ms. Palfrey's prostitutes were college educated and that her clients preferred their sapphic qualities. I'm honestly wondering if Condizzi frequented the D.C. madame's service. There's smoke, so let's blow some up her ass. Back in October of 2006, Palfrey claimed:

"I never kept records," she claimed. "I protected the client's confidentiality...they trusted me." But Palfrey did speculate that she may have come to the attention of federal agents because her operation had somehow intersected with a more high profile case, like that of convicted ex-congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Investigators are reportedly examining charges that a defense contractor provided hookers to Cunningham as part of an influence-peddling scheme. (thesmokinggun.com, 10.09.2006)

Yet, it appears that she did keep some records for later. The above quote gives us the motive for why she kept records of the names of all of her clients--they might snitch on her. Since Palfrey was busted running a similar operation in California in 1990 (serving 18 months, then turning-around and starting a new service immediately upon-release), it's assured this is the same deal--prostitution.

No, I don't mean they were politicians, but they're related through fluids. Question: did anyone use cigars, and how many of the accused will claim "it wasn't sex"? Tobias already has, slinking-back to that cesspool known as Indianapolis.

Considering "Miz Julia" had 132 women working for her, the net covering Washington D.C. insiders is going to be extremely wide. This writer wagers that several senior politicians, federal department bureaucrats, and an army of Bush appointees will be caught-up in all of this, and even a few Democrats will populate their ranks.

On Friday, Randall L. Tobias resigned as deputy secretary of state one day after confirming to Brian Ross of ABC that he had patronized the Pamela Martin firm. Speaking yesterday on "Good Morning America," Ross said Tobias told him Tobias's number was on Palfrey's phone records because he had called "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." There had been "no sex," Ross quoted Tobias as saying, and that recently he has used another service, "with Central American gals," for massages. Tobias, who is 65 and married, was director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. He previously held a top job in the Bush administration overseeing AIDS relief, in which he promoted abstinence and a policy requiring grant recipients to swear they oppose prostitution.
(Washington Post, 04.29.2007)

Correct, there are rules for you, but not for those of us in the GOP and other ruling-circles. Except if you get caught, which in America, makes you an asshole. Tobias is married, incidentally, so he's got some explaining to do. If his wife doesn't divorce him she's an imbecile. According to Palfrey's attorney (a man named Sibley), no less than five of her former clients' lawyers have called asking if they're on her list.
But back to Condaleeza Rice: "More revelations are in the offing. Ross said the list includes the names of some "very prominent people," as well as a number of women with "important and serious jobs" who had worked as escorts for the firm." (ibid) My-my-my. A few other names already released: Dick Morris, and Dr. Harlan K. Ullman (a university professor who wrote on military strategy--couldn't he just have sex with his students?).

Isn't power wonderful? These are the rewards of power, these are the things that all good men and women work for, these goals of power (besides murder). The Rev. Jim Jones knew this well when he demanded sex from his followers, and noting the basic inequalities (primarily economic) in our society, the People's Temple was merely a microcosm of what we see here in Whoregate.

The options for young men and women are narrowing as the concentration of capital commences. You get the picture (I hope). Criminalizing prostitution was always wrong-headed, and it was rich American women who pushed hardest to make it a reality. It wasn't out of kindness, that would be a statistical anomaly.

This scandal just underscores the reasons for why it should be legal: the lost tax-revenue, no regulating of sexually-transmitted diseases, and a misuse of law enforcement when they could be pursuing violent criminals (like Cheney).

More on Randall Tobias:

Tobias, formerly the chief executive of Eli Lilly & Co., assumed leadership of the U.S. government's overseas aid agency on March 31, 2006. He also served as the coordinator of all U.S. foreign assistance, a position created last year by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The suddenness of Tobias's departure caught officials by surprise. Two days before his resignation, at an event to mark the U.S. commitment to battling malaria, Bush lauded Tobias's work at USAID and at his previous job where "he led America's monumental effort to confront and deal with the HIV epidemic on the continent of Africa.'' (Bloomberg, 04.30.2007)

Just not in his own pants or those of his colleagues. One should note that the Bush and Quayle families have controlling-shares in Eli Lily, so it appears they reward their underlings with jobs and hookers, and perhaps even narcotics. It would be a supreme irony if many of the clients contracted HIV/AIDS, or perhaps, syphilis.
Speaking of syphilis, it should be noted that when George H.W. Bush was president, he was ordered by the Supreme Court to cease-and-desist from illegal lobbying for Eli Lily while he was president twice. He did not comply. There are similar tales from the annals of Rome, but I won't bore you with them. However, Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" is a good-place to start. Legalize prostitution, you're only hurting poor women, not the pimps and the Johns.

Bloomberg, 04.30.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070430/pl_bloomberg/a5vamd2nyt_s

The Smoking Gun, 10.09.2006: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1009061hook1.html

"I abhor injustice." So do I, dearie. (The Washington Post, 04.29.2007): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801192.html?hpid=topnews

Suetonius', "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars": http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html

ALBERTO GONZALES ROUTED FROM 25TH REUNION AT HARVARD, AP MISREPORTS THE FACTS

"On behalf of many other Harvard Law students, I'd like to tell you that we are ashamed to have you as an alumnus of this school. And we're glad you're here to be able to tell you that." --An unidentified third-year Harvard law student upon confronting Attorney General Gonzales.

Cambridge, Mass.--Michael Moore's site is reporting today that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was confronted so-frequently at his 25th law school reunion that he had to leave out a back door from the affair. Best of all, he was confronted by angry students dressed in orange jumpsuits with black hoods, just as they're utilized at Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo prison. Good going kids, at least you know how long Habeus Corpus has been around and what an affront this administration is to our traditions of democracy.


The story--now disseminated throughout the wires--is headlined with the assertion that Gonzales's fromer classmates thanked the students afterwards, but I didn't notice this anywhere in the article. Today, the U.S. military is shelling the southern parts of Baghdad, underscoring that the situation has escalated to total war and that there is no order in Iraq, particularly the capital. 99 American soldiers have died in the month of April, while Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib are still operating at full-capacity. We can all assume that torture is still being administered there and Gonzales has a hand in it. It's going to take decades to repair the damage to America and the world.

This writer has caught either AP or a so-called "source" in a lie. The article asserts that some of Gonzales's fellow-graduates didn't even notice the protest. Look at the photos at www.michaelmoore.com, and you tell me they didn't notice the protest.

When the photographer was getting everybody set up and having people say 'cheese,' the protesters yelled: 'say torture, instead,' 'resign' and 'I don't recall,'" said Nate Ela, a protester and third-year student. Law school spokesman Mike Armini said the impromptu protest was so small that some of those attending the photo shoot did not notice it. (AP, 04.29.2007)

Prove it, Mr. Armini. Who were they? How did they miss the student in the orange jumpsuit? It's obvious that none of them could have missed him, or the shouts. They are lawyers, after all. Is Mr. Armini suggesting they weren't perceptive? That not one of the ingredients of a good attorney, but look at how forgetful Mr. Gonzales has been under oath. Perhaps they're all getting-on in years. The question is: why would AP continue to protect the Bush administration? Why would Harvard? I think we can guess.


Unreported in the story is an embarrassing fact: Gonzales was replaced as the reunion's luncheon speaker by Colorado State University Pueblo President Joseph Garcia. Bring in another Hispanic-person who's successful and not so contentious and controversial (or possibly even a crook).

Gonzales, a 1982 graduate of the Harvard Law School, had been scheduled to speak at the reunion's luncheon on April 20. But with the attorney general's recent controversy surrounding the December dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, Gonzales canceled his appearance at Harvard.Garcia, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1983, was asked to replace Gonzales as the luncheon speaker. "They [Harvard Law School] contacted me a couple of weeks ago and told me it didn't look like Alberto was going to be available," Garcia said Monday. Garcia already had planned to attend the reunion and visit his daughter, a first-year Harvard law student, while at the school. (Pueblo Chieftan, 04.14.2007)

Or did he cancel his appearance? Could it have been the Board of Regents? It wouldn't be a surprise if it was, anymore than when he's fired that he claims to have "resigned." Let's face it--he's an embarrassment to everyone in America, upending Habeus Corpus, an 800-year-old tradition in Anglo-American law. It's the foundation of democracy, and he and the former-GOP majority have done incredible harm to it, the very foundation of law in North America and the UK. As a practitioner of law, there is no lower-rung than this, it's like a surgeon leaving a scalpel in a patient on-purpose.
 

AP's possible damage-control job:http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/04/29/ap/us/d8oq1rfo0.txt

The Original Story (with photos) at MichaelMoore.com: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=870

The Pueblo Chieftan, 04.14.2007: http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1176530400/9