Thursday, September 27, 2007

3:10 to Yuma (2007) review

As a child, I remember watching every single version of Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (1967)--even the Italian-language ones. It was a real revelation watching the films of Leone, because I had been raised on the great John Ford's westerns, and the differences were obvious. Leone's vision was of a grittier, morally ambivalent frontier, a place where people victimized each other in the shit and the dust. This was a far-cry from Ford's vision, which had an edge, but where the "good guys" and "bad guys" were obvious. You knew who-was-who, and where they stood most of the time.
Today, this notion seems very naive and quaint--if not downright dunderheaded--and it did forty-years-ago too. It should be remembered that in his later movies, Ford began to show the beginnings of the cynicism that was to come in the "Spaghetti Westerns" of Leone and Sergio Corbucci, and Sam Peckinpah.

These were the "revisionist" westerns, and so is the remake of "3:10 to Yuma," a new classic of the genre. Looking-back, the Ford films are certainly classics, but also terminal artifacts of the ideals and naivete of their time, when Americans badly needed heroes to emulate and to give them hope in a world that was either crumbling or on fire. Americans needed a sense that the "good guys" prevailed, at least sometimes. In Ford's films, it was almost every time. That must have been satisfying to audiences during the Great Depression and WWII, but what about today?
While "3:10 to Yuma" benefits from the last fifty years of changes that came to the western genre, it still has some of the hopes and ideals that Ford conveyed in his many Medieval morality plays that just happened to take place on the old frontier. The difference is, the remake's not starry-eyed and over-credulous about the prospects for justice, and it has the same ambiguity that marked the other revisionist westerns (westerns are "oaters" in the parlance of the fans of the genre). The original had a similar feel to it, and was definitely ahead of its time, a real standout. Director James Mangold's remake is being released during yet another era where Americans are having an identity crisis, and where moral guideposts appear to have vanished.

This is why the western is usually a good reference-point for all us: it was a time and a place where people faced similar dilemmas, and nothing seemed true anymore. Cherished values didn't appear to work in-the-context of a lawless frontier where a man could be shot for looking at someone wrong, and at the wrong time. The easiest way to look at it is to view the old west as a laboratory where human will and character were tested. Who are we? Where do we stand? What is the right thing to do within our present circumstances? What is the honorable thing to do? What are the responsibilities of people with ideals in a bad place and a bad time or era? What is a hero? Really? Right now, most Americans feel like the values they were taught are so much bullshit, a joke.

The identity crisis in the 1950s was the aftermath of McCarthyism and the second Red Scare, a time when everyone was afraid of being called a "communist" by their neighbors simply for pointing-out things that were wrong in American society. "Red-baiting" and witch hunts were everywhere. Our democratic ideals seemed imperiled by an anti-communist crusade that swept the nation ("communist" could be swapped for the catch-word "terrorist" today). In the 1960s, it was Vietnam and the atrocities committed there in our name by the state and war profiteers, and there were numerous other warning-signs that things were headed in a bad direction. The same is true today. It was in the immediate aftermath of McCarthyism that Elmore Leonard wrote the original story that became the 1957 version, and it still informs this new version.

Into our current bloody-fray comes 3:10 to Yuma with its hypothetical story that rings-true in our own troubled times. The original hasn't generally been considered a major classic of the genre, and has been largely forgotten until this remake, though it has a lot going for it. Glenn Ford was excellent as the also ambiguous Ben Wade, but his motivations were less clear, and he wasn't always known for playing the "bad guy." But Crowe fits-the-bill better, partly based on his recent behaviors outside of the movies. There are a number of significant changes to the remake, and a few characters are jettisoned without any major revisions to the story. The big difference is that where it was hard to tell if Ben Wade was just a psychopathic killer or maybe a social bandit--a kind of Robin Hood--in a bad land in the 1957 original, it's even harder to tell today. Is Crowe's version of the outlaw Wade a good man? Is he bad? Does it matter? His character's comments on the bounty killer (played perfectly by Peter Fonda) and the Pinkertons rings-true: they could be worse than him, and handily. This is still true today, only the players are different.

The remake's set-pieces are the same as the 1957 version (the struggling ranch, Bizbee, Arizona, the unsettled frontier, and the Hotel room), and both movies have very strong similarities with the same basic message: what is one's responsibility to their community in a place where nobody else seems to care? This movie resonates strongly in a time when the role of men in American society has become uncertain, and when the past models of masculinity appear to be obsolete. When nothing seems true, we all go to the westerns to find some truth, some kind of honor. As in the original, the film's protagonist and anti-hero is a failing cattle rancher named Dan Evans (played with incredible conviction and subtlety by Christian Bale) who needs a break, and soon.

Evans is a Civil War veteran who's lost his leg, and feels abandoned by his country, and he tends to shirk from a fight. He's not a coward, but he's tired and beaten-down by the land barons and the crooks (usually the same thing). The movie opens with the torching of his barn by a local land boss and his goons who have been trying to run him and his struggling family off of their land so they can sell it to the railroads. In a time of almost unprecedented home foreclosures, you couldn't have a more timely story. His wife and western dime novel reading son are losing respect for him as a provider, and his options are slim. Enter Ben Wade, played with incredible skill by Russell Crowe, a bad guy any audience would be fascinated by.

It seems the local sheriff and a group of Pinkertons (a nice touch making them major players, just as they were in the old west), deputies, and a bounty hunter have captured and are conveying Wade after the robbery of an armored wagon. Evans is offered $200 to accompany them in taking Wade to Bizbee to board a train to Yuma where a prison cell and hangman's noose awaits him. One could almost imagine Evans as a veteran of the war in Iraq. It's probably Evans's last chance to save his ranch and to show his family he is a man, but it'll probably kill him in-the-process. The problems getting Wade to Bizbee are everywhere, including run-ins with the Apaches, and ultimately, Wade's vicious gang. The simple fact of a lawless land is the posse's biggest problem, and one that's been a sore-spot of the Bush years as well. What does the law mean anymore except to serve the interests of the crooks? It's quite a ride to Bizbee, but the movie can best be described as a philosophical character study embedded within a western action-adventurer. The main players are really just Wade and Evans. It's their story, and the rest is scenery.

The viewer is presented with a very vivid and realistic portrayal of just how brutal and unrewarding life on the frontier must have been. Everyone looks perpetually dirty, scarred, and exhausted, as well as very scared. Even the slang is accurate, with Chinese railroad workers being referred to as "coolies." The bad guys are not just convincing, but appear to have been based on real people, and indeed, there were many men like this in the old west. The majority of them were murderers without any real good cause for their actions, and that's on-display here in the character of Wade's lieutenant, Charlie Prince, played by 27-year-old Ben Foster. Foster almost steals the film, and brings an incredible authenticity to the story that few westerns enjoy--you don't question that there were young killers like him throughout the frontier in countless numbers. Conversely, Crowe's Wade is both intelligent, creative (he draws), but is in-turn also a Bible-quoting psychopath. Yet, there's a sadness to him, and it's obvious he just wants the violence to end. So does Evans. This is their bond of honor.

One centerpiece of the remake that most everyone living today will recognize is when Wade is tortured--electrocuted--by a group of railroad overseers, done with a dynamite-plunger. It's best left to the imagination of those who haven't seen the movie yet, so I won't spoil it entirely. This was obviously a labor of love for everyone involved, and it shines. Shot in a glorious Panavision (TM) aspect ratio, it's got width and depth. Mangold doesn't dwell on the beauty of the vistas, but he has an extraordinary eye for composition. It's cinematic bliss. You'll almost feel you were there, and that there were people just like this who populated the real western frontier. Both Bale and Crowe shine brightest, but without the contributions of the rest of the cast and crew (and a great score by Marco Beltrami), it wouldn't work quite as well as it does. As it stands, it's nearly perfect as a North American western. Answers? There are none, only what one can command in life, and a lot of luck...luck of the draw.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

They're Baaaaaacck: SAIC Returns to Read on Ron Roughead, While the Media Twiddles Its Thumbs

SAIC--Hey, you guys owe me a zagnut and a coffee...

Domain Name ? (Commercial)
IP Address
198.151.12.# (Science Applications International Corporation (SA)
Science Applications International Corporation (SA
Continent:North America
United States (Facts)
City:San Diego
Lat/Long:32.9014, -117.2079
English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System
Microsoft WinXP
Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
version 1.3
Monitor Resolution:1280 x 1024
Color Depth:32 bits
Time of Visit
Sep 26 2007 2:36:06 am
Last Page View
Sep 26 2007 2:39:13 am
Visit Length
3 minutes 7 seconds
Page Views
Referring URL
Search Engine
Search Words
"ronald roughead" saic
Visit Entry Page
Visit Exit Page
Out Click
Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Sep 25 2007 11:36:06 am
Visit Number

Exploiting our victims: CNN's "Youssef"

--There are no words for how despicable and misguided all of the coverage surrounding this poor little Iraqi boy has been. It's just another humiliating illustration of how sick and indifferent our culture is at this particular historical moment. This is nothing new.

In 1906, we were finishing a similar act of aggression in the Philippines, murdering tens-of-thousands of human beings there so that the Navy could have a refueling station in the Pacific.

In a war of aggression, it's understood in the codes of the Geneva Conventions (beginning in 1928 with President Coolidge's and the Senate's ratification of the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and other areas of international law that an aggressor is responsible for children like Youssif. For some reason, Americans haven't been properly educated about the fact that any deaths or injuries following an illegal invasion are the fault and responsibility of the aggressor nation.

Regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan), we are the aggressors with no legal merit to our reasoning for the attacks. We did this to little Youssef. It doesn't matter if a militia of Shia, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians, or even Bedouins, set-fire to him. It's nobody else's fault but America's. CNN and the rest of the mainstream media carried the water for the Bush administration and banged the drums of war loudly for the interests who wanted the invasion.

This is to their eternal shame, and they now appear to be showing signs of cracking-up from the little Youssef. Notice that it's OK to show someone like Youssef and their scars if it has a propaganda value. If it was just framed as something we did to him--which it was patently not in the CNN story--it might be noble, but this is far from that. How many tens-of-thousands of "Youssefs" are there in Iraq and the region who bear scars from our aggressions? Surely, it's staggering and creating another generation of future "terrorists." An historical example is necessary.

Imagine Youssef that was a grocer's son in Chicago during the 1930s. Youssef's father is attacked and intimidated by a gang that has taken-over their neighborhood, and they want protection money or they're going to torch their home and their business. Youssef's father declines paying these extortionists and the gang eventually firebombs the grocery store, causing the same injuries to him that we see in our current real world example.

But the gang doesn't stop there--they're afraid of looking too bad, and too dangerous, so they pay for Youseff's hospital bills while the cameras are rolling, and while the press is swallowing the lie out of fear. The thugs never return to torment Youssef and his family, but the damage has already been done.

This is the essence of the term "corruption," the destruction and liquefaction of human bodies for the enrichment of criminals. Welcome to Iraq, welcome to hell, we are
that gang.
We learned the lessons of Vietnam alright: hide the victims, even if it's necessary to hide them in-plain-sight.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Additons to David Vitter's Wikipedia Article Reinserted 09/22/2007

--Here's the text of what will be removed either tonight or tomorrow by some very angry GOP operatives (in-spirit or fact):


Specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware of his five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, which could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes. It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights. This is a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Another factor could cause Senator Vitter some very serious problems within the Senate: he had Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversight responsibilities over the State Department when the Palfrey scandal had broken in the Spring of 2007. These oversight failures were specifically breached by inadequate oversight (known as "oversight failures") of Randall L. Tobias, now former director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and head of USAID at the State Department. Tobias was also found in Palfrey's phone records by ABC's 20/20 in late-April of 2007. He resigned on April 27th, 2007, just one day after confirming his identity within the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Tobias is thought to have carried a 'Top Secret security clearance' while serving at USAID.[1]

Very Bottom of the Article:

As of September 18th, 2007, there has been no serious oversight or ethics investigation of Senator Vitter. though Senate Ethics Committee probes are usually confidential at their inception. It's unclear whether any of these facts about Vitter have caught the attention of other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Ethics Committee, and other members of the Senate.

To whomever is removing the entries: they are factual, provable, and I can cut-and-paste them back at my leisure. Prove them wrong, let the ruling board of Wikipedia decide. Vigilantes aren't good deciders.

[Ed., 09.13.2008-The additions were done at-the-behest of author Bill Keisling who is the origin of the contentions. They probably true, but who cares at this points anyway? Vitter is done, put a fork in him. Wikipedia is unnecessary-at-best, a poor concept that has more to do with the opposite of the democratization of information. Do web searches, use academic sites, they're reliable. Why do you think I post links to them? Decide for yourselves. I make no apologies.]

Why the New York Times MOVEON ad was wrong: An Exegesis have a number of reasons to dislike Moveon--search this site, and you'll know why, as Eli Pariser is basically a creep who wants to be power-broker like Henry Kissinger or Josef Goebbels. Bluntly-put, he's a little man. Is the basic thrust of the ad wrong? Of course not, the war is a disaster and was never a worthy cause. It's equal to the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939, a war of aggression, the highest crime there is. Here's an excerpt of the text of the ad:

Cooking the books for the White House(Click here for the thinking behind the ad) General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” (

The problem? General Petraeus is not a civilian leader--they control the military and give the ultimate orders, not the Joint Chiefs. The ad should have targeted Congress, and most especially, the White House, the president. Congress gave the president the ability to use aggression in late 2002, and the president has refused to draw-down troop deployments.

So have enough members of Congress that a redeployment is not going to happen unless there's a massive groundswell of the public calling for them to, by e-mailing them, writing them, and confronting them at their offices in the districts they claim to represent.

The onus is not on General Petraeus. Were he to disobey the orders of the president, he could be imprisoned or shot for treason. The former would be the most-likely outcome. Yes, he has the option of resigning as so many other Joint Chiefs of the high command have done. Many of them simply had the wisdom to resign or to retire before-or-during the conflict, and the general is just the one left holding the bag. If you're going to criticize General Petraeus, this is what you should be hitting him with: "Why didn't you resign rather than obey orders that are clearly illegal?" Yes, he does have the ability to challenge the legality of his orders, but we all know that that's an uphill battle he would lose with the current administration and Congress.

Merely having the public on your side is not enough, and making his the focus of the ad was poor judgement. No, the onus is not on General Petraeus--it's on all of us. WE allowed this political climate to fester and grow. WE are the oil-addicts. WE are the greedy. WE are lazy and apathetic complainers. WE have sat back silently and allowed this illegal war to happen. WE have no regard for our victims. WE aren't hitting-the-streets and engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, effectively shutting-down this war. WE are the fatalists who have said to ourselves, "Best to keep my head down, there's nothing I can do to stop this."And WE are the culture that made this mess because WE haven't been responsible, civically-active citizens. What the Moveon ad does is let the public off-the-hook, and that's its greatest sin.

If General Petraeus did what the public and Moveon claims we all want, it would amount to a coup, and that's the last thing that's going to fix the mess that America is in right now. It would only makes things worse...much worse. In short, while most Americans appear to be on the same page about the war, we're still just the same irresponsible creeps who helped create the proper climate for this catastrophe, and we're going to pay for it eventually. We deserve to based on our irresponsibility. George W. Bush is merely a symptom of a cultural and political malaise.

Blame: YOURSELF, CONGRESS, THE MEDIA, and GEORGE W. BUSH and his administration. Nonetheless, Moveon has every right to be wrong--it's part of the First Amendment, the right to free speech. I'm exercising that right at this moment. What are you doing? You might start exercising those rights before they're gone.By taking the approach of attacking the military, Moveon has played right into the hands of the GOP, but at least it got them some more donations (a short-term fix, traded for the long-term prospects for peace). The Senate passing their stupid measure isn't going to help Congress's approval ratings much but this whole debacle will surely prolong the war. Shame.

We all have to accept our share of the responsibility for this obscene war, it's high time.

Full Text of the Moveon ad with links:

Friday, September 21, 2007

An Open Letter to Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee: Start Investigating Senator David Vitter

Dear Senator Boxer:

I'm concerned that you're not investigating Senator David Bruce Vitter of Louisiana. Senator Vitter would not be serving on a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee if it had been known that he had frequented the escort service of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (as we all know, he called her Pamela Martin & Associates five-times during 1999-2001, as well as other possible liaisons of some sort in New Orleans). This is troubling, and inaction isn't excusable. Senator Boxer, take a casual-glance at recent public opinion polls: Congress is experiencing the lowest approval-ratings in almost the entirety of its history. They are even lower than that of the president. The "whys" are simple--you aren't following the will of the American people. We want an end to the war, and we want George W. Bush and his criminal administration brought to justice. We also want accountability within the halls of Congress, and we're going to get it in time.

While the 9/11 hijackers were plotting their attacks, the FBI appears to have been busy watching, recording, and babysitting then-Representative David Vitter when he frequented the establishment of one Jeanette Maier--aka "The Canal Street Madam." It's possible that the FBI was also babysitting other GOP incumbents in New Orleans through questionable surveillance, and that this could also be the case with Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey's firm and her own peculiar legal predicament. But for the reasons of transparency and accountability, all of these surveillance logs should be declassified in toto. The public has a right to know.

For this reason--and because Senator Vitter's oversight of USAID's Randall L. Tobias was incomplete--it's time for a real investigation into Vitter's actions during the period found in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates (1999-2001 inclusive, though it could extend further). The fact that Vitter and Mr. Tobias are both found in the records is very troubling, and suggests the possibility of other improprieties by the two, possibly in-collusion in some manner. He has all-but-admitted to committing repeated crimes involving infidelities with other women, though the true extent of this is still unclear. It won't be an easy job investigating Senator Vitter. Your Republican colleagues on the Ethics Committee are likely to tip him and the Republican leadership off to the particulars of any inquiry, and they cannot generally be trusted to follow the rule of law as members of their party. They have illustrated this time-and-time-again in recent years.

But it's extremely likely that David Vitter has violated various District of Columbia statutes (and Louisiana's code), which would have impaired his ability to serve on the Foreign Relations subcommittee, even when prostitution was not part of the picture. We need to know more about his activities while serving as a member of Congress. What's clear--although the statute of limitations likely applies in the 1999-2001 liasons with women--is that Senator Vitter violated the DC code on adultery, § 22-201:

Whoever commits adultery in the District shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 180 days, or both; and when the act is committed between a married person and a person who is unmarried both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery.

Granted, the law is rarely enforced, but perhaps this is because D.C. prostitution statutes are thought to cover this area of misbehavior more adequately. Only it appears they do not--clients are usually given a light-punishment, while sex workers receive the full-force of the law. This is gender inequality, something that I assume concerns you as a woman. All of this underscores the senator's own questionable morality, and is part of a very sick culture in Washington (and throughout our nation).

As far as we can tell, David Vitter may have violated this "adultery statute" five-times, aside from what could also be charges of frequenting women for the purposes of prostitution. The fact is, there are more-than-sufficient indications that an investigation into Senator David Bruce Vitter is in order, and it should be done in as objective and an even-handed manner as possible. It should already have begun, and I hope that it has. He's hardly alone in Washington in his misbehaviors, and it's time to start some genuine, radical reform. Any investigations into these areas should be aggressive and done in a timely manner.

respectfully yours, Matt Janovic, private citizen

Thursday, September 20, 2007

David Vitter's Page at Wikipedia: Acrimony or Objectivity? interesting note: I perused the page and saw not one mention that Senator Vitter serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There have been a number of disputes over "NPOV," or "Neutrality Point of View." I've joined and filed a request that the page for Senator Vitter be unlocked from "semi-protection." Also expedited was a post of a comment noting the fact on Vitter's committee post:

"Agreed Captain Annoying and Journalist1983. I believe it's time to end the semi-protection, incidentally. Why? Because nobody but long-term registered users can add information. This can effectively block new information that established users may be biased towards, yet is a solid, verifiable fact. For example: not one section contains the fact that Senator Vitter is a member of a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, and holds a security clearance [Ed.-Basically all elected representatives do, with few-exceptions.] It's verifiable with a quick search. As a result of Randall L. Tobias calling Ms. Palfrey's service, it's possible Vitter has committed an oversight failure. This can be proven eventually, but the basic facts are pertinent and deserve an airing. Individuals can challenge them after they've been posted for their veracity. ." [Final version, September 22nd, 2007]

It's @
Here's the request post to unlock David Vitter's page so that additional information is allowable to others besides "established users" and editors:

David Vitter (edittalkhistorylinkswatchlogs)
"Locked since July [10]. Lock is preventing the addition of crucial information on Senator Vitter's seat as a member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the fact that he was serving on it when calls were made by Randall L. Tobias to Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Pamela Martin and Associates. This is an oversight failure on Senator Vitter's part. Addition should be allowed to at least be challenged for veracity. User:MattJanovic/MattJanovic 3:09 EST, September 20, 2007." (both the 'talk' section post and unblock request were modestly edited again after midnight by the author. Final corrections, 22nd September, 2007.)

It was @ (above the one for Che Guevara, how apropos)
I'm not drawing any conclusions yet, but look at the identities of some of the disputants, it's fairly telling in some areas. It's a hard call as to why Senate Ethics Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (R-Ca.) and Vice Chair Sen John Cornyn aren't moving on an ethics investigation of Sen. Vitter. Or are they? Usually ethics investigations are done "confidentially," so there could be one that's ongoing. We should be asking her and others in Congress why Sen. Vitter hasn't undergone an ethics investigation.

This is especially glaring when one considers that Sen. Larry E. Craig has been met by calls for an investigation from within his own party-ranks, even being induced to step-down from his committee and subcommittee positions. There hasn't been a peep on David Vitter being investigated.

Senator David Bruce Vitter, still being allowed to hear key testimony on September 11th, 2007 from General John Petraeus:

[Ed.-After checking Wikipedia around midnight tonight, the author discovered that a ruling has come from the board that has unblocked the article. Additions have been made, and only the facts known to the author at the time of the additions.]

[Ed., 09.13.2008--Again, I make no apologies for the additions. Bill Keisling should have made them himself, but I'm always ready to lend-a-hand in downing corrupt politicians. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. I leave it at that.]

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Fun at Wikipedia: Palfrey and Vitter Information from and J-7 Posted, Then Removed, Then... posted this basic information yesterday at the entry for 'Deborah Jeane Palfrey,' and today--POOF!--it was gone! These things just magically happen, like the hacking of Ms. Palfrey's phone lines and e-mail accounts. Then, there's the possibility that Senator Vitter and/or his interns or congressional staff removed it...why, that could be an abuse of his office. My guess is it's some n'er-do-well Republican pud, just some wrong-headed vigilante checking it, becoming enraged (which is always a good thing), and deleting it. Anyway, here's the sum, (re)posted today with some slight-differences, but basically the same:

On July 9th, 2007 Palfrey released the supposed entirety of her phone records for public viewing and download on the Internet in TIFF format. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) acknowledged that he had been a customer of Palfrey's escort service. On September 2nd of 2007, writer Bill Keisling noted that USAID's Randall L. Tobias presence in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates amounted to a violation of his duties as a ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee. [Ed.-final version, 09.22.2007]
Questions remain as to whether Tobias's background check was shoddy, or whether investigators deliberately looked the other way, or even helped facilitate his behavior. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Vitter also holds a high security clearance. Even while Vitter attempts to weather what he describes as a personal sex scandal, and deflects attention away from his committee oversight failures, more questions are being raised about the alleged procurement of prostitutes by U.S. government agencies and the United States military for foreign diplomats, and others. (
As of September 18th, 2007, there has been no serious oversight or ethics investigation of Senator Vitter. (
The majority of my additions today are of Bill Keisling's observations, and there are others on Col. Roughead in other areas that aren't quoted here. Just a couple other facts like that he was a defense attache, possibly present at the U.S. embassy bombing in Kenyan, etc. There are some indications that Col. Roughead was also involved in the investigations of the Kenyan bombing. Why, one might think he's been part of crafting the war on terrorism from its earliest inception. Fancy that.

So, I went back today and reinserted what had been deleted. [Ed.-I think they should hold at this point, 09.22.2007] I defy others to prove the additions wrong, and any further deletions by third-parties other than Wikipedia will be countered with a reinsertion of what is factual. Be logical, reasonable, and fair--prove them wrong if you can and then they can be removed by an arbitrator (Wikipedia). Just a FYI to CYA.

Interestingly, whomever did the redactions forgot or didn't care about removing the information on Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead who works for
SAIC, and can be found in the December 2005 Cingular records of Pamela Martin & Associates. He called three times in short-duration calls. What's interesting is that the calls were itemized, therefore in the front, just four-pages-in. Did he call collect? Why would he think he could do that if he did?

[Ed., 09.13.2008-No apologies forthcoming here. Nothing to be ashamed of.]

Joe Lieberman, Larry E. Craig, David Vitter and the Rest of the Senate Republicans Continue to Stall on Reinstitution of Habeas Corpus

"The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of Habeas Corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values. It calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world."
--Democratic Senate Judiciary Chair, Senator Patrick Leahy today (AP, 09.19.2007).

'[Habeas corpus] "is a constitutional right that has existed since the Magna Carta in 1215.' --GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, seeing the writing on the wall. (AP, 09.19.2007)

Washington D.C.--It all began before the first big washout in the November 2006 midterm elections--the one where everyone was watching too-closely, so they (the GOP) couldn't steal it. The offending piece of legislation: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which bars 'foreign combatants' from the right to due process, or to challenge the charges against them.

What most of the media isn't reporting right now is the fact that it also effectively impairs all of our rights domestically as well, and that it sets a precedent if it stands. Guantanamo is "Act One" in suspending all of our constitutional rights, but another vote should bring cloture (no more debate, and a filibuster and veto-proofing ending the MCA). If the GOP is good for anything, it's blocking the will of the American people and the majority in the Senate.

The only other president to do this was president Abraham Lincoln, and the Supreme Court of that time ruled against him, even in-the-midst of the American Civil War. Of course, we also know what happened to Lincoln on April 15th of 1865, though it's unlikely that George W. Bush will face a similar fate--he's not worth martyring, nor worth the effort. That's got to hurt, considering his sky-high image of himself. Has he spoken with God lately? Perhaps the line is busy, or the Red Bat phone is malfunctioning. Maybe Commissioner Gordon is on vacation.

The vote was just four-away from ending the suspension of Habeas Corpus (56 yeas-43 nays), so it's likely that the next attempt will be successful. But we need to start isolating the Republican incumbents who are voting against an end to the Military Commissions Act, and writing and communicating our feelings about their votes. It's time they explained themselves, and this banging of the same drum of "fighting the war on terrorism" isn't valid. It never was. 800-years of political and legal tradition aren't endangered by foreign terrorists--they're endangered by the enemies of America within the press, Congress, and the White House.

They are the enemy within. Being the good lapdogs that they've been throughout much of this embarrassing political era, AP gives us the headline, "Senate Rejects Expanding Detainee Rights." The New York Times has done a responsible editorial, but then we get this headline: "Senate Blocks Detainees’ Rights Bill." I think we all know it's about much more than just the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison--and all the secret CIA prisons around the world that are still in-operation.

No genuine adherent of classic democratic principles should doubt the right of the detainees to adequate legal representation, but what about the rights of Americans? How do you know someone is truly guilty without reasonable due process? Our rights are impaired by the Military Commissions Act too. If we dispose of habeas corpus, then the 9/11 hijackers accomplished more than they could have ever dreamed possible, being ostensible "contractors" of the Saudi ruling-class. Reactionary politicians who used the attacks are America's real weakness, and it's time to remove more--if not all of them--in the next elections of 2008.

Their expediters are institutions like SAIC, Halliburton, Mitre, Blackwater, and individuals like the Ronald Rougheads of the world--the employees of profiteers who do the actual dirty work in the shadows. Five out of a total of forty-eight Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill to suspend the Military Commissions Act of 2006--Arlen Specter, who voted for it originally, was a primary co-sponsor with Sen. Leahy and Chris Dodd. At least Specter's learned his lesson, but could we have any more obvious indication that as a party, the GOP is against the time-honored traditions of democracy and justice that make us all 'Americans'?
Besides Mr. Specter, five other Republican Senators supported the measure. They were Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, also voted for it. (New York Times, 09.19.2007)
What most Americans aren't being told is that they--we--are all in danger of being legally held without any charges as long as the MCA stands. Habeas corpus is not simply applicable to "foreign combatants," but is now a deeply-impaired right for all Americans outside of the executive branch.

The Supreme Court has yet to debate and/or rule on much of this, though it's likely that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will be voted-down on the next round in the Senate. Indeed, much o this is about ending any remaining political capital that Republicans grabbed in an obvious case of opportunism after the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Too many Americans bought into it out of cowardice and fear. To still do so is worse than cowardice. Fortunately, we have institutions and social structures rooted in protecting our unique democratic traditions, and they've been fighting this trend before it even began in 2006. They've been on the front-lines over several decades:

The US Supreme Court agreed in June to examine the demands of war on terror suspects held without charge at Guantanamo jail. In May, more than 70 lawyers for terror suspects and academics urged lawmakers to restore the writ of habeas corpus to detainees. Critics say that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which rolled back habeas corpus provisions, is so broad that it might apply not only to terror suspects, but also to any legal resident of the United States, if the president declares them to be an "enemy combatant." (AFP, 09.19.2007)
The scoundrels' window is almost completely closed, and their political games are beginning to evaporate. Americans are finally awaking from their fearful-stupors and understanding that few threats are so great as to give away their rights to a handful of American demagogues who thought they were so close to seizing total power.

This should be the last time anyone is allowed to get so close, and therefore, handing-out sentences to the offenders is crucial. Unlike their victims, they should be afforded due process. The irony will be understated by the press, but obvious to nearly all Americans. The world is watching.

All that said, we are hardly out of the woods yet, and the clean-up job is just beginning. Every would-be tyrant who has either suspended or attempted to end habeas corpus has met a bad end, or suffered the fate of a cursed historical judgment as a scoundrel. The right to know why one has found themselves imprisoned, what the charges against them are, and who's charging them, is a human right. It has been a beacon to countless millions throughout the world who thirst for liberty.

Now we know that the GOP's incumbents have no regard for what is uniquely American (or Anglo-American), and that they are the enemies of humanity. This should have been obvious a very long time ago, but greed tends to blind people in all societies, at any given point in human history. The enemies of liberty know this and are always waiting for their chance, their opening.

Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States is clear on the suspension of Habeas Corpus: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We're not experiencing rebellion or invasion, except from within--from the people demanding the suspension of habeas corpus. Any real external threats are both vague and hypothetical, which hardly warrants the suspension of habeas corpus. It's time to call the politicians who stalled the suspension the Military Commissions Act what they are: traitors.
“Today’s vote was a victory for those seeking to restore both the rule of law and our nation’s Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped away one of our most fundamental rights - to challenge your imprisonment by the government. While the amendment ultimately was not filibuster proof, a majority of senators have made it clear that they want to restore the right of habeas corpus. The ACLU has worked diligently, leading a coalition of support for the restoration of habeas corpus. That tireless work is beginning to pay off and will be vindicated once habeas is signed back into law.”The MCA stripped the constitutional right to habeas corpus from persons the president alone designates as enemy combatants. (, 09.19.2007)
Are you an "enemy combatant"? You could be if the president decides you are under the MCA. Will we find more of the supporters of the MCA in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey? We already have--Senator David Vitter voted against the reinstatement of habeas corpus, and there will be others in both houses of Congress coming. Spooks like Ronald Roughead, however, are the ones to really watch and "out." They all need the spotlight put on them brightly, and harshly, as sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Sen. Larry E. Craig
--a man who likes cruising for ass with men in public bathrooms--voted "nay," as did Sen. David Vitter who prefers sex with women who aren't his wife. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (a Republican) appears not to have voted on the measure. Senator Christopher Dodd was one of the Democrats leading the charge on this measure--and a victim of a break-in of his own campaign offices this year. All of this trumps Nixon, and handily.

The Uncredible Duke

Hey pal, we need that horoscope! ;0) I have a Hierophant on-tap in Upper Mongolia for scab-purposes iffin' you ain't prepared to tell us our futures! My last resort is to go-an'- git Mr. Haney (that annoying son of a bitch) to come and do it--and to fix the tractor! We love you here at J-7, and it's not just that you remind me of the late Jack Elam (RIP, 1919-2003), or that I can always hear the music of Ennio Morricone when we meet in the praries of Indiana. OK, so they don't exist anymore, but it sounded good. You're an American original, a skull-bashing modern primative, and my friend. How many people does anyone know offhand that have a fond-spot for Charles Laughton's 'Night of the Hunter'? I do. You proved to me that not everyone in Indiana pronounces 'flesh' incorrectly, and that Mississippi is indeed a cesspool that should be evacuated, but left to the locals. We need our Uncredible Duke! I tell ya', this here life in the flyover states can be kinda rough-n'-tough, ya'll, but at least we know our asses from our elbows...well, just not the factory dogs, the molls, and the methhead rednecks. Forget em', they're dead, they're all messed-up.The Uncredible Duke is that mythic Good Ole' Boy, that avatar of culture amongst the tribes of good-for-nothin's. The good man in a bad town.


SAIC--I just thought I'd trigger their webots for fun. SAIC-SAIC-SAIC-SAIC-SAIC-SAIC-SAIC. Whoever said the Yippies ended was wrong. EWIGE BLUMENKRAFT.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate Returns, This Time Over The Rougheads

Site Meter--To the Senator or Senators who tapped the office of the Sergeant at Arms to peruse the articles here: read well, you all have a lot of investigating and subpoenas to draw-up and issue. The public is tired of waiting--we want results, we want some people brought to justice. We're tired of the excuses, and we're not buying any more of them. This is not a threat, it's a warning.

The rule of law has been thrown into disregard, which is a very dangerous thing for any democracy. We know who many of these people are, so start investigating, and begin impeachment investigations and hearings now. And to the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate himself: Mr. Gainer, you need to begin investigating the fact that Sen. David Vitter violated terms of his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee by committing what could be repeated felonies while serving on said committee (and the Senate in-general). This fact has been uncovered by journalist and author, Bill Keisling (

Most of all: you need to subpoena Ronald Roughead, a retired U.S. Army Colonel. You need to ask him why he called the escort service of Pamela Martin & Associates, and if he's ever had contact with Shaha Ali Riza, Paul Wolfowitz, and if he had a security clearance at the time he called Ms. Palfrey, and why he was doing so. You should also ask Mr. Roughead--and perhaps his brother Gary, current CNO of the U.S. Navy--if he has ever had contact with Jack Abramoff, Edward T. Norris, Brent Wilkes, or individuals connected to them.

And while you're at it, you need to hold serious congressional hearings on the murder of Assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan P. Luna--you need to subpoena FBI Special Agent Steven Skinner and Thomas DiBiagio, as well as Ed Norris, and several other individuals. Get to work, there's a lot to be done.

Domain Name ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address
156.33.122.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Continent:North Americ
Country:United States (Facts)
State:District of Columbia
Lat/Long:38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System
Microsoft WinXP
Internet Explorer 7.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
version 1.3
Monitor Resolution:1920 x 1200
Color Depth:32 bits
Time of Visit
Sep 18 2007 5:54:20 am
Last Page View
Sep 18 2007 6:00:47 am
Visit Length
6 minutes 27 seconds
Page Views
Referring URL
Search Engine
Search Words
admiral gary roughead home of record
Visit Entry Page
Visit Exit Page
Out Click
Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Sep 17 2007 5:54:20 pm
Visit Number

[Ed., 09.13.2008-I'm unconvinced of Keisling's assertions about Vitter's committe responsibilities at this writing. Yes, I believe that I was wrong in thinking it was a valid point.]

The Pentagon Visits J-7 for the First Time!

Sitemeter (to the left, natch)
--This is pretty exciting, but I'm wondering if anyone out there can hum along with me and make a Pentacle's hub-shaped structure levitate (love you Abbie, RIP)? Surely, the Pentagon is that infernal machine, that "demon engine" of Empire, and therefore Satanic.

J-7 enjoins all whistle-blowers with the federal bureaucracy to come forward if you've witnessed any illegal activities by your superiors.

This site is part of the real civilian press. Your identities will be safe and kept confidential. Any information regarding the "Hookergate" scandal is welcome as well. Pentagon fellas (not "Fellahin"): get me a doughnut, a Zagnut, and a coffee while you're out, OK?
And let SAIC get the bill on it, they owe us some change.

Domain Name ? (Military)
IP Address
134.205.163.# (The Pentagon)
The Pentagon
Continent:North America
United States (Facts)
City:District Heights
Lat/Long:38.8516, -76.8839
English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System
Microsoft WinXP
Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)
version 1.3
Monitor Resolution :1024 x 768
Color Depth:16 bits
Time of Visit
Sep 18 2007 9:42:32 pm
Last Page View
Sep 18 2007 9:43:07 pm
Visit Length
35 seconds
Page Views
Referring URL
Visit Entry Page
Visit Exit Page
Out Click
Time Zone
Visitor's Time
Sep 18 2007 9:42:32 am
Visit Number

Monday, September 17, 2007

FOR HEAVEN'S SAIC: A PROJECT FOR THE KIDDIES AND SHUT-INS --Do some Googling (or other search engines) of "SAIC Jack Abramoff," or "SAIC Brent Wilkes." Wilkes was an associate of Jack Abramoff. Also, try this one: "SAIC Randy Cunningham." Get to work! Hilarity ensues (that'll learn ya')!


"I believe I'm going to die doing the things I was born to do. I believe I'm going to die high off the people. I believe I'm going to die a revolutionary in the international revolutionary proletarian struggle."--Fred Hampton, 1969.

The photo to the left of this sentence is of Fred Hampton. He was poised to be the Illinois head of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, a youthful and charismatic speaker that only comes-around each generation (if that). For this reason, and because he was Black, he was targeted by the FBI for "neutralization." At that time, Black Americans were so profoundly harassed by police brutality and lawless vigilante racists that they had to form such groups, first in the South, later in Oakland, then spreading throughout the continental United States. The BPP grew at a geometric-pace, alarming racists in the power-structure of America. In-response, racist FBI director J. Edgar Hoover began using tactics formerly utilized against the Left (all illegal) towards the Black Power movement.

The umbrella-term for this program that included Latino rights groups, environmentalists, Boy Scout troops (not making-this-up), unions, gay rights groups, churches, feminists, the anti-war movement, private-citizens, rock groups, communists, socialists, the KKK, the John Birch Society, civil rights activists, writers, university professors, movie stars and celebrities, PTA groups, the American Indian Movement, SCLC, SNCC, CORE, and many-many others, was called "COINTELPRO" ( a shortening of "counterintelligence program"). People actually died, and the programs were viewed as counterinsurgency within the culture of the FBI. However, it wasn't all Hoover's fault. None of this could have happened without the direction and/or approval of the executive branch. Congress also looked other way.

Today's news about misdeeds by the FBI under the Patriot Act are nothing-new with the FBI, the Executive branch, or congressional-inaction on such unconstitutional activities. Don't expect it to end without a lot of pressure on the politicos. But the program against Black liberation movements began under Lyndon Johnson's administration in-reaction to the civil rights movement and the rioting that began to peak in Black communities in 1965 at Watts, and culminated in the riots of 1967 in Detroit, and the rioting that was nationwide after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Under Nixon, COINTELPRO accelerated and culminated in such assassinations as that of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, both up-and-coming leaders of the Illinois chapter of the Panthers. COINTELPRO existed across both Republican and Democratic administrations, and was nationwide in its scope. All of it was illegal. The passage of the Patriot Act was a bald-attempt by Congress and the executive branch at making such activities legal.

What did the FBI do to counter the BPP? Like the Tsarist Okhrana, they infiltrated the Illinois BPP chapter in Chicago with numerous criminal informants. Nearly all the provovateurs had violent criminal records. As with most informants, they were offered a deal: give us information on the Panther hierarchy, cause mayhem and disruption within their ranks and the Black communities where the BPP is based, or go to jail. The FBI had no-problem in finding informants, and one William O'Neal was their lynchpin in undermining the leadership of Fred Hampton, the Chicago chapter leader who was poised for the role of Illinois-BPP head. It's thought that O'Neal was psychopathic, and part of the design of using him was to discredit the Panthers through the crimes of such provocateurs, an old anti-labor tactic:

Informant William O'Neal infiltrated the Chicago Panther chapter, rising to become chief of security for Illinois party leader Fred Hampton. It was O'Neal who drew the floor plans for the police raid of Dec. 4, 1969, in which Chicago cops killed Hampton and Mark Clark. While security chief for the Chicago Panthers, O'Neal "also devised an 'electric' chair that members were told would be used for traitors and informers," according to a 1982 New York Times article. After his work with the FBI, O'Neal was an informant for a Chicago cop who was charged with killing a drug dealer. It turns out that in the latter case, O'Neal snitched first and snitched best. (Baltimore Sun, 10.28.2006)

O'Neal's behavior was typical of FBI informants during the late-1960s, early-1970s. It's thought that he slipped a drug (possibly a barbiturate) into a drink of Hampton's the night of the raid. The Chicago and Illinois State Police unit shot 99-times through the walls of Hampton's and Clark's apartment (with none fired at the police by the victims), and it was hoped that Hampton could be shot-to-death in his bed while asleep. O'Neal had provided the floor plan of the apartment to the FBI, who then-in-turn, provided it to the tactical unit's raiders. The FBI's role is that of the orchestrator of the crime, making it a criminal conspiracy. O'Neal committed suicide in early-1990s, throwing himself into the path of an oncoming-car in traffic, so he must have had a conscience.

It was at 4 a.m. on December 4th, 1969 that the gangster raid commenced. Shooting through the walls with a Thompson .45 machine-gun, and several other high-caliber weapons, Hampton was wounded in his sleep, while Clark awakened and grabbed his shotgun. His death-grip from being wounded discharged the weapon, and was this later misrepresented as evidence that "the Panthers shot first," a bald-lie. This exchange was heard by Deborah Johnson--Fred Hampton's pregnant girlfriend--after the police unit entered the apartment:

That's Fred Hampton...Is he dead?

Bring him out.

He's barely alive he'll make it. [at this point, two-shots fired from a gun were heard by those present]

He's good and dead now.

An autopsy found that Hampton had received two shots to-the-head, both point-blank. Johnson was also wounded in the raid, and heard the exchange along with Harold Bell, the other Panther survivor. Noting the behavior of Illinois State Police, the Chicago DA's office, and the Chicago Police, it's clear whose word should be trusted on this exchange. The current temporary social order we all inhabit was constructed in-part on the corpses of people like Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Such orders cannot last, they are built on lies and murder.

Fred Hampton was not an advocate of going out and shooting-down cops unprovoked. This is a lie propagated by the same racist forces that murdered him--he was for self-defense. If you were illegally attacked by the police, you would also be in-your-right to shoot back. He and the Illinois BPP created Free Breakfast for Children programs, educational programs, gang-truces in Chicago, and the coining of the concept and term "Rainbow Coalition" that is still used by Rev. Jesse Jackson today. This was because municipal, state, and federal authorities would not do these things. Instead, by murdering Hampton and Clark, they allowed Jeff Fort's Blackstone Rangers (aka Black P. Stones, and even Blackstone nation) gang to sell drugs in Chicago for many-years afterwards, with Fort basically running his own little kingdom from a limo.

Fred Hampton never hurt anyone, and was only attempting to help Blacks in Illinois--and specifically--the ghettos of Chicago at a time when Blacks were being attacked by violent racist cops. Fred Hampton was 21 when he was assassinated by America's Gestapo. Don't expect it to change unless we all demand it vociferously. It's time to mothball the FBI and our intelligence community, and to the begin creating law enforcement and information-gathering institutions who really do have the interests of the public in-mind--not that of unaccountable power and wealth.
Murdering someone like Fred Hampton is a way for elites to send all of us a message that is an illusion: engage in the same activism, and you're next. They would have their work cut-out for them nowadays, times have changed, and so has information technology. They're not poised for widespread slaughter, and the assassinations of men like Hampton are meant as a psychological weapon for intimidation. It's a lie too many swallow because doing nothing is easier. That's complicity.

"The Black Messiah Murders" (film site) :

(revised 09.17.2007)

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Our Wonderful Mainstream Media and the Guy Who Made it With a Chicken

"Yeah, I found his name and assumed it was the SAIC guy--though I did not confirm that. My question was, how significant is the fact that he called Jeane's service? I'm not out to out people for the sake of outing them. Why do you think he's important?" --David Corn, Editor of 'The Nation,' in an August 13th correspondence with the author. Mr. Corn has yet to get-back with the author after being e-mailed several articles on Col. Roughead.

"An editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he'd have someone to look up to." --The late old school journalist Gene Fowler (sometimes attributed to Herman J. Mankiewicz, co-author of Citizen Kane)

MEDIAUNIVERSE--Even if you only casually watch the news on television, or scan the dreck that editors allow to be published in our dying newspapers (dying for a good reason), most Americans understand that they're being fed a smidgen of what's really going on out there. This writer used to believe that it was bad--until he started researching and writing about the Palfrey case and numerous threads attached to it.

My conclusion? It's far worse than you can even begin to imagine. Our media--professionalized journalism--is utterly corrupt and hamstrung by careerism and ethical problems that would make Twain, Nietzsche, or H.L. Mencken alarmed. It's a scary realization to find that things are far worse than your wildest, most cynical suspicions, but it's true. But like Mencken, I can find some amusement in all of it too, the futility of...futility.

My evidence for the contention that the press is asleep, bought-off, lazy, lying, and corrupt are all contained within the articles found within this site. J-7 is no longer a "blog," that pejorative term the media loves to ascribe to all of us with an opinion and the ability to write adequately. It's an effective scimitar poised at-the-heart of the monied press, the corrupt politicians, and all the dubious individuals who protect privilege and unaccountable power. Real journalism isn't nice, isn't always friendly, and it's not supposed to be well-mannered towards the powerful, the corrupt. What's interesting is how afraid all of these professional journalists and McProgressive types are about the democratization of information and the media-in-general. What buffoons, those "booboises," but durned if they aren't entertaining.

The "Roughead" story is a perfect example of the media's complicity in covering-up for corrupt politicians and their handlers (like Ed Norris and Thomas DiBiagio, and that guy in the black hat, Jack Abramoff). Ed Norris is entertaining, he got a show, fancy that. Perhaps Mr. DiBiagio can have his own "Judge Judy" show in the future. Why not?

This site has contacted a stunning array of the mainstream press throughout the Western world, including Al-Jazeera, with virtually no replies on the Roughead lead. Only the Smoking Gun and Inside Edition replied ("Nice work on the records, by the way. Keep it up." from IE's producer, Ned Berkowitz. Thanks, Ned.), while news outlets like the Guardian have been curiously silent, as well as so-called "progressive" blogs like Huffington Post and Rawstory. They won't touch it. Nonetheless, Inside Edition doesn't appear to have done anything with the information at this writing.

Besides the standard stonewalling, the excuses I've gotten aren't valid--they don't want to cover this story for what appears to be selfish reasons. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's the impression that's being projected. Many of the upper-tiers of the media are, after all, of the same classes as those found in the records. In some cases, they're the same people, and have no class. Perhaps many of them are scared to lose their jobs if they cover Ronald Roughead.The Washington Post is one of them, as is ABC--Col. Roughead's name was posted on one of their boards early-on at 'The Blotter,' though the author is unsure if it 'took.' A Google search will yield all of the posts on other sites by this writer. Get to work. The Roughead story is not new, and this writer has been attempting to get the word out since July 16th of 2007.

The Nation's David Corn informed this writer that he was already aware of the retired Colonel Roughead's name in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (see above quote). His comments defy explanation at this point: a quick search of SAIC at a search engine (and a visit to their site, would have told him that many employee-shareholders retain high level security clearances as a reason for hiring them for a specific job (SAIC employs around 44,000 worldwide--almost sounds like a front company!). It doesn't take that much work to discover these things. SAIC was e-mailed to confirm if the Ron Roughead at 703-836-0522 in Alexandria, Virginia, was the same person. There were no-replies, but it is most certainly the same man. I'm not trying to out anyone for the sake of outing people either, Mr. Corn. That's why I've ignored the numbers of private individuals who are simply-put: doctors, landscapers, and a bunch of other little guys who aren't the Ron Rougheads of this world. They populate the records too, and you won't find them here. Mark Capansky is here because he interned for Pennysylvania Rep. Bob Goodlatte.

Security clearances would apply to Col. Roughead, as he was a Defense Attache during the 1990s and ran IMN (Iraqi Media Network) in Iraq during 2004-2005. He also investigated the embassy bombing in Kenya. What he sounds like is a propaganda/intel chief of some sort, though he could have been in some area of counterintelligence at certain points. He currently works for SAIC, the ninth largest defense contractor in the United States, with their snouts in many government troughs, spending our money.

When he testified before an intelligence committee on May 4th of 2006, he almost wasn't identified due to "security concerns." This alone should have told Corn what the significance of Ronald Roughead's name in the records means: at-minimum, people with such clearances are likely violating the terms of holding them by visiting an escort service. It's an illegal act, or it's not, and was committed while under the terms of a security clearance. That's just one significant fact, the meaning of the Roughead number in the records of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Someone in Col. Roughead's position isn't supposed to have sex with an escort where a transaction has occurred (the illegal act, if it did occur), and especially so when they're someone who has intelligence connections and clearances. What's unknown is whether Jeane Palfrey knew these illegal acts were being committed. Defendants are supposed to be coy, that's the point of our system of due process, but it should be noted that both sides--the government's prosecutors and the defense--are making discovery a "glacial" process. The public should consider the fact that Mr. Roughead called the number of Pamela Martin & Associates three-times on December 17th of 2005, since it's not impossible that he was procuring for someone else. Who were they? Was it himself? Was it for SAIC? Or was it a routine part of his position throughout his time in Washington D.C.? What was going on with these calls? If Mr. Roughead was on the government payroll when the calls were made, the problems (and questions) compound for him. The prosecution has said that "We're not concerned with the clients." Yet they are.

Then there is the issue of the Annapolis officer who worked for Palfrey--she's still working at the Naval Academy. Why? Did she discharge duties while working for Pamela Martin & Associates that were considered part of her work? I'm told she's a "supply officer." Was Ron Roughead procuring for his brother Gary, CNO of the United States Navy, the branch of the military that would be crucial to any attacks on Iran from the Persian Gulf and the rest of the region.

Annapolis football player, Mark Capansky (or his father who has the exact same name) is in the records for September 2005. Did any of these people ever encounter one another, or have any association with each other? Can't a person be discharged from the Navy for as little as having a sexual-relationship with a superior officer? If the "supply officer" engaged in prostitution--as she alleges she did--why then is the she still at Annapolis holding her job? This leads us to...

The "Honey Pot" (generally called "Honey Trap") thesis is only that--a theory, but a pregnant one. It could be true, but will it be found in the discovery process, and will Judge Kessler grant the ability for the declassification of documents involving Ms. Palfrey if they do in-fact exist? It's likely that some answers will be found at SAIC. There is smoke in the case of Shaha Ali Riza (also employee of SAIC, and possible MI6/SIS operative, she's a British national who had a State Dept. clearance) and Paul Wolfowitz, the scorned and humiliated former World Bank president--another one the press is standing down on--but it remains to be seen if an analog exists within Ms. Palfrey's legal predicament.

But the blackmail of national level politicians (possibly by the White House and the RNC) is almost certainly part of these continuum, if not the crucial aspect of what has to be the worst era of political corruption in the history of the United States. History--as they say--will not be kind in her judgement of those who allowed it to continue and fester for whatever selfish reasons they might have had.

The media is hoping the story of "Hookergate" will just go away, but rest assured it won't for years. It threatens too many privileged individuals, and the stakes are very high. What began as a routine case of destroying another woman in the nation's Capitol has begun a life-and-death struggle for those involved--Ms. Palfrey faces 55 years in a federal prison. Guilty or innocent, she will assuredly talk about things she has seen that will be extremely damaging to certain parties. Where are all the journalists investigating this? Sitting beside David Vitter, being ponderous and sad, one would assume. Remember that this is the same press that stood down and allowed the Bush administration to sell their war on a lie. Do you think they're going to aid in the cover-up of lobbyists and Congressmen procuring women for groping--maybe even sex? Let's be honest for a change: Washington D.C. is a whore monger's paradise, and the press is likely in an ongoing-relationship with the powerful to look-away. But enough about Fred Thompson and the press, let's look at Larry Flynt's place in this mess.

Besides the current Congress and the Bush administration, our press are a horrible embarrassment. Larry Flynt underscores this fact perfectly in his "outing" of sundry congressional types like David Vitter, Dan Burton--and coming soon--two presidential candidates, two major news anchors, and a whole gaggle of other politico morons and functionaries who will not walk-the-walk of what they preach for everyone else. If I had Mr. Moldea's resources, the job would be finished already, but perhaps Chicken Larry is waiting to strike at the right moment with the information. Looking at the approval ratings of Congress, one can safely assume that the public is pretty disgusted and hates the current political generation for what they are: hypocritical scumbags, keeping good company with our established press, our consolidated corporate media reality.

Because the media refuses to do any solid investigation into "Hookergate," they lose the de facto ability to control it, and because journalists and their editors refuse to investigate the story, and stories of the same nature that are always floating-around, we're left with Larry Flynt, a pornographer, to do the job. That should tell you everything about established media at this historical moment. It doesn't make Larry Flynt a "great American," he's just incidental to all of the corruption and the uncovering of it--and he's nearly alone in doing so with the kind of resources he's investing in the search for those misbehaving politicians. It's almost like something out the Threepenny Opera, and our human reality has begun to mock itself. Is satire dead?

It's a sign of how corrupt and weakened our national press have allowed themselves to become, but that would never have been possible without congressional approval of media consolidation. Why would they sell us all out? My guess is the bathroom needed new tiling, and certain needs in the bedroom weren't being met by the political marriage wives. It's a thought.Then, there's your usual crass careerism--or did I mention that already? Sometimes, Maslow's pyramid is just Maslow's pyramid, and everyone has some gaps in theirs. For some, it's unbearable, and they have their "moments of weakness," over-and-over again. Meanwhile, while our troops are dying in the dust along with Iraqis and Afghanis, the media is covering-up for this class of scum. What we get are more stories on O.J. and Anna Nicole Smith, just more shibboleths of distraction.

J-7, and sites like her, are doing the job of keeping such stories as "Hookergate" alive, just as others are keeping the stories behind 9/11, the fratricide of Patrick Tillman (a philosophical acolyte of Noam Chomsky), the run-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Abramoff scandal, the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004, Enron, and so much more. I salute you all. As for those in the press who have done their best to do the same: I salute you.
When crooks have squeezed all they can from journalism, bleeding the established outlets of all their integrity, WE will be out here waiting patiently to take it all back. That could all be much sooner than you think. We're after the big Puritan fish, alright, and the witch trials and the dunking-stools are back. This time, we have a good chance of trumping them before they get completely out of hand. People have already died, like Brandy Britton, a victim of scarlet womanhood and an ancient patriarchy. She wasn't the first, and she won't be the last. The only reason anyone cares is because she was once a "somebody." Shame.