WASHINGTON D.C.--Thanks Dick, but you don't speak for myself or the rest of us reasonable human beings in Indiana, because we never voted for you and never will. You're in-trouble, big-big trouble. Your GOP peers are beginning to bail on you, and as Iraq continues to sink into an unspeakable chaos of criminal violence and destruction that you allowed--and perversely still support--you're somehow oblivious to the fact that the longer you protract this conflict, the more political-damage it's going to inflict on you. The Democrats and GOP-defectors are going to end this war, and you'll be o-u-t. That margin is a breath-away from a 2/3d's majority that can override you and the president's veto, and it's coming is inevitable. Math is fun. You're hastening your retirement:
Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said Democratic senators would probably seek to capitalize on wavering Republicans to limit the "wide-open authorization" Congress gave Bush in 2002. "We will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, and that is very different from cutting off funds," said Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Joe Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who leads the foreign relations panel, said the 2002 authorization should be repealed to restate the president's authority and clarify the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.
(AP, 02.18.2007)
The wavering has begun, and the message from the November midterms is ringing loud-and-clear--so what's your problem Senator? Still have that innate contempt for the average man and his interests? And why anyone would think you're a "traditional conservative" is beyond me, but your part of Indiana is festooned with inbreds, morons, and the twisted rich. Why do you want to keep funding a quagmire? I think it's because you and your business buddies have made prok and Iraq one-and-the-same. Senator Lugar: do you believe we should invade or attack Iran from the air? Where's the $9 billion dollars from the US Treasury that was sent to Iraq for the rebuilding? It's still missing, and it disappeared on your watch. Why do you want a war with Iran when we're losing the one in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Senator Lugar, why shouldn't Iran have energy independence, just as it appears North Korea might? Or what about India getting nuclear aid from us with their reactors? Or Israel and their nuclear program? Or how about the United States, the Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation? Look-around, but be careful, you might trip-over some WMDs here. Yes-yes, I know you've actually done something to hasten the dismantling and tightening of security at nuclear silos and facilities in the former Soviet Union. This is something you deserve credit for, but this time you're out-of-line and completely wrong-headed. You must bet on the losing-horses a lot, out of some weird sentimentality, but most Americans assume there's money in all of this for you and your biggest backers, which is an easy-guess in our political system. It's the norm (especially with your party, the GOP). Most Americans--just not 30%--know a bullshitter when they see one.
Senator Lugar, supporting this administration and its war makes you appear senile, which is giving you an out like Reagan had during Iran-Contra, as the war in Iraq is a criminal enterprise just as the "Gipper's" was. That either makes you incredibly stupid, or a fellow traveller with a treasonous conspiracy. That's right. I'm accusing you and those who continue to support this war in the Middle East as traitors. You have one out, and that is dismantling this war, allowing what is going to happen anyway to happen in Iraq (probably a partitioning, and our removal from the region for-generations), prosecuting the corrupt in the Bush administration, and paying-for the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. This is our mess, and we created it. If we don't do this, no nation will ever trust us again, and why should they?
But all this talk about Iraq is only part of the story, Senator Lugar. Iran is the other prize, the main one, for control of their oil-supply (which is dwindling), but also to control access into Central Asia and those coveted oil and natural gas fields in and around the Caucusas mountains. The "mainstream" Democrats won't say it, but they share yours and the rest of the GOP's aforementioned war-aims. This is why many of them won't discuss the permanent military bases we have all over Iraq, just like the ones in Saudi Arabia that emboldened Osama Bin Laden to create Al-Qaida after the Gulf War. And yes, President Clinton continued the existence of those bases in Arabia well-into his second term.
But let's go back to October of 2002, shall we, Senator? You voted for the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq, as did many on both-sides of the aisle. But, for over three-weeks, Democrats (and some of the GOP) have realized that their political futures all hinge on ending this war soon, and honorably (if that's even possible). They have been putting together measures and proposals that will let many of you in the GOP off-the-hook, but you have to allow the original legislation that gave the Bush administration the blank-check on Iraq to be replaced with a revised-version:
Democrats may promote a new revised bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq to replace the 2002 bill that allowed the Bush administration to proceed with the war, a top Democrat said Friday. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- No. 2 in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- said that is one step Democrats might pursue to change conditions in Iraq. (CNN, 01.26.2007)
For those who don't know the name of the bill that authorized the use of force in Iraq, it's Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502. Frequently, the wires won't include this information, because it would be easier for all of us to search it, learn about it, and then to act on that knowledge. Senator Lugar, it appears you don't "feel fooled", as others in Congress claim. I'll give you this, but why is that? Section 2 is an overlooked part of the authorization, since it says, "[to] strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him [the president] in those efforts[.]" That's odd, since the UN told the Bush administration they couldn't go into Iraq...
yours-in-Christ, Matt Janovic
Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 (the keys to Poppy's car):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/26/iraq.hoyer/index.html?eref=rss_politics
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
REASONS TO APPLAUD THE DECLINE OF YAHOO: TODAY'S MISLEADING HEADLINE
YAHOO--"Some 2008 hopefuls skip Iraq resolution vote" reads the headline for an AP article appearing on Yahoo's homepage, but look inside the link and the story is completely different. The only one to skip the vote--possibly one of the most-important in our history as a nation--was John McCain, who has abandoned our troops for reasons of campaigning. Literally all the other 2008 hopefuls for the White House made last-minute changes to their campaigning schedules to be in Washington for the vote:
On the Republican side, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas had planned to be in Florida to attend the National Religious Broadcasters' convention but is cutting short his visit — even though he doesn't plan to side with Reid. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama will be able to fit the vote into his campaign schedule. (AP, 02.16.2007)
So why the misleading headline? Yahoo and some of their nefarious advertisers know that many of us don't have time to hit that link and read the entire article. Sometimes, we're just too-busy. It's not uncommon for them to do this, either, though they are hardly alone. Huffington Post also does this, though that's another story. What it illustrates is that all media-outlets have their loyalties and their own particular bias. The headline is essentially a lie, since McCain is literally the only 2008 hopeful to continue his campaigning, a risible fact.
But this isn't why Yahoo is tanking. Google has her issues, but she never allowed the government to look at the search records without a warrant--Yahoo did, and they're paying-the-price for it. Of course, there are other noteworthy reasons that are purely business-related, and Yahoo has done little to dispel the notion that they lack vision. But it appears after a really bad year in 2006, the fourth quarter improved...well, sort-of:
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company said it earned $268.7 million, or 19 cents per share, during the final three months of 2006, traditionally the peak season for Web sites such as Yahoo that depend on advertising for most of their revenue. The profit declined 61 percent from net income of $683.2 million, or 46 cents per share, at the same time in 2005, but the two quarters didn't provide an even comparison. That's because a one-time gain of $310 million boosted the 2005 results while the 2006 figures included stock-option expenses that weren't recorded on Yahoo's books in the previous year. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 01.24.2007)
So, it was a marginal crawl upwards, based on what is normally a "peak season" anyway. Of course, there are many reasons why people don't choose Yahoo, and Google is a mighty competitor, granted. But Google is also an innovator, and sometimes in an emancipatory sense. Say what you will.
Indeed, say what you want about Google--they are hardly perfect--but at least they aren't the shills for the political and economic establishment (nor act as Chinese Police informants) as Yahoo are, and more a force-unto-themselves. It's true that Google blocks most Chinese users from sites and searches deemed illegal by the Beijing regime. But they don't appear to be turning-in dissidents in China as Yahoo has:
A co-founder [Ed.-JERRY YANG, who is Chinese-American.] and senior executive of Yahoo Inc., the global Internet giant, confirmed Saturday that his company gave Chinese authorities information later used to convict a Chinese journalist now imprisoned for leaking state secrets. The journalist, Shi Tao, was sentenced last spring to 10 years in prison for sending foreign-based Web sites a copy of a message from Chinese authorities warning domestic journalists about reporting on sensitive issues, according to a translation of the verdict disseminated by the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders. (Washington Post, 09.10.2005)
That's a far-cry from banning people from viewing sites, far-worse. For Yahoo, it's "strictly business", just as it is for American businesses who contract all the other slave-labor (aka "Marxist-Leninist forced production") in China. "Don't rock-the-boat" if it endangers profit, a well-worn adage transposed from the equally-efficient constellations of concentrations camps in occupied Europe. But besides all this, certainly Google also "sweetens" their headlines, I'm not disputing this. But the interesting thing about this Yahoo-headlined article is that it has two headlines. The aforementioned on the Yahoo homepage, and the real one: "2008 hopefuls shift plans for Iraq vote," to "Some 2008 hopefuls skip Iraq resolution vote." It's like night-and-day. But what do you expect from a company that's so cozy with tyrants, both foreign and domestic?
The Original Irritant: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_el_pr/iraq2008
Seattle Post Intelligencer on Yahoo's Stocks-value: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300911_techearns24.html
09.10.2005 Washington Post Piece on Shi Tao: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001222.html
On the Republican side, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas had planned to be in Florida to attend the National Religious Broadcasters' convention but is cutting short his visit — even though he doesn't plan to side with Reid. Democratic Sen. Barack Obama will be able to fit the vote into his campaign schedule. (AP, 02.16.2007)
So why the misleading headline? Yahoo and some of their nefarious advertisers know that many of us don't have time to hit that link and read the entire article. Sometimes, we're just too-busy. It's not uncommon for them to do this, either, though they are hardly alone. Huffington Post also does this, though that's another story. What it illustrates is that all media-outlets have their loyalties and their own particular bias. The headline is essentially a lie, since McCain is literally the only 2008 hopeful to continue his campaigning, a risible fact.
But this isn't why Yahoo is tanking. Google has her issues, but she never allowed the government to look at the search records without a warrant--Yahoo did, and they're paying-the-price for it. Of course, there are other noteworthy reasons that are purely business-related, and Yahoo has done little to dispel the notion that they lack vision. But it appears after a really bad year in 2006, the fourth quarter improved...well, sort-of:
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company said it earned $268.7 million, or 19 cents per share, during the final three months of 2006, traditionally the peak season for Web sites such as Yahoo that depend on advertising for most of their revenue. The profit declined 61 percent from net income of $683.2 million, or 46 cents per share, at the same time in 2005, but the two quarters didn't provide an even comparison. That's because a one-time gain of $310 million boosted the 2005 results while the 2006 figures included stock-option expenses that weren't recorded on Yahoo's books in the previous year. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, 01.24.2007)
So, it was a marginal crawl upwards, based on what is normally a "peak season" anyway. Of course, there are many reasons why people don't choose Yahoo, and Google is a mighty competitor, granted. But Google is also an innovator, and sometimes in an emancipatory sense. Say what you will.
Indeed, say what you want about Google--they are hardly perfect--but at least they aren't the shills for the political and economic establishment (nor act as Chinese Police informants) as Yahoo are, and more a force-unto-themselves. It's true that Google blocks most Chinese users from sites and searches deemed illegal by the Beijing regime. But they don't appear to be turning-in dissidents in China as Yahoo has:
A co-founder [Ed.-JERRY YANG, who is Chinese-American.] and senior executive of Yahoo Inc., the global Internet giant, confirmed Saturday that his company gave Chinese authorities information later used to convict a Chinese journalist now imprisoned for leaking state secrets. The journalist, Shi Tao, was sentenced last spring to 10 years in prison for sending foreign-based Web sites a copy of a message from Chinese authorities warning domestic journalists about reporting on sensitive issues, according to a translation of the verdict disseminated by the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders. (Washington Post, 09.10.2005)
That's a far-cry from banning people from viewing sites, far-worse. For Yahoo, it's "strictly business", just as it is for American businesses who contract all the other slave-labor (aka "Marxist-Leninist forced production") in China. "Don't rock-the-boat" if it endangers profit, a well-worn adage transposed from the equally-efficient constellations of concentrations camps in occupied Europe. But besides all this, certainly Google also "sweetens" their headlines, I'm not disputing this. But the interesting thing about this Yahoo-headlined article is that it has two headlines. The aforementioned on the Yahoo homepage, and the real one: "2008 hopefuls shift plans for Iraq vote," to "Some 2008 hopefuls skip Iraq resolution vote." It's like night-and-day. But what do you expect from a company that's so cozy with tyrants, both foreign and domestic?
The Original Irritant: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_el_pr/iraq2008
Seattle Post Intelligencer on Yahoo's Stocks-value: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300911_techearns24.html
09.10.2005 Washington Post Piece on Shi Tao: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001222.html
Thursday, February 15, 2007
WHAT THE TROOP ESCALATIONS REALLY ARE: THE WAR WITH IRAN
THE PUBLIC MIND--It took you this long to figure this fact out? Like I've been saying, my private security contact says we've had Special Forces hitting their infrastructure--water reservoirs, bridges, Iranian military barracks, airfields, you-name-it--since 2004. This was a big-chunk of why we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. House Speaker Pelosi is insuring that President George W. Bush and the GOP own this one: ' "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran." ' (AP, 02.15.2007)
Now the President stated today that he's upping-the-ante, in his usual gambler's way, and announced he was sending more troops to Afghanistan. This was after an urgent-plea to NATO for more troops there. That must be to replace the ones that are going into Iran, or holding-down the Iraq-Iran border. Or maybe just to guard a hadji-stand in an alley in Baghdad. Oh, our indefatigable President, he's so tirelessly-wrong. It must be hard to be him, and that's good.
Will it do any good? Will it prevent the military actions that the neocons (namely Dick Cheney) in the White House want? The only GOP kryptonite is transparency and oversight, and it's coming. If the GOP were banned tomorrow, and splintered into numerous legal parties, I'd be happy. They've earned it: three-strikes and you're out. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now the Bush II years. You're outta here, you're attempted treason three-times as a political party. In most self-respecting nations, you'd be gone, banned.
But now, at least, the Bush administration can illegally slam right into Central Asia and the Caucasus pipelines and oil and natural gas fields. Oh yes, they want to destabilize Iran, just like Iraq, but those fields to the North are a target too. What we have is a political hot-potato being passed tossed from one incumbent to another. But it does appear that the Democratic-majority are getting serious, as the non-binding resolution against the troop escalations are being called a "first-step."
This implies a defunding of the war, a message being sent to the Executive directly, and in the public arena of the media. Of course, we're always here in the blogosphere. I'm wondering what Congress intends to do when we have a conflagration? Will they have the President arrested? Who will try him? Surely, not the Supreme Court, since it has two of his own appointments, and Justice Scalia who gave him the White House in 2000. This must be why Cheney didn't shoot him on their hunting-trip before the elections.
Contact you representatives and give them hell, this is the big one, the stakes have never been higher. This is Big Oil risking all of our lives to grab most of the world's oil-supplies by military force, and it is doomed to fail. And when it fails, we could be seeing a repeat of the battle of Stalingrad, with entire armies encircled. An escalation in urban combat could become a war of survival, and the slaughter would begin a chain-reaction that could well cause the entire Middle East to be engulfed in a conflagration...where Western civilization began.
Now the President stated today that he's upping-the-ante, in his usual gambler's way, and announced he was sending more troops to Afghanistan. This was after an urgent-plea to NATO for more troops there. That must be to replace the ones that are going into Iran, or holding-down the Iraq-Iran border. Or maybe just to guard a hadji-stand in an alley in Baghdad. Oh, our indefatigable President, he's so tirelessly-wrong. It must be hard to be him, and that's good.
Will it do any good? Will it prevent the military actions that the neocons (namely Dick Cheney) in the White House want? The only GOP kryptonite is transparency and oversight, and it's coming. If the GOP were banned tomorrow, and splintered into numerous legal parties, I'd be happy. They've earned it: three-strikes and you're out. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now the Bush II years. You're outta here, you're attempted treason three-times as a political party. In most self-respecting nations, you'd be gone, banned.
But now, at least, the Bush administration can illegally slam right into Central Asia and the Caucasus pipelines and oil and natural gas fields. Oh yes, they want to destabilize Iran, just like Iraq, but those fields to the North are a target too. What we have is a political hot-potato being passed tossed from one incumbent to another. But it does appear that the Democratic-majority are getting serious, as the non-binding resolution against the troop escalations are being called a "first-step."
This implies a defunding of the war, a message being sent to the Executive directly, and in the public arena of the media. Of course, we're always here in the blogosphere. I'm wondering what Congress intends to do when we have a conflagration? Will they have the President arrested? Who will try him? Surely, not the Supreme Court, since it has two of his own appointments, and Justice Scalia who gave him the White House in 2000. This must be why Cheney didn't shoot him on their hunting-trip before the elections.
Contact you representatives and give them hell, this is the big one, the stakes have never been higher. This is Big Oil risking all of our lives to grab most of the world's oil-supplies by military force, and it is doomed to fail. And when it fails, we could be seeing a repeat of the battle of Stalingrad, with entire armies encircled. An escalation in urban combat could become a war of survival, and the slaughter would begin a chain-reaction that could well cause the entire Middle East to be engulfed in a conflagration...where Western civilization began.
JOE DONNELLY: GRILLING FED CHAIR BERNANKE TODAY ON THE HILL
WASHINGTON D.C.--He was on CNBC today, and he was giving Ben Bernanke some good old-fashioned brow-beating...over China's most favored trading-status (enacted with vigorous-support by the Clinton administration) and its impact on American jobs. As a small-business owner, this is probably close to his heart, and I applaud him. He's sure getting a lot of coverage for a freshman representative. Perhaps he's being groomed for something? It's time to end the one-sided trading with China. I don't care how it affects corporations who have cut tens-of-thousands of our jobs. A hit to them isn't going to cost us much, since trickle-down economics is now on the shelf alongside Santa and the Easter Bunny (next-to the flat earth folks).
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY TO ATTEMPT BROADENING FOIA LAWS
"We are at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history, when our executive branch is claiming unprecedented authority to spy on ordinary Americans, to jail people indefinitely without trial, sometimes in secret prisons, and to use interrogation techniques widely regarded under international law as torture and abuse. Congress must act to reign in this abuse and restore the checks and balances that are essential to our constitutional democracy." --Caroline Frederickson, Director of the ACLU, testifying to the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday. (ACLU.ORG)
WASHINGTON D.C.--More hearings yesterday (and part of today)! If you believe in an open government that's accountable, these hearings are great news. Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo) is proposing a bill that allows for a lot more declassification of internal Executive branch records, something that will likely lead to more revelations of the Bush administration's criminality. Clay is also investigating the Bush administration's climate policy in the committee. The White House's reaction will likely be predictable, as will that of their peers in Congress. Clay's proposition is based partly on an older bill that didn't get voted on in the former GOP-majority in Congress:
Clay said the old bill will be the starting point for a new one that will take direct aim at the administration's practice of using the threat of terrorism to withhold "nonsensitive information." "I am deeply concerned that this administration appears to be shielding information that ought to be accessible to the public," said Clay, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on information policy. (AP, 02.15.2007)
This is a good-faith move on the part of Democrats, but we should have sufficient funding to process all these millions of FOIA-requests, right? We'll see it in the language of the bill when it surfaces, but both parties are notorious for unfunded-mandates when it comes to the public requesting knowledge of their own history. If they botch this one, it's going to be on-purpose, just as there wasn't enough actionable legislation from the Church Committee. After Watergate, the public demanded investigations and stricter-rules on what the Executive can do, but they didn't do enough. Yes, we got the FISA law of 1978, and we know how well it worked in keeping the Executive from illegal-surveillance on the America public. It wasn't firm enough, not strict enough. Not that it's just the GOP who have spied on all of us...
But the ACLU--who sent their sexy Director Caroline Frederickson as a committee witness-- wants more, and much to their credit. A 2001 Justice Department memo by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that classifies documents of Executive branch agencies automatically is the primary-target:
FOIA’s effectiveness has been undermined by the Bush administration’s disdain for open government. In October 2001, in a reversal from Attorney General Janet Reno’s practice that there should be a "presumption of disclosure," Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum encouraging executive agencies to adopt a policy of non-disclosure. This White House has used national security classification designations to hide embarrassing information or misconduct that is not truly secret information. (ACLU.ORG, 02.14.2007)
Clay seems to be on the same page as the ACLU, so we can expect another rollback of the Bush and GOP agenda from the last six-years. We can also expect criminal proceedings, and soon. The Bush White House knew it would never stand-up to real examiniation and transparency, hence the Justice Department memo.
Now that the panic-spell of September 11th, 2001 has worn-off, the American public can see the light-of-day a little clearer. What they're seeing isn't comforting, doesn't make them safer, and has resulted in an erosion of their rights. There are many things that the American public will not have, and losing rights they were accustomed to for generations is one of them. Having a reasonable economic well-being for most everyone is another. But if anything, Americans covet their privacy.
This is probably the greatest constitutional crisis this nation has ever faced. Will we be up to this challenge? Do political elites really have a genuine loyalty to our traditions and institutions of democracy? The tests are coming this-year, and the results will affect the next several-generations--if there are more after our own. The Freedom of Information Act is a bulwark against such a criminal administration, and a criminal party such as the revolutionary GOP. It's time to clean house of these people with hearings, investigations, and jailings. The rule of law is what matters--law that applies to all. Otherwise, we aren't a nation of laws at all, let alone a society. Suggestions like this can insure the preservation of democratic structures:
Clark Hoyt, who testified on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, also had some recommendations. He said a FOIA ombudsman should be created within the federal government to serve as a "champion for FOIA training and compliance [and] a place where individuals seeking to exercise their rights under FOIA can go for help short of filing a lawsuit."
Hoyt's group consists of 10 media groups committed to openness in government. (National Journal, 02.14.2007)
It's virtually unanimous based on declassifications from the last three-years that the Bush administration has been claiming "national security" in unprecedented-levels of classification in order to hide the crimes they have committed. This is in-violation of a number of previous laws and Executive orders alone. The only way to preserve any accountability is through the declassification process. Currently, the federal government (The Executive branch in-particular) is required to expedite a Freedom of Information Act request within a 20 days. I did a FOIA for the FBI file of Lenny Bruce, and it took two-years.
This was during the Clinton-era, in 1997. Money does solve a lot to remedy this situation, yet the Bush administration now spends $7.2 billion a year to classify our history, while National Security Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs tells us of delays on requests that have languished for 17 years. The budget for the National Security Archive's researchers who expedite all the millions of requests? $300 million a year. The ACLU is proposing waivers for bloggers and the press, as well as watchdog groups. These are solid ideas that should become public policy, and the GOP can be expected to fight them endlessly as they always have. They will obstruct and try to water-down the legislation with every tactic they have. Meanwhile, the president has announced he's sending more troops to Afghanistan.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_co/congress_foia_1;_ylt=Ai.5EkITA3kZ.ji.yqbXO.GMwfIE
How to use the FOIA (PDF): http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/citizen.html
Public Statement on the Hearings and the Complete Testimony:
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/28365prs20070214.html
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/28361leg20070214.html
1996 Update of the FOIA: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/efoiacom.html
WASHINGTON D.C.--More hearings yesterday (and part of today)! If you believe in an open government that's accountable, these hearings are great news. Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo) is proposing a bill that allows for a lot more declassification of internal Executive branch records, something that will likely lead to more revelations of the Bush administration's criminality. Clay is also investigating the Bush administration's climate policy in the committee. The White House's reaction will likely be predictable, as will that of their peers in Congress. Clay's proposition is based partly on an older bill that didn't get voted on in the former GOP-majority in Congress:
Clay said the old bill will be the starting point for a new one that will take direct aim at the administration's practice of using the threat of terrorism to withhold "nonsensitive information." "I am deeply concerned that this administration appears to be shielding information that ought to be accessible to the public," said Clay, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on information policy. (AP, 02.15.2007)
This is a good-faith move on the part of Democrats, but we should have sufficient funding to process all these millions of FOIA-requests, right? We'll see it in the language of the bill when it surfaces, but both parties are notorious for unfunded-mandates when it comes to the public requesting knowledge of their own history. If they botch this one, it's going to be on-purpose, just as there wasn't enough actionable legislation from the Church Committee. After Watergate, the public demanded investigations and stricter-rules on what the Executive can do, but they didn't do enough. Yes, we got the FISA law of 1978, and we know how well it worked in keeping the Executive from illegal-surveillance on the America public. It wasn't firm enough, not strict enough. Not that it's just the GOP who have spied on all of us...
But the ACLU--who sent their sexy Director Caroline Frederickson as a committee witness-- wants more, and much to their credit. A 2001 Justice Department memo by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that classifies documents of Executive branch agencies automatically is the primary-target:
FOIA’s effectiveness has been undermined by the Bush administration’s disdain for open government. In October 2001, in a reversal from Attorney General Janet Reno’s practice that there should be a "presumption of disclosure," Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum encouraging executive agencies to adopt a policy of non-disclosure. This White House has used national security classification designations to hide embarrassing information or misconduct that is not truly secret information. (ACLU.ORG, 02.14.2007)
Clay seems to be on the same page as the ACLU, so we can expect another rollback of the Bush and GOP agenda from the last six-years. We can also expect criminal proceedings, and soon. The Bush White House knew it would never stand-up to real examiniation and transparency, hence the Justice Department memo.
Now that the panic-spell of September 11th, 2001 has worn-off, the American public can see the light-of-day a little clearer. What they're seeing isn't comforting, doesn't make them safer, and has resulted in an erosion of their rights. There are many things that the American public will not have, and losing rights they were accustomed to for generations is one of them. Having a reasonable economic well-being for most everyone is another. But if anything, Americans covet their privacy.
This is probably the greatest constitutional crisis this nation has ever faced. Will we be up to this challenge? Do political elites really have a genuine loyalty to our traditions and institutions of democracy? The tests are coming this-year, and the results will affect the next several-generations--if there are more after our own. The Freedom of Information Act is a bulwark against such a criminal administration, and a criminal party such as the revolutionary GOP. It's time to clean house of these people with hearings, investigations, and jailings. The rule of law is what matters--law that applies to all. Otherwise, we aren't a nation of laws at all, let alone a society. Suggestions like this can insure the preservation of democratic structures:
Clark Hoyt, who testified on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, also had some recommendations. He said a FOIA ombudsman should be created within the federal government to serve as a "champion for FOIA training and compliance [and] a place where individuals seeking to exercise their rights under FOIA can go for help short of filing a lawsuit."
Hoyt's group consists of 10 media groups committed to openness in government. (National Journal, 02.14.2007)
It's virtually unanimous based on declassifications from the last three-years that the Bush administration has been claiming "national security" in unprecedented-levels of classification in order to hide the crimes they have committed. This is in-violation of a number of previous laws and Executive orders alone. The only way to preserve any accountability is through the declassification process. Currently, the federal government (The Executive branch in-particular) is required to expedite a Freedom of Information Act request within a 20 days. I did a FOIA for the FBI file of Lenny Bruce, and it took two-years.
This was during the Clinton-era, in 1997. Money does solve a lot to remedy this situation, yet the Bush administration now spends $7.2 billion a year to classify our history, while National Security Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs tells us of delays on requests that have languished for 17 years. The budget for the National Security Archive's researchers who expedite all the millions of requests? $300 million a year. The ACLU is proposing waivers for bloggers and the press, as well as watchdog groups. These are solid ideas that should become public policy, and the GOP can be expected to fight them endlessly as they always have. They will obstruct and try to water-down the legislation with every tactic they have. Meanwhile, the president has announced he's sending more troops to Afghanistan.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_co/congress_foia_1;_ylt=Ai.5EkITA3kZ.ji.yqbXO.GMwfIE
How to use the FOIA (PDF): http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/citizen.html
Public Statement on the Hearings and the Complete Testimony:
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/28365prs20070214.html
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/foia/28361leg20070214.html
1996 Update of the FOIA: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/efoiacom.html
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
COP SHOW PITCH: "THE ONES THAT GOT-AWAY"
TV--I hate cop shows. I know, hard to believe, but don't they have that "better you than me, asshole!" quality to them? They engender a hatred among working-class people for each other that basically-sucks. Where are the white-collar crime shows? Forget America's Most Wanted--I want a show about the guys who got-away (like John Dillinger, Klaus Barbie, and Joseph Mengele). Cop shows spread the lie that "crime doesn't pay", which is untrue. Crime pays, and it pays well if the stakes are high enough to pay-off the "guardians of justice." Ahem.
Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" was a tourist-trip, and Police corruption has a long and storied history in America. The first cops in NYC were hired as thugs to keep desperately poor people from robbing bank couriers and the idle-rich. I say share the love if there's inequality. No, it's not an appeal to break-the-law, it's just time to share the love. Either share the wealth, or get robbed, accosted, or even killed. Complainers. All the cops do is contain the poor and the rest of us. Law and order are for people without any power, the schmucks, the law and order dopes. Well, "schmucks" to the wealthiest and all the other sundry criminals, and myself.
It would be a statistical-error to have a show that presented what I suggest, because cop shows are about conditioning all of us to respect the absolute rights of property. No, not your stupid CD-collection or your stereo, but luxury-items like food, shelter, energy to heat a home, etc. For those who do what they gotta do to survive, I salute you! You're not half-as-stupid as the American Middle Class--or what's left of it. Finally, I would love to see a show about "Bad Cops." No brotherhood of silence here, let's open the curtains. Some of the biggest criminals are "respectable", and law and order are subjective phantasms with little substance in these United States of America.
About the Bad Lieutenant again: why are the Police unions so afraid of any portrayal of Police corruption in a motion picture? The movie wasn't about Police corruption, it was about the last-act of redemption of a man who is doomed. Ferrara wanted to explore what would happen to someone from witnessing death and mayhem, day-after-day, for years. If anything, The Bad Lieutenant was sympathetic to the problems faced by cops who have been on the job for too-long. It's healthy to know that corruption exists in the modern world, and portrayals of them are justified on by the common good they can provide. It's better to know, it really is.
Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" was a tourist-trip, and Police corruption has a long and storied history in America. The first cops in NYC were hired as thugs to keep desperately poor people from robbing bank couriers and the idle-rich. I say share the love if there's inequality. No, it's not an appeal to break-the-law, it's just time to share the love. Either share the wealth, or get robbed, accosted, or even killed. Complainers. All the cops do is contain the poor and the rest of us. Law and order are for people without any power, the schmucks, the law and order dopes. Well, "schmucks" to the wealthiest and all the other sundry criminals, and myself.
It would be a statistical-error to have a show that presented what I suggest, because cop shows are about conditioning all of us to respect the absolute rights of property. No, not your stupid CD-collection or your stereo, but luxury-items like food, shelter, energy to heat a home, etc. For those who do what they gotta do to survive, I salute you! You're not half-as-stupid as the American Middle Class--or what's left of it. Finally, I would love to see a show about "Bad Cops." No brotherhood of silence here, let's open the curtains. Some of the biggest criminals are "respectable", and law and order are subjective phantasms with little substance in these United States of America.
About the Bad Lieutenant again: why are the Police unions so afraid of any portrayal of Police corruption in a motion picture? The movie wasn't about Police corruption, it was about the last-act of redemption of a man who is doomed. Ferrara wanted to explore what would happen to someone from witnessing death and mayhem, day-after-day, for years. If anything, The Bad Lieutenant was sympathetic to the problems faced by cops who have been on the job for too-long. It's healthy to know that corruption exists in the modern world, and portrayals of them are justified on by the common good they can provide. It's better to know, it really is.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
CONGRESS DECIDES TO SELF-DESTRUCT WITH BUSH PRESIDENCY: ON NON-BINDING RESOLUTIONS AND SUPERFICIAL TALK FROM JOE DONNELLY, ET. AL.
"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq and they are demanding a new direction."
--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today (AP, 02.13.2007)
"I haven't decided yet."
--Joe Donnelly killing his own political future.
WASHINGTON D.C.--Like Athenian democracy, Congress has decided to shoot itself in the foot with non-binding resolutions. Thinking that this is going to make the public forget that many incumbents and presidential candidates voted for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq, they've deluded themselves as most corrupt individuals do.
Worse still, the public shares some of the blame in allowing the vote to occur at all with nary a fight. It's true, once again, those of us on the real Left had to do this, and few wanted to listen. We can blame George W. Bush as much as we want, but we're in Iraq because we want cheap-gasoline, and because we weren't civically active, let-alone responsible. That's right, it's not just the Bush administration, it's collective-guilt. That guilt is being acted-out--pathetically--in our House of Representatives right now.
But, if you look at the prewar statistics, over 50% of the public was against going in if the conflict was a prolonged one. This is why there was no postwar planning, and such low troop-levels in the aftermath--to do so would have altered the public to the fact that this would inevitably be prolonged based on the plans of PNAC and neocons within the Bush administration. A cabal. But it was an above-ground one that everyone knew about, tolerated it, and allowed it to flourish and hijack our political system. Only radical reform can undo the damage that was allowed by political elites who only view democracy as a means for their own advancement as politicians.
The public deserves this out, but was too-easily deceived to be safe. The GOP seems to be totally committed to self-destruction in their blocking-measures, and their tepid bills that merely allow the Bush administration a continued blank-check:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that _Mainstream Democrats--reluctantly emboldened by the November midterms that gave them a congressional majority--only seem willing to support non-binding resolutions (not binding as law). Vice President Cheney has stated on CNN that "it won't stop us." This war will be four-years-old in March, and the political-cost will only continue to escalate.
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.(AP,02.13.2007)
The Bush administration's response to the bills (besides Cheney's): support the troops, the old broken-record we've been hearing for four-years, yet another underscoring of the Bush administration's inherent contempt for the rule of law and democracy. Some congressional GOP incumbents attempted to bring-up the ghost of Vietnam and the disdain most of the public had for returning-troops--save the crocodile tears, wimps:
It was the first debate about the war in either house of Congress since November's midterm elections, when public opposition to the conflict helped power Democrats to control of the House and Senate. Bush's decision last month to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to help stop sectarian violence has quickly become a flashpoint for critics of the war in Congress. There are currently about 141,000 American troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan. The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup. (AP, 02.13.2007)So, all it does is attempt to apply pressure to an administration that has never made any bones about kicking decorum to-the-curb. The war will continue, and thousands of Iraqis will be murdered by this ongoing-policy. This inaction makes all members of Congress who do not aggressively-oppose this administration fellow travels--war criminals. During a pause in the debate, Republican congressman Charles Norwood was eulogized.
Nobody was salivating over it since the GOP has no-chance of a majority in the House at present, and received a page-nine treatment (in stark-contrast to the stroke of Democratic Senator, Tim Johnson).The AP reports that, "Norwood was part of the Republican wave that took control of Congress in 1994." (AP, 02.13.2007) My, my, if only most Americans got the health coverage he did.
Amazingly, our own Joe Donnelly (here in the 2nd District of Indiana) was interviewed by AP, and had some disappointing things to say:
"The most important part of this to me is standing up for the troops and making sure we have full funding for them," Donnelly said Tuesday, after a weekend meeting with veterans' groups and constituents back home in his conservative north-central Indiana district. "I haven't made up my mind yet." The concerns of members like Donnelly are behind Democrats' strategy for this week's Iraq debate, which was carefully calibrated to bar votes on a GOP alternative that could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground. (AP, 02.13.2007)A Hint to Joe: if you want to remain in Congress, you had better back defunding this war now. The majority of the public backs this measure, and yet you and the rest of the Democratic mainstream will not even pen a binding-resolution to halt any more troop-escalations.
You and I know this will mushroom into a military disaster, and that your real option is to defund the occupation, giving funds that mandate a demobilization. It doesn't bother me--or anyone except the GOP--that they've been relegated back to minority-status, and barred from watering-down an already watery-bill with their stupid amendments. They should shut up and accept their status.
The AP is siding with the GOP on this one, while they essentially ignored the shutting-out of the Democratic minority during the four-year GOP-majority. Frequently, they ignored the Democrats altogether, barely giving them the ink that the GOP-minority affords today.
This is because most of the mainstream media and the Republican Party are allied through an unconstitutional concentration of media ownership authored and engineered by the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations and Congress. A situation like this that crosses party-lines, done with premeditation over decades, can only emerge from the culture of a class of people.
That would be America's ruling-class and her functionaries in the media, academia, and the other various professions that service them. There is no GOP alternative for Iraq, it will just be more-of-the-same, which is what they're always going to be about.
AP on the Debate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_27;_ylt=AspApysA5fArp38emfb7OheGbToC
"Democrats Bar GOP Alternative on Iraq":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq;_ylt=AmIL_vNRpZiVwOAkDwTq3m2MwfIE
Text of the Resolution ("Bad boy, you stop!") :
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb12/0,4670,USIraqResolutionText,00.html
Sunday, February 11, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON ASKED HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT HER IRAQ RECORD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
"I have taken responsibility for my vote."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton refusing to take responsibility for her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE--Laying-out her weathered, lame excuse that "knowing now what I know, ...", the presidential candidate continued to insult the intelligence of ten-year-olds everywhere at a Berlin, N.H. town hall meeting. Senator Clinton, you knew that the run-up to the war in Iraq was a sham, it was obvious to anyone with a smidgen of sense. You are a liar. You knew, we all knew. Quit insulting all of us. I was proud of this man's comments directed at this contradiction in your statements, behavior and voting-record in the Senate:
Roger Tilton, 46, a financial adviser from Nashua, N.H., told Clinton that unless she recanted her vote, he was not in the mood to listen to her other policy ideas. "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying." (AP, 02.11.2007)
That was when she dropped the aforementioned insult. This was an honest, intelligent question that deserved a direct-answer. All candidates need to be able to answer this question respectfully and truthfully. Otherwise, they're going to have an uphill battle for a campaign. Hillary Clinton is making-it-plain that she has contempt for the public will (or even the common good). She even dropped the hint that Edwards also voted to authorize the war in an offhand-comment. Indeed he did, Mrs. Clinton, and it's likely that anyone who voted for said authorization is going to pay a political-price--especially those who cling so tenaciously to the assumptions that got us into Iraq in the first place.
While people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Patrick Leahy, and a few others, used their heads and saw the long-term picture. You, the former GOP-majority, and other conservative Democrats backed this war without much pressuring. Like the mainstream media, you were too-credulous.But there's a punchline to the AP-missive: Tilton told Clinton he "wasn't satisfied" with here answer, and that he would be voting for Edwards or Obama. This is a bad omen for the rest of Senator Clinton's campaign, and a point of extreme vulnerability that she created for herself back in late-2002:
Tilton was unmoved. "Until she says it was a mistake she won't get my vote," he insisted.The exchange highlighted the challenge Clinton faces in the early-days of her candidacy for president. She must convince Democratic primary voters, who tend to be strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, that her pragmatic approach to ending the conflict is the right one. (Washington Post, 02.11.2007)
Obama, and all the other dissenting-votes for the the authorization to use force in Iraq might just have the long-term vision America needs. People like Tilton will be their ticket to victory, but they have some recanting to do. She won't admit it was a mistake, just like President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Republican incumbents, and some of those who were washed-out of Congress are saying the opposite. This puts her to the far-right of the public. At least the other two Democratic candidates get it.
Voters should ask themselves why Senator Clinton clings-to the same assumptions about the conflict as the Bush administration. She's hardly alone in Congress. There's another comment she made that's troubling: "I gave him [President George W. Bush] the authority to send [UN] inspectors back in to determine the truth. I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." Why are you the only one saying this Hillary? It's true that you expressed "severe reservations" at the time (to cover yourself), but you voted for the resolution anyway. Now, it's law, but maybe this will jog the Senator's memory:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(GPO.GOV, Sec. 3 of Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
The legislation allows the President a lot of latitude, but you decide. The bill's text is in the final link below this piece. You tell me if she's lying, or merely twisting a minor-provision in the bill (it appears she does actually read most legislation).
AP: "Clinton parries Iraq questions in New Hampshire": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008
Washington Post: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702110336feb11,1,5595777.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Reuters: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2866066
CNN 2004: "Hillary Clinton: No Regret on Iraq Vote": http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
--Sen. Hillary Clinton refusing to take responsibility for her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE--Laying-out her weathered, lame excuse that "knowing now what I know, ...", the presidential candidate continued to insult the intelligence of ten-year-olds everywhere at a Berlin, N.H. town hall meeting. Senator Clinton, you knew that the run-up to the war in Iraq was a sham, it was obvious to anyone with a smidgen of sense. You are a liar. You knew, we all knew. Quit insulting all of us. I was proud of this man's comments directed at this contradiction in your statements, behavior and voting-record in the Senate:
Roger Tilton, 46, a financial adviser from Nashua, N.H., told Clinton that unless she recanted her vote, he was not in the mood to listen to her other policy ideas. "I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying." (AP, 02.11.2007)
That was when she dropped the aforementioned insult. This was an honest, intelligent question that deserved a direct-answer. All candidates need to be able to answer this question respectfully and truthfully. Otherwise, they're going to have an uphill battle for a campaign. Hillary Clinton is making-it-plain that she has contempt for the public will (or even the common good). She even dropped the hint that Edwards also voted to authorize the war in an offhand-comment. Indeed he did, Mrs. Clinton, and it's likely that anyone who voted for said authorization is going to pay a political-price--especially those who cling so tenaciously to the assumptions that got us into Iraq in the first place.
While people like Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Patrick Leahy, and a few others, used their heads and saw the long-term picture. You, the former GOP-majority, and other conservative Democrats backed this war without much pressuring. Like the mainstream media, you were too-credulous.But there's a punchline to the AP-missive: Tilton told Clinton he "wasn't satisfied" with here answer, and that he would be voting for Edwards or Obama. This is a bad omen for the rest of Senator Clinton's campaign, and a point of extreme vulnerability that she created for herself back in late-2002:
Tilton was unmoved. "Until she says it was a mistake she won't get my vote," he insisted.The exchange highlighted the challenge Clinton faces in the early-days of her candidacy for president. She must convince Democratic primary voters, who tend to be strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, that her pragmatic approach to ending the conflict is the right one. (Washington Post, 02.11.2007)
Obama, and all the other dissenting-votes for the the authorization to use force in Iraq might just have the long-term vision America needs. People like Tilton will be their ticket to victory, but they have some recanting to do. She won't admit it was a mistake, just like President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Republican incumbents, and some of those who were washed-out of Congress are saying the opposite. This puts her to the far-right of the public. At least the other two Democratic candidates get it.
Voters should ask themselves why Senator Clinton clings-to the same assumptions about the conflict as the Bush administration. She's hardly alone in Congress. There's another comment she made that's troubling: "I gave him [President George W. Bush] the authority to send [UN] inspectors back in to determine the truth. I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." Why are you the only one saying this Hillary? It's true that you expressed "severe reservations" at the time (to cover yourself), but you voted for the resolution anyway. Now, it's law, but maybe this will jog the Senator's memory:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(GPO.GOV, Sec. 3 of Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
The legislation allows the President a lot of latitude, but you decide. The bill's text is in the final link below this piece. You tell me if she's lying, or merely twisting a minor-provision in the bill (it appears she does actually read most legislation).
AP: "Clinton parries Iraq questions in New Hampshire": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008
Washington Post: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702110336feb11,1,5595777.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Reuters: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2866066
CNN 2004: "Hillary Clinton: No Regret on Iraq Vote": http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Saturday, February 10, 2007
ANNA NICOLE SMITH: HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE STORY
The Mainstream Media Cesspool--It's good for their ratings, and provides them an out for reporting on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as much. The same applies to all the missing white girls. The story is just a great excuse for "white-outs" on major stories that ownership of media wish to hide from the public for a certain period of time. That's all there is that's worth saying about Anna Nicole Smith.
Friday, February 09, 2007
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TIM JOHNSON RECOVERING AND WORKING FROM HIS HOSPITAL BED
WASHINGTON D.C.--Senator Johnson (D-S.D.) is getting better, and is able to speak, read, and engage his office staff in the goings-on in the Senate. Remember how excited all the news wires were when it looked like he might die? Currently:
Johnson has been undergoing physical, occupational and speech therapy since he was transferred to rehabilitation from intensive care at George Washington University Hospital last month. He recently began to read and speak in full sentences, according to statements from his doctors. (AP, 02.09.2007)
Wow! If only Vice President Bush could do that! It has been exactly two-months since Johnson's stroke, and the Pavlovian salivation of the GOP and the mainstream media. It was both Reuters and AP who misreported that with Johnson out, the GOP would retain its majority on the body. Wrong. The Vice President is only allowed to vote in the event of a tie, and that is becoming unlikely with the plummeting-support that the Bush administration has in all quarters.
The Libby trial seems to be poised at delivering some fatal-blows. Interestingly, the popularity of Congress is on-the-rise! Well, of course. We're seeing some action with domestic legislation, and it was critically overdue. The GOP majority also left a lot of unfinished work on the operating-expenses of the federal bureaucracy, an obvious slowing measure. How does it help America? It's doesn't, but it underscores the antisocial nature of the the current crop within the Republican Party's political establishment. Johnson is alive-and-well.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_co/ailing_senator;_ylt=AlhR7xOyFTm9ax33SL7VpWAGw_IE
Previously on this site:
http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-marginal-majority-in-senate_15.html
http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2006/12/democratic-senator-tim-johnson-and.html
Johnson has been undergoing physical, occupational and speech therapy since he was transferred to rehabilitation from intensive care at George Washington University Hospital last month. He recently began to read and speak in full sentences, according to statements from his doctors. (AP, 02.09.2007)
Wow! If only Vice President Bush could do that! It has been exactly two-months since Johnson's stroke, and the Pavlovian salivation of the GOP and the mainstream media. It was both Reuters and AP who misreported that with Johnson out, the GOP would retain its majority on the body. Wrong. The Vice President is only allowed to vote in the event of a tie, and that is becoming unlikely with the plummeting-support that the Bush administration has in all quarters.
The Libby trial seems to be poised at delivering some fatal-blows. Interestingly, the popularity of Congress is on-the-rise! Well, of course. We're seeing some action with domestic legislation, and it was critically overdue. The GOP majority also left a lot of unfinished work on the operating-expenses of the federal bureaucracy, an obvious slowing measure. How does it help America? It's doesn't, but it underscores the antisocial nature of the the current crop within the Republican Party's political establishment. Johnson is alive-and-well.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_go_co/ailing_senator;_ylt=AlhR7xOyFTm9ax33SL7VpWAGw_IE
Previously on this site:
http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-marginal-majority-in-senate_15.html
http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2006/12/democratic-senator-tim-johnson-and.html
THE COWBOY ON THE COWBOY: CLINT EASTWOOD BREAKS SILENCE OVER WAR IN IRAQ, CONDEMNING IT
LOS ANGELES--In a recent interview, Clint Eastwood has said that he was against the invasion before it happened, as most Americans were. Most of us knew it was going to be a long-haul, a primary reason for low troop-levels at the beginning. Eastwood stated:I wasn't for going in there," Eastwood said. "Only because democracy isn't something that you get overnight. I don't think America got democracy overnight. It's something we had to fight for and believe in." While other Hollywood celebrities have been outspoken in their criticism of Bush, Eastwood said he admired the US leader's tenacity. ..."I think -- you know, I kind of admire the tenacity he has," Eastwood said. (AP, 02.09.2007)
"Admire"? Well, Hitler had tenacity too, but he was also wrong. Stalin had tenacity, but he was wrong. Come on, Clint. You made a career off of Italian-westerns written and directed by Socialists! Maybe you need to re-watch the trilogy of "A Fistful of Dollars", "For a Few Dollars More", and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Yes, they're almost "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", but didn't we give-up on those kind of heroes a long-time-ago? While you're at it, re-watch "Once Upon a Time in the West", you're rootin' for the railroad barons. You know, the bad-guys.
Bush doesn't even possess the nobility of the Lee Van Cleef character in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"--at least he had principles. Besides, you're buying the lie the they went into Iraq to "spread democracy." Remember, that was justification number 3-or-4. It was "WMDs" first, remember? And really, you're falling-for that "rugged individual" BS that Sergio Leone's and Sam Peckinpah's films should have dispelled in your mind. I know you hate cigars, but put that blanket back-on, stick a cigarillo in the side of your gob, and let some more criticisms of this administration fly. Never let them blink. Thanks for writing-off the war, Clint, it's appreciated! But, tenacity is pathetic when it is wrong-headed.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
SENATE PANEL ON US ATTORNEY FIRINGS: WE PROPOSE REFORMS IN NEW LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON D.C.--As they promised, Democratic leadership in the Senate are going after this hidden provision of the Patriot Act re-authorization from March of 2006 that allows the President to replace US Federal Prosecutors (like Patrick Fitzgerald) without Senate confirmation hearings. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein proposed a bill eliminating this provision today, with another coming in the House soon:
Three Republicans, Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, joined all the panel's Democrats in backing the bill. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. It's the process of replacement that, the bill's proponents argue, should prevent political cronyism. (AP, 02.08.2007)
Specter, the author of the re-authorization act is claiming ignorance that the provision was in the bill. This is a peculiar contention that begs for some elaboration: if you wrote the bill, surely you would read some of it. Or did someone insert it into the process without him knowing? This is a pretty disturbing fact and a breach of the process...or, he's lying.
The provision allows the Attorney General to replace US Attorneys "indefinitely. The Feinstein bill "would allow the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. If after that time someone had not been nominated and confirmed by the Senate, authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court." (ibid) One thing's certain. If you're successful in the apprehension and conviction of Bush allies and members of the GOP in-general, your job as a federal prosecutor is in-jeopardy. But, if you're a crony of the Bush inner circle, merit is out-the-window. All you need is a pulse and the willingness to take-orders and fall on your sword when the time comes:
Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include: ...Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. ...Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush. (KRT Wire, 01.26.2006)
That's the question. Will they fall on their swords when this administration falls? Will they help continue the obstruction of justice that the former GOP majority facilitated? What will the public have on this? The November midterms seem to be saying more than just "we want a resolution to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan", it was over corruption and accountability from a flippant White House and majority.
We know what happened to that majority, and it looks clear that that is coming shortly for the Bush administration as nearly every piece of legislation they managed to ram-though Congress gets gutted. Meanwhile, all they can do in the GOP and the Right is to block debate on non-binding bills stopping Bush's troop-escalation, and whining that two women-bloggers used the "f-word." Pretty pathetic, pretty weak. But remember, this is all happening within the context of an onslaught on the Right and the GOP, they're running scared now from their own shadows.
On Cronyism:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16556027.htm
APpointments: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4537711.html
Three Republicans, Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah, joined all the panel's Democrats in backing the bill. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed for any reason, or no reason at all. It's the process of replacement that, the bill's proponents argue, should prevent political cronyism. (AP, 02.08.2007)
Specter, the author of the re-authorization act is claiming ignorance that the provision was in the bill. This is a peculiar contention that begs for some elaboration: if you wrote the bill, surely you would read some of it. Or did someone insert it into the process without him knowing? This is a pretty disturbing fact and a breach of the process...or, he's lying.
The provision allows the Attorney General to replace US Attorneys "indefinitely. The Feinstein bill "would allow the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. If after that time someone had not been nominated and confirmed by the Senate, authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would fall to the district court." (ibid) One thing's certain. If you're successful in the apprehension and conviction of Bush allies and members of the GOP in-general, your job as a federal prosecutor is in-jeopardy. But, if you're a crony of the Bush inner circle, merit is out-the-window. All you need is a pulse and the willingness to take-orders and fall on your sword when the time comes:
Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include: ...Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. ...Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush. (KRT Wire, 01.26.2006)
That's the question. Will they fall on their swords when this administration falls? Will they help continue the obstruction of justice that the former GOP majority facilitated? What will the public have on this? The November midterms seem to be saying more than just "we want a resolution to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan", it was over corruption and accountability from a flippant White House and majority.
We know what happened to that majority, and it looks clear that that is coming shortly for the Bush administration as nearly every piece of legislation they managed to ram-though Congress gets gutted. Meanwhile, all they can do in the GOP and the Right is to block debate on non-binding bills stopping Bush's troop-escalation, and whining that two women-bloggers used the "f-word." Pretty pathetic, pretty weak. But remember, this is all happening within the context of an onslaught on the Right and the GOP, they're running scared now from their own shadows.
On Cronyism:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16556027.htm
APpointments: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4537711.html
CATHOLIC LEAGUE'S DONOHUE FOILED: EDWARDS KEEPS BLOGGERS ON HIS CAMPAIGN
WASHINGTON D.C.--Yes, it was a shock to all of us here that profanity was used on a blog, a shaking of the pillars of our society. But it appears life would continue as it always has when John Edwards decided to keep bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen on his campaign team:
"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Charleston, S.C. (AP, 02.08.2007)
Yes, they used the dreaded "f-word", and others, which are known to rip the flesh from the average human face when they are uttered. The ground is sometimes known to swallow the one who uttered it, as proven by alchemy and scryers in the known world. Non-story. Non-issue. Non. John Edwards decides who is on his campaign, not the Catholic League's Bill Donohue.
Look, the blogs are like the Frontier was: there's no decorum here, it's like an episode of Deadwood or something. The language is coarser, there's more of a sense of the "plebian" or the "proletarian." All I can say is get-over-it, they're just words. These are unpleasant times, and debate and tempers get heated. We all say and write things we regret, but we can live-and-learn from these mistakes. The most important goal of this site is hooking people up with links to what are hopefully primary-sources. We don't have to agree on everything, which is what's exciting about a democracy. It at least should have some adversarial qualities, and sometimes it seems we're fighting when all we're really doing is misunderstanding each other.
Now, this is an obvious limitation of the internet as it is now, a view I agree with. Face-to-face is crucial, but in the abscence of the ability to do this, we can still exchange a lot of ideas. The distancing can help us get the dialog going, and sometimes it's better than things degenerating into street-fighting in the real world. It's a good feeling to get these frustrations off our chests through the internet. This guy William Donohue is a nobody, just another voice in the stratosphere, and he just lost the war.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_bloggers2008
"I talked personally to the two women who were involved. They gave me their word they, under no circumstances, intended to denigrate any church or anybody's religion and offered their apologies for anything that indicated otherwise. I took them at their word," Edwards told reporters during a campaign stop in Charleston, S.C. (AP, 02.08.2007)
Yes, they used the dreaded "f-word", and others, which are known to rip the flesh from the average human face when they are uttered. The ground is sometimes known to swallow the one who uttered it, as proven by alchemy and scryers in the known world. Non-story. Non-issue. Non. John Edwards decides who is on his campaign, not the Catholic League's Bill Donohue.
Look, the blogs are like the Frontier was: there's no decorum here, it's like an episode of Deadwood or something. The language is coarser, there's more of a sense of the "plebian" or the "proletarian." All I can say is get-over-it, they're just words. These are unpleasant times, and debate and tempers get heated. We all say and write things we regret, but we can live-and-learn from these mistakes. The most important goal of this site is hooking people up with links to what are hopefully primary-sources. We don't have to agree on everything, which is what's exciting about a democracy. It at least should have some adversarial qualities, and sometimes it seems we're fighting when all we're really doing is misunderstanding each other.
Now, this is an obvious limitation of the internet as it is now, a view I agree with. Face-to-face is crucial, but in the abscence of the ability to do this, we can still exchange a lot of ideas. The distancing can help us get the dialog going, and sometimes it's better than things degenerating into street-fighting in the real world. It's a good feeling to get these frustrations off our chests through the internet. This guy William Donohue is a nobody, just another voice in the stratosphere, and he just lost the war.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_bloggers2008
SENATE GOP BUSY WITH IMPORTANT BUSINESS: BIPARTISAN JUGGERNAUT PASSES "RONALD REAGAN DAY" UNANIMOUSLY
wArSHINtuHn D.c.--Yes, it was like VE Day or VJ Day. Mark it on your calendars: while Iraq and Afghanistan were disintegrating, the Senate saw-fit to pass this sausage. As far as I can tell, it passed with nary-a-tremor, not the gallstone of actually doing their jobs responsibly. Great, another day people can forget. "Oh yeah, it was Ronald Reagan Day yesterday." People can eat a lot of expensive jelly-beans, and reflect that he was the guy who helped create the mess we're in right now (and every president after him).Govtrack: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-73
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
AP PULL A STORY OUT OF THEIR ASS (MALFUNCTION THIS): "PRINCE SHOW LEWD?"
"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar."
--Sigmund Freud
AP-UNIVERSE--What a crock. This story needs to be filed under "was this trip really necessary?" Don't they have some real news to report? Seriously, you're asking if Prince flailing-around on a stage with his guitar is something seductive and provocative? Of course it is, and it was one of the best live performances I've ever seen. The article--bylined by Jake Coyle--is competent, but check this:
A number of bloggers have decried "Malfunction!" - including Sam Anderson at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Daily News television critic David Bianculli called it "a rude-looking shadow show" that "looked embarrassingly rude, crude and unfortunately placed."
(AP, 02.06.2007)
OK, who are the bloggers? Name ONE that isn't attached to a newspaper. It sure wasn't me! I loved looking at those two hot Black women, and Prince showed that he can truly tear it up on guitar! People forget this, he's one of the best R&B guitarists alive!! Man, he's even on Stevie Wonder's new album, and it's beautiful what he does on that guitar. Who cares what these dowdy twits think?
This part was ridiculous: "But Prince's halftime performance, though celebrated, came in a much different cultural environment, where even the fleeting outline of a man and his guitar could, for some, suggest shaded depravity." Whatever man, you're full-of-crap. It was beautiful. That's the word for the halftime show--a beautiful celebration of life and the human body. It was a celebration of intimacy, and for a moment I didn't have to think about this stupid war and could feel OK about being an American--if only for a moment. Seeing all those 20-something girls in the audience just loving it was beautiful. What a show, it will be legendary for how good it was. Saying Prince was "too-sexy" is like saying Duke Ellington was "too-jazzy."
AP: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070207/D8N4I6KG0.html
--Sigmund Freud
AP-UNIVERSE--What a crock. This story needs to be filed under "was this trip really necessary?" Don't they have some real news to report? Seriously, you're asking if Prince flailing-around on a stage with his guitar is something seductive and provocative? Of course it is, and it was one of the best live performances I've ever seen. The article--bylined by Jake Coyle--is competent, but check this:
A number of bloggers have decried "Malfunction!" - including Sam Anderson at New York magazine's Daily Intelligencer. Daily News television critic David Bianculli called it "a rude-looking shadow show" that "looked embarrassingly rude, crude and unfortunately placed."
(AP, 02.06.2007)
OK, who are the bloggers? Name ONE that isn't attached to a newspaper. It sure wasn't me! I loved looking at those two hot Black women, and Prince showed that he can truly tear it up on guitar! People forget this, he's one of the best R&B guitarists alive!! Man, he's even on Stevie Wonder's new album, and it's beautiful what he does on that guitar. Who cares what these dowdy twits think?
This part was ridiculous: "But Prince's halftime performance, though celebrated, came in a much different cultural environment, where even the fleeting outline of a man and his guitar could, for some, suggest shaded depravity." Whatever man, you're full-of-crap. It was beautiful. That's the word for the halftime show--a beautiful celebration of life and the human body. It was a celebration of intimacy, and for a moment I didn't have to think about this stupid war and could feel OK about being an American--if only for a moment. Seeing all those 20-something girls in the audience just loving it was beautiful. What a show, it will be legendary for how good it was. Saying Prince was "too-sexy" is like saying Duke Ellington was "too-jazzy."
AP: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070207/D8N4I6KG0.html
EX-PASTOR TED HAGGARD: "I'M NOT GAY."
BIZARROWORLD--Listen Ted, I don't come to your workplace and slap the Cheney out of your mouth, so why do you gotta insult my intelligence? Here's the time-line: "I'm not gay" (except when a male-hustler...you know), then "I'm gay", then "I'm not gay." He's gay, so what? He likes meth-amphetamine with his gay-sex--his business, but now it's everyone's business since he was living a lie. Power, the most-addictive drug there is, and he's experiencing withdrawal (if-only our troops were...). Him Ted Haggard, him not gay, but him sinner. Four-legs (on-the-floor) bad, two-legs good. Welcome to America, better than a carnival. Welcome to the monkey house.
10,000th Hit in Just Five-Months!
J-7--We've gotten our 10,000th hit today, something I'm very proud of. Not bad: no celebrities, no hype, just my hard-work and whatever skills I might have. It's a tangible-achievement to have reached thousands of people, and something that was literally impossible for the average-person just ten-years-ago (or even eight). I noticed the boys at Langley are on the counter (CIA), and more from congressional staffers. Oddly, I'm getting several-hits from China. Oh sure, some of these are web-crawlers, but it's interesting. Yeah, I know, I should fly there and say hello to them...
MAINSTREAM MEDIA STILL HAS YET TO REPORT GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 532 IN THE LIBBY TRIAL
DA' BLOGOSPHERE (where it's all happenin')--Been waiting? So have I. Luckily, you have the people at www.truthout.org, myself, and others to direct you to this pertinent information. Ask yourselves why the media won't do it, and then stop supporting them. Well, unless you enjoy paying to be lied-to...
GO 532 And Its Context: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
GO 532 And Its Context: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
CODEPINK HITS CRAZY JOHN MCCAIN'S OFFICE TODAY
MY EMAIL ADDRESS--'Ten anti-war activists led by Father Jerry Zawada were arrested today on orders from Senator John McCain's office after members of the peace groups CODEPINK, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, and Veterans for Peace tried to meet with the Senator's legislative aide to discuss defunding the war. Activists sang the names of the 75 US servicemen and women from Arizona who have been killed in the war in Iraq, interspersed with the names of Iraqi civilians killed, and collectively chanted "We remember you," after each name and dropped a flower petal on the ground. They delivered framed photos of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers from Arizona who have been killed in Iraq and carried banners reading "Stop Funding War!" and "Americans Want a Prez for Peace". '
I got this message from www.democrats.com this morning. This is an example of what real activists do, not poseurs. Go out and do something creative and tangible like this, or do a blog, network with people on the internet, and if you're one of the comfortable-ones, it's on you even more so to do these things and to give until it hurts to these groups. Quit fooling-yourselves, you're not accomplishing anything by your silly little games. Either go out and do something like this, or shut-up, because talk is cheap. Tired of you people and your mealy-mouthed B.S.--put-up, or shut-up, but stop insulting everyone's intelligence with your self-delusions. Get out there and do something real. I've put my ass on-the-line before (death-threats and all), so why are you so cowardly? Do it. Now.
The Full-Story at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18177
I got this message from www.democrats.com this morning. This is an example of what real activists do, not poseurs. Go out and do something creative and tangible like this, or do a blog, network with people on the internet, and if you're one of the comfortable-ones, it's on you even more so to do these things and to give until it hurts to these groups. Quit fooling-yourselves, you're not accomplishing anything by your silly little games. Either go out and do something like this, or shut-up, because talk is cheap. Tired of you people and your mealy-mouthed B.S.--put-up, or shut-up, but stop insulting everyone's intelligence with your self-delusions. Get out there and do something real. I've put my ass on-the-line before (death-threats and all), so why are you so cowardly? Do it. Now.
The Full-Story at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18177
Monday, February 05, 2007
Yet Another Reflection on Our Site Meter, And the Importance of the Internet
J-7--I was just casually perusing the site meter and noticed yet-another guest from Washington D.C. : it was the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate! Of course, he didn't even stay, but he found the headline in a search. Yes-yes, it would be better if I was outside freezing with other people tonight at a protest, I know. It would feel "powerful" and I'd "feel better" (about what exactly?). But would I reach as many people? Not in the detail I can here. Unlike the more-liberal-than-thou who can readily fly or drive to D.C., or to whatever boffo demonstration/inaction, I'm broke and busy.
Right now, I'm self-employed, but there are still demands that are similar to those of any workplace. The majority of Americans have neither the time, money, or even the inclination to go to a demonstration with vaporous results. I'd say that about the blogs, but they get more mention on the evening news and the mainstream press because they're having a tangible-effect. This isn't to say that protests are obsolete, but thinking they are the paramount approach, eclipsing all-others is. "But, those congressional staffers just mass-delete emails, you have to call or write them." How do you know?
This is also an obsolete contention that was maybe valid four years ago. The internet is having an effect on politicians, and Americans can now tell everyone what they think. This is an incredible breakthrough in democracy, a countervailing trend--but not everyone on the left likes democratic participation anymore than those on the right. Seriously: one can sign petitions that are collated from the internet by PACs and other internet/real world activists, then have it introduced into the congressional record! In the last two-years, I have signed more petitions than in my entire life before the advent of mass-access to the internet and email.
There isn't anything comparable to the ease in this, especially for hard-pressed families who don't have the money to travel their one week off a year to...what? It's a circular-argument to say that the internet is useless, and it's not credible. Many of the new protests were actually announced through this medium, and again, look at the great example that the anti-globalization movement have provided. Most of these folks know each other because of the internet, and have even displayed some real solidarity when things got hot. They even traded notes on how the cops in a given city were going to behave.
Should they have: a) boarded a plane, so that some bourgies could be pleased everyone met face-to-face, and b) lose their jobs or be broke so someone with an faulty-opinion could "feel better." People who go on and on about how essential protests are on thin-ice. You're a bourgie who feels guilty that you're going to wear that collar and suit that constricts the flow of blood to your brain. It's inevitable, you will sell-out, and you can't bear it. Maybe it's already too late, but it strikes me that those who put down the power of the blogs and the internet have a lot of proving to do. But maybe, some of you are just angry you cannot control something that's so diffuse, and yet, has become fairly focused and powerful (like a clenched-fist). It is a new political force that favors progressive politics as its theme, and it's not hierarchal (no "leaders"). In my opinion, this is why you intuitively dislike or disregard it.
The blogs and the internet are new social forces we're all going to have to get-used-to. We might also have to accept that isolation originates more from the unreasonable demands of the workplace, while other aspects of it are simply terminal to this era of modernity. This is a trend that is unlikely to end in our lifetimes, regardless of how much we attempt to reach-out--if the time and money aren't there, it's not going to happen. That's a matter of class, and it bothers those who are control freaks. Plenty of those on the so-called "Left". They don't feel so special anymore, or they're too young (and bourgeois) to remember how tough it was to inform people before the internet. Get edumacated, this is the new "ferment of ideas", and you're thinkin' dowdy! ;0)
PS: And this week, I had a post by a gentleman from Arkansas who knew the West Memphis 3 before the murders at Robin Hood Hills! Check the piece down the page on John Mark Byers, he's in the comments section. I guess we should have written a letter on parchment , each other so someone could "feel better." Maybe I should have flown to Arkansas instead of sending an email? Great, you pay for it, asshole. Right, I thought so. Talk is cheap.
WM3 Piece: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2007/01/john-mark-byers-and-west-memphis-3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)