War Funding Vote today.

The House votes today on the extra special off-budget 'emergency' funding for the Afghan war.

What really should be happening is that we should be gathered around the Capital in our millions, demanding that these billions be spent instead on unemployment benefits and economic stimulus that would benefit American citizens.

But since we're not that smart or that active, we should at least be bombarding every Congresspersons office with our phone calls and emails. Here's a link to a site begging 21 so-called 'progressive' Congresspeople to actually vote like they talk. And contact your own Representative. The Capital Hill switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

And, don't be fooled by the Democrats' trickery with fake votes and half votes and the like. Just wait until the dust is settled, then look to see if the war is funded or not funded. If at the end of the day the war is funded, then you know the Democrats support this war (again). That will be the clear sign that this is the Democrat's war and that a vote this fall for the Democrats is a vote for more and more and more war.

You've seen the Collateral Murder video (if not, scroll down to embedded player below).  Today you get to find out if the Democratic majority in the House spends more of your money to keep that happening again and again.   Or if they stand and say no more by stopping the money that pays for the war.

Corruption

Judge owned stock in drilling firm directly affected by moratorium he overturned from Yahoo News.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who overturned an offshore-drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration in the wake of the Gulf-spill crisis, owned stock in a drilling corporation that was, in the company's own words, "suffer[ing]" because of the ban.

C'mon man.  You got to be kidding me.

Should be interesting to watch.  Does this crooked ban that's endangering American security and safety get overturned?  Does the judge get any sort of penalty for his conflict of interest in this case?  Wouldn't bet in favor of either one in today's corrupt America.  Instead, this just sounds like business as usual.

Surely the name of the judge should have raised a few eyebrows during his confirmation?

The Images Israel Didn’t Want Seen: Video and Photographs from the Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla

The Images Israel Didn’t Want Seen: Video and Photographs from the Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla from Democracy Now!

15 minutes of video shot from onboard the Gaza Flotilla ships and smuggled somehow past the Israelis who've confiscated the film from all the other cameras you see in the video. Follow the link above to more, including a 5 min version of this footage, images taken from the ships, and interviews with the people who took this images and video.

Police lies versus reality at G-20 summit

Also, a Democracy Now! interview with this journalist.

More random West

Since picking a page at random from Dr. West's writings worked so well yesterday, I thought I'd try it again. In this section, he's talking about Du Bois' idea of a 'talented tenth'.

Regarding the intellectual defects of Du Bois' noble endeavor: First, he assumes that highbrow culture is inherently humanizing, and that exposure and immersion in great works produce good people. Yet, we have little reason to believe that people who delight in the works of geniuses like Mozart and Beethoven or Goethe or Wordsworth are any more or less humane than those who dance in the barnyards to the banjo plucking of nameless rural folk in Tennessee.

Well, this writer started off dancing to banjo picking in Tennessee. And in fact, when I lived back east, my favorite way to spend a weekend was to go back up to the mountains and find a bluegrass festival. And I did it not only for the fine music, which was very fine indeed, especially if one accepts American improvisational concepts that come from jazz and blues as being as fine an art form as the prepared playing of the classics by an orchestra.

But mostly, I went for the people. Go to a bluegrass festival, especially the ones the hippy kids hang out at, and you are likely to meet the kindest, gentlest and most peaceful people you'll ever meet. You could pick a random spot to plop a tent down for the weekend, and almost always be camping near kind people who would become great friends before the weekend was done.

If the people dancing to banjo plucking at these music festivals ran the world, we'd have no wars, and we'd all live in a much kinder and just world.

Is Advice From the IMF Better Than Advice From a Drunk on the Street?

Is Advice From the IMF Better Than Advice From a Drunk on the Street? by Dean Baker.

If a track record of accurate predictions is a guide to the usefulness of a writer, then Dean Baker is one of the more useful economists around. He was predicting the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic problems while the CNN and CNBC cheerleaders were telling us all how wonderful the economy was.

Oh, and while the IMF wasn't predicting this either ...

Where was the IMF when the housing bubble in the United States and elsewhere was inflating to ever more dangerous levels? Was it frantically yelling at governments to rein in the bubbles before they burst with disastrous consequences? After all, what could possibly have been more important than warning of the dangers of these bubbles?

It was easy to both recognize the housing bubbles and that their collapse would have devastating consequences for the economy. Economies don’t adjust easily to a loss of wealth that in some cases exceeded 50 percent of GDP.

Real economists know this, but apparently the folks at the IMF did not, or if they did, they didn’t think it was worth saying anything. One will look in vain through IMF publications during the buildup of the housing bubble for serious warnings of the potential dangers.

And as to the question Mr. Baker poses today, I think I'd gladly prefer the advice of a drunk off the street. After all, the drunk off the street is far more likely to be aware of the problems that us non-bankers might be experiencing, while the IMF is certain to be pushing whatever the bankers want today.

The impact of most of its proposals will be to reduce the benefits received by ordinary workers. The proposed changes in labor market regulations will likely also weaken workers’ bargaining power, leading to cuts in wages. Furthermore, the reduction in demand caused by the turn to austerity will leave millions more out of work, both depriving these workers of income and further weakening the bargaining power of those who still have jobs.

Yep, the drunk on the street is definitely going to have better ideas than that.

Oh, and for those who don't know what the kids in the street of Toronto are protesting, this is it. They are protesting these austerity measures. They are the ones trying to convince the world that these 'austerity' measures are a very bad idea for most of us.

Honduras, One year after the coup

Honduras, After Democracy by Bill Quigley.

Since what's been going on in Honduras after the coup is largely blacked out in America, this is a useful article to read.

I do think Mr. Quigley goes too lightly on Obama when he says ....

A leadership vacuum in the Obama Administration regarding Honduras has led to extreme right-wing ideologues directing US policy there. These people are hell bent on stopping the growing populist movements throughout Latin America from gaining more influence and power. Some, such as Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, have moved from positions in the State Department and United Nations into private lobbying firms or conservative think tanks. Others, such as Robert Carmona-Borjas, who was granted asylum in the US after his involvement in the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez, are working for so-called NGOs that use vague missions such as “anti-corruption” to mask the foreign policy work they do.

From the American left, there seems to be a fundamental unwillingness to accept Obama's real role in the coup. There is not some mysterious 'leadership vacuum' that's mysteriously allowed right-wingers to control US foreign policy. The very best you can say about Obama is that he's deliberately created this 'vaccum' because he wants right-wing policies in effect. But even that is letting Obama off lightly, because in my opinion he's supported and backed this coup from the beginning. There's only one statement from his administration right after the coup to the contrary. And by now, surely everyone is learning not to trust what Obama says.

First, the left apparently was never willing to acknowledge that Obama has constantly attacked Chavez just like the rest of right-wing rhetoric. A quick google search found this item from Talk Left. This is an Obama quote from 2008.

[D]emagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum [of a failed US Latin America policy.] His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past.

Note carefully also the way Obama characterized Bush's 'failure' south of the border. This was a constant Obama campaign theme, and it essentially said that the growing signs of independent democracies in South America was a sign of a foreign policy failure by Bush. And the unspoken part of this is that he's saying in 2008 that he'll fix Bush's 'failures' in South America. Presumably by trying to roll back this democracy movement that we see in places like Venezuela and Bolivia.

Then, in Obama's first year, a democratically elected President who's somewhat allied with Chavez gets overthrown in a coup. Yet, the lefties in the US still have such blinders on about who Obama is and what he's really doing that they write these bizarre theories about mysterious "leadership vacuums" that somehow let the American right wing mysteriously do exactly what Obama was saying that he'd do before the election. The left seems incapable of realizing that this was really Obama's policy.

The first step towards solving a problem is to correctly understand the problem. The fact that the left in this country can not see that it was Obama who approved and staged the coup against Honduras' democratically elected President is quite worrying. Because it means there's no solution to this anytime soon when people go to such great lengths to see mysterious vacuums instead of the real problems.

I hope the people of Honduras aren't waiting for help from us. Because even the people who should be their supporters in America have such blinders on concerning Obama that they simply can't see that its their great progressive leader who is the problem.

The American left could maybe ask Honduras' deposed president what he thinks.

"What we suspected at the beginning has now been confirmed. The United States was behind the coup."

See Also: Democracy Now! segment One Year After Coup, Honduras Repression Continues

Pragmatic pragmatism

Picked up a book, and flipped to a random page, and thus was reading this from Dr. Cornell West, from 1989 ...

"Prophetic pragmatism worships at no ideological alters. It condemns oppression anywhere and everywhere, be it the brutal butchery of Third World dictators, the regimentation and repressions of peoples in the Soviet Union, or the racism, patriarchy, homophobia and economic injustice of the First World capitalist nations.

In this way, the precious ideals of individuality and democracy of prophetic pragmatism oppose all those power structures that lack public accountability, be they headed by military generals, bureaucratic party bosses, or corporate tycoons.

Nor is prophetic pragmatism confined to any preordained historical agent, such as the working class, black people, or women. Rather, it invites all people of goodwill, both here and abroad to fight for an Emersonian culture of creative democracy in which the plight of the wretched of the earth is alleviated."

Kinsey for Senate

In Colorado, we are lucky to have a voice for peace and real change on the ballot for US Senator ... Bob Kinsey.

This is Bob speaking at the Hands Across the Sands event in Denver on June 26.



If you live in Colorado, support Bob. Visit his website at kinseyforsenate.org

If you don't live in Colorado, find out who's on your ballot. Since we will only win with grassroots power, you can't wait until election day. You have to get involved now if you want real change.

Get Involved!

This is from a local Denver Green Party effort. The local Green Party is doing a cable access TV show, and a few weeks ago picked the Gaza Flotilla attack as the topic.

Its a fascinating discussion, well worth listening too.
Don't laugh too much at the editing ... this was my first try at that. :)


If you're reading this in Denver, come get involved. If you are reading this somewhere else, then look around, the same might be happening near you. Or if not, you can start it. The technology to do make a video is within everyone's grasp.

In Denver, we are fortunate to have Denver Open Media, as a collective to purchase some good gear and provide some nice studio space. But, even without that, a video can be made these days with home video gear and editing on a home computer.

Time to arrest all Americans

Two stories currently in the news lead to this statement.

Supreme Court upholds terrorism support law This is the law that outlaws any support of any kind to a 'terrorist' organization. Even advice on non-violent conflict resolution is subject to charges under this law.

Probe: US Tax Dollars May Be Funding Taliban In order to truck supplies through Afghanistan, US military contractors are paying protection money to the Taliban. $2 million to $4 million a week. Undoubtedly these costs are being passed along by charging higher rates, and thus eventually paid for by the US tax payer.

Put these two together, and its now clear that every US tax payer is now guilty of providing support to a terrorist organization. We've all paid taxes, and a portion of those taxes have been used to fund the Taliban. I'd say that prison building is about to become a huge growth industry, even more than before, but I'm not sure who will be building these since we'll all be inside the wire.

Maybe we can cut a deal pleading ignorance as to what our taxes were used for. But it occurs to me that this is only possible until the next election. Because on the next election day, we can vote to continue these same Bush/Obama policies on the Afghan war.

Or we can vote for candidates who will do something different. Like get us the heck out of there so we can stop paying protection money to Osama Bin Laden's friends in the Taliban.

Wikileaks video - "Collateral Murder"

Here's the Wikileaks video, "Collateral Murder", of the shooting of the Reuters employees (and about 10 others, including children) in Iraq.  It opens with an appropriate Orwell quote

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearence of solidity to pure wind" - George Orwell

What struck me about this video is that the horror just keeps getting worse. You think you've seen the worst of it, and that the rest of the video will just wind down. But then decision after decision just keeps making this even more horrific.

Wikileaks deserves support.

We're Number 1!!!!!!!!

Three Charts to Break Your Heart from Reason Magazine  ======================== Yes folks, we did it. We stayed number one. Russia is pushing us hard for world domination, but we managed to stay ahead and keep our number one ranking.

Sorry, Russia isn't on that chart.  Only the pikers like the Mexicans and the Turks who run country club prisons.   And everyone knows that Sweden is just run by the crime lords.  No, you'll find our slim lead over Russia on this next chart.  As you can see, we've got to be throwing more of our citizens into prison every day just to keep our vital lead in the prison race over Russia.

Of course, we don't do this just for fun, right?  We do this because we have to do it. We have to protect ourselves from dangerous criminals.  Only by locking away those who would rape and murder and steal can we all be safe.  Obviously, all these police we've hired and the arrests we've made and the courts we've packed with former prosecutors as judges and all the prison's we've built have made a big impact on crime, right?

The bump in the crime wave in the early 90's was largely demographics, and the decrease since probably has to do with more of the population becoming aging baby-boomers.  Anyways, one can easily see that we used to have basically the same crime rates in 1974 with only about 1/10th as many of our citizens in prison.

But hey, we've got to do it. We've got to keep locking up our citizens because if we don't the Russians and maybe even the Rwandans might catch us and no longer will be able to point our foam fingers proudly in the air and scream that we're number one!

Unless you're a fan of freedom.  If you think America stands for freedom, these charts say we're dead last.

What's the big deal?

One Year After Cairo, Obama's Speech: Promises Made; Promises Unkept By ESAM AL-AMIN

Yes, folks, it was one year ago that Obama was making his famous speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. One year later, VP Joe Biden is saying "What's the big deal?" about Israel machine gunning 70 unarmed activists on a humanitarian aid mission.

There's a scorecard in the article. Obama's 0 for 10 in keeping the promises he made in that speech.

This is the problem with Obama. He speaks wonderful words sometimes. But he doesn't mean them. You judge where someone is by their actions, and look at Obama supporting Israeli piracy and murder.

Obama speaks wonderful words. Just don't listen to them. Or, if you listen to enjoy the craft of his excellent speechwriters, then fine. Just don't believe them.

American shot 4 times to the head

American, 19, Among Gaza Flotilla Dead from ABC.

A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency.

Shot at close range, with four bullets to the head and one in his chest. Anyone who's ever watched anything from "CSI" to "Law and Order" to "The Sopranos" knows that's an assassin's kill. One to the heart, one to the head, from close range of course, that's the classic assassin's kill. Maybe the Criminal Minds at the BAU would tell us that the 4 to the head instead was a sign of rage towards the victim. Or maybe it was an young Israeli assassin's first kill, and he just got over excited and wasted bullets?

People who are defending themselves in a fight don't usually take the time to aim at the head. Its a smaller target than the body, and if someone is attacking you, what you want to do is stop them. So you aim for the big target. If you deliberately try a head shot and miss, the attacker might be on top of you.

Its very unlikely that a killing in self defense involved four shots to the head. What, the first three didn't stop him so the soldier had to fire a fourth time?

And look at the overall numbers. 19 dead, 60 wounded. That's not an accident. That's not somebody struggling for a gun and getting hurt. That's people opening fire on a crowd of unarmed people with a machine gun. Or multiple people firing with multiple machine guns. The typical American gun nut in a mall usually can't rack up scores that high, so this is most likely multiple people with machine guns firing into a crowd.

There are huge holes in Israel's story that any thinking person can see.

But don't expect it to get any better .... the official investigation of this is left to the Israelis. Now there's a deal even Tony Soprano could never get. Being named the head investigator on one of his own hits.

PS ... note how the early testimony from eye-witnesses, such as below, and which was denied by Israel's apologists, now turns out to be true once Israel can no longer hide at least some of the evidence ... his body.

Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."

Gaza flotilla raid: 'We heard gunfire – then our ship turned into lake of blood' from the Guardian(UK).

Israel tried to control the story for a day by detaining these people. But, now they've been released and its becoming possible to hear eye-witness accounts of the raid. You really should go read this .... and its ok to cry.

"I can promise there was not a single weapon aboard the ships," he told a reporter who was returning to Sweden with him after the writer had been deported by Israel.

and

Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker who was also on the Mavi Marmara, claimed the Israeli troops had invaded the ship after cutting all communications and "started shooting at people". She spoke to Brazil's TV Globo from the prison in southern Israel where an estimated 600 foreign activists, including around 40 Britons, were being held. Israeli officials said tonight that they would all be freed immediately.

Lee said: "[The attack] was a surprise, because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters. Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked. All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people."

She said the commandos then sent the women to a lower level of the ship.

"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war. They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."

"We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. "Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. Many people were murdered – it was unimaginable."

To hear that she expected to be shot in the legs is horrifying. Shooting in the air to do a Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonation and scare people is one thing, but just shooting people in the legs for the heck of it, that makes me shudder. Then, the true horror comes as you read on and realize that this is just setting up that they were directly shooting people in the heads instead.

Of course the fact that the Israelis were deliberately shooting at the heads of their victims will not surprise anyone in Gaza.

There's more than that ... follow the link. I can't copy any more of it right now.

What my Congressperson really thinks.

This is the bottom left corner of my Congressperson's web page.

The message seems rather unmistakable.

Felony Murder

The Flotilla Massacre - Israeli Commandos Fired Unprovoked Into Sleeping Civilians: Eyewitnesses By Nafeez Ahmed

Then, the following shocking account at 6:30 yesterday morning, from Greta Berlin - an account which not only explains why whatever the crew of peace activists did, they were doing it in self-defence, amidst an unfolding massacre:

Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck. They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep... Streaming video shows the Israeli soldiers shooting at civilians, and our last SPOT beacon said, "HELP, we are being contacted by the Israelis."

Of course, I have no idea what happened out in the Med. I wasn't there. But, since major corporations will be blasting the Israeli version of events at you a thousand times today, I thought I'd post what the other side is saying.

If they were shooting the moment they hit the deck, which the Israelis deny, then that's premeditated murder.

I'd love to get a CSI team on that ship. What do the gunshot patterns look like? Do they look like they were fired by someone descending on a rope from a helicopter? Do the locations of the gunshot impacts agree with the stories of struggles with the passengers? Or do they look like someone who'd just hit the deck opened fire?

Israel is denying all access to the ship, and to any videos or pictures that they don't release? It seems as if the last thing they want is to have any of these questions answered.

If someone dies when you commit a crime, that's felony murder. The boarding was definitely a crime. It was a ship of unarmed people and building supplies who'd been videoed ever since they'd assembled. It was 40 miles off the coast. There is no claim of Israeli self defense because Israel was under no immediate threat from a floating pile of lumber forty miles off its coast.

If someone commits armed robbery, and if the victim struggles for the gun and it goes off, the robber is still held responsible. It doesn't matter who struggled or who resisted. These are not justifications of murder.

No US court would accept from a defendant the claim that he had to kill a jewelry store clerk in self defense because he resisted his attempt at armed robbery. There is no reason to accept this from Israel.

Self Defense

Israel claims a right to attack for its own self-defense. Israel make ridiculously large claims of self-defense, which basically amount to a right to attack anyone in the world at any time if the Israelis on their own decide to do so.

The latest example was of course the attacks on ships trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Israel claims the right to attack peaceful people on ships carrying building supplies, medicines, food and children toys as act of self-defense.

Any legitimate right is available to everyone. This is one of the basic principles of freedom. So, the flaw in Israel's claims quickly becomes obvious when they deny any right to self defense to anyone else.

For instance, think of the people who are ships peacefully sailing in international waters. Do they have a right to self-defense? In Israel's mind, none at all. Because as you read Israeli statements, they justify the murder of 16 or so people and the wounding of 60 more because the people on the ship gave the feeblest of resistance when suddenly attacked at night in the dark by Israeli commandos.

In Israel's mind, they have the right to attack anyone in the world and call it self-defense. And no one in the world has any right to ever defend itself against an Israeli attack.

This is of course insanity. Its an armed and violent insanity from people with nuclear weapons. An nuclear armed Israel that produces this sort of deranged reasoning to justify its constant violence against anyone around it seems a much greater threat to world security than any Iranian bomb. There's only speculation that Iran might use such a weapon, while Israel leaves stacks of dead bodies wherever it turns its evil gaze.

The UN should be debating sanctions. But they've got the wrong country. The UN should be debating sanctions against Israel. We as Americans need to change our government for that to occur.

At the very least, Americans should be demanding a government that does not put the interests of a foreign country ahead of its own. There is no American interest in backing a vicious country that just killed a bunch of people on a humanitarian mission. In fact, doing so puts America in a much worse position in the world and puts the lives of Americans in greater danger of some sort of blowback attacks.

We as Americans must insist that our leaders look out for the interests of our country first. Any politician who says they support Israel should be removed from office. If they want a seat in the Knesset, let them go try to get one. If they want to keep their seat in the American Congress, then they had better start looking out for American interests.

And at the very least, with a crashing economy and spiraling deficits, its very clear that America can not afford the $5 billion or more of aid we give Israel every year. We need that money for Americans. Its time to look out for ourselves, and to tell Israel that they are on their own.

Candlelight vigils?

I think we should be holding candlelight vigils for the slain over the next few nights.

We should start tonight. But we should also be organizing and getting word out that we'll do this for the next few nights. Give them time to grow.

I've got an image of millions of people around the world expressing their revulsion at these acts by standing vigil with a candle for the fallen.

We got 30,000,000 out in protest against the Iraq War in 2002. Can we get that many out in candlelight vigils around the world the next few nights? What would that look like? I know I'd like to find out.

Emergency Protest against Israeli murders

If you are reading this in Denver, CO, there's an emergency protest outside the Denver Post. Email said starts at 11, didn't give an ending time.

If you are somewhere else, look around. Bet there's one in your area. Or maybe you need to start one?

To me, this was a murderous attack on people who were only bringing humanitarian supplies to desperate people. I happen to admire people willing to do that. And I'm horrified at their murder. Are we going to let this pass in silence?

If there are no Israeli government institutions in your area, targeting the local corporate media is a good idea. Be willing to bet that your local paper is reporting this like the Denver Post ... ie ...long statements direct from Israeli officials giving their justifications ... then maybe down near the end of the piece you might find a paragraph that says 'activists disagree'. In other words, they are directly pushing out the Israeli version of these events.

Which makes them accessories after the fact to the murder of humanitarians, and certainly worthy of a crowd of people with signs outside protesting their involvement.

OMG -- Israelis Murder 16 on Aid Boats.

Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet

Israeli forces have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships aiming to break the country's siege on Gaza.

Up to 16 people were killed and dozens injured when troops stormed the Freedom Flotilla early on Monday, the Israeli Army Radio said

The Israelis have now murdered 16 people who's only crime was to try to bring aid to people Israel wants to torture. Anyone could see from videos that the people on these boats were peaceful civilians. Instead, the Israelis storm the ships firing live ammunition. 16 dead.

When does the world say enough? When do Americans decide that we no longer support these murderers with $5 to $10 billion a year of our tax money? Why are we funding murderers and not jobs for Americans?

Obama's legacy

Sometimes life has a way of intervening while one is making other plans.

Obama didn't plan for his legacy to be the world's worst oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  But it is indeed his legacy.  I'm sure he'll try to duck it.  But this is Obama's oil spill.


 Obama has been in office for a year and half.  If he'd wanted to change policies on off-shore drilling, he had time to do so. For instance, a President could well have called for a moratorium if they felt safety issues needed to be reviewed.  In fact, we know Obama knows that he could change policies if he wants to, because he's in the process of doing so .... to expand offshore drilling in the Gulf.

How many Obamabots realized last election that they were voting for "Drill, Baby, Drill"?  The key is to learn the lesson from it.

 Visual aids help, so here's some pictures of Obama's legacy. This is what happens when you tie yourself closely to the oil companies and what they want, and forget about what's good for the country as a whole and the people who aren't BP executives.

Dixie

Every once in awhile, I miss the south. For a few seconds, then it passes.

I'm assuming this picture is from the south. It just feels like 'back home' to me. Somehow this just feels like a southern thing to this old boy who's now so very, very happy to live far, far away from the nearest Ammo Barbecue.

An Obey for All Seasons

Ray McGovern has an outstanding open letter to Rep. Obey out on the internet. Very good read, and not too long. You really should click that link and take the minute or two to read it.

There is a bigger picture here. Every time I hear of Mr. Obey, I hear of his progressive past. I hear of the causes he used to fight for. From the Democrat propagandists, this is a part of their image creation. The modern Democratic leader apparently needs a faux-progressive image. But even the more lefty writers always refer to it. Unfortunately, its completely irrelevant.

At some point in my youth, I saw the film of "A Man for All Seasons". Its the story of Thomas More, who was Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy. Henry was having his constant problems with the church, so when an opportunity presented itself, he made his drinking buddy the Archbishop of Canterbury. Problem solved, right? Not quite. Because when More takes up the office, he realizes that he takes up its role in the system. He opposes the King, only to be assassinated.

This is a story of someone taking on a more heroic role by taking on an office. Of a man who does something noble when he probably would not have done so had he stayed merely the King's drinking buddy. With today's Democrats, you see just the opposite. Not only Mr. Obey, but other top leaders in today's Democrat Congress used to be very progressive liberals. Heck, Speaker Pelosi herself used to be a liberal back-bencher, and still represents one of the most left-wing districts in the country in the heart of San Francisco.

But, these people have taken on their offices and they serve the role of that office in today's affairs. Who they used to be is rather irrelevant. Just as the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury used to be Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy ended up being irrelevant to their relations.

The leadership of the Democratic party serves big money. Period. That's it. Nothing else matters. The key thing to realize is that if they didn't, they would not hold that office. To get the office, they had to swear off their earlier lefty views. I don't know if they hold some secret skull-and-bones-like ceremony where the candidates are forced kneel in their underwear and forswear their lefty past. I kinda doubt it. But the image is a good symbolism of what must occur.

If Chairman Obey did not at some point let it be known that he would be a perfect servant of big money, he would not be in his position of chairing the most powerful committee in the Congress. If Speaker Pelosi did not at some point let it be known that she would be a perfect servant of big money, then she would not be the Speaker of the House.

What they used to say, even if they used to believe it, does not matter today. We have to see them as the people that they are today, executing the offices that they hold today.

Sir Thomas More: I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

The really sad thing is that both Obey and Pelosi represent very progressive left wing districts. These are the districts that should be sending our fighters to the Congress. These are the districts that should be the bastions of fire-brand lefties who put forth our views and fight the fights that must be fought. Instead, two total sell-outs to war and corporate profits hold these two seats.

These two districts are important to our cause. These are strategically important districts because they should give us relatively safe lefty seats. They should give us safe seats which can embolden politicians to speak out on lefty issues, knowing that the people of their districts support them. These representatives from these districts should be our warriors and our champions, they should be our spokespeople and our leaders. They should be the loudest voices putting forth what we believe and what we care about. That the representatives of these districts are instead the very people shepherding war funding through the Congress is our major blow to our cause. Not only because the wars continue, but because of the the silence that results from the progressive voters in these districts not being represented in this Congress.

If the left has any strategic sense at all, it has to try to win these two seats back. Strong independent campaigns in these two districts, with massive grassroots support, should be in there trying to win those seats. Not campaigns for show or for public education. Real, serious, play-to-win campaigns. And if the left in this country can only muster a few thousand volunteers to go door to door, then these are the two seats that should be the targets of whatever puny efforts we can muster politically these days.

We need these seats for our voices to be heard. A very pleasant side effect is that a lefty political rebellion that took out either the Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Ways and Means committee would be a shot heard round the world for lefty politics.

Cromwell: I have evidence that Sir Thomas, while he was a judge, accepted bribes.
The Duke of Norfolk: What? Goddammit, he was the only judge since Cato who didn't accept bribes! When was there last a Chancellor whose possessions after three years in office totaled one hundred pounds and a gold chain?

When was the last time we had a Speaker who wasn't rich?

Blind, Dumb, Invisible Hand

Why "markets" should not be allowed to rule the world. Or probably shouldn't even be allowed to choose the local dog-catcher.

From The Eurozone's Self-Inflicted Crisis by Mark Weisbrot.

To make it worse, “the markets” can’t seem to decide what they want from these governments in order to love them again. Two weeks ago the Euro was plummeting because the financial markets wanted more blood: they wanted Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the other currently victimized countries of Europe (Italy and Ireland) to commit to more spending cuts and tax increases. Then they got what they wanted, and within a day or two, the Euro started crashing again because “the markets” discovered that these pro-cyclical policies would actually make things worse in the countries that adopted them, and reduce growth in the whole Eurozone.

Duh!

Who's bright idea was it to put "markets" in charge? Markets are probably useful things as a means of enabling trade. I kinda like that I can buy something with money instead of trying to acquire the two chickens and a health insurance policy that my auto mechanic might otherwise request.

But promoting "markets" from a useful tool to the supreme arbiter of all human affairs was obviously a really stupid idea.

Gary Swing - Green Party - CO -1

The Coalition Against War Spending has issued a call against more war funding and asked for support for this statement.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether.

At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars.

It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home.

There is a list of Congresspeople and candidates who have endorsed this position. Go look to see if there's one in your district.

There is in mine ... CO -1, Denver, CO
Gary Swing, Green Party endorsed with this statement.

"I endorse your statement, though I would change the word 'our' to 'American' or 'U.S.' I don't have any troops. If I did, they certainly wouldn't be killing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I support an end to all foreign wars, a permanent ban on the stationing or deployment of U.S. troops outside of U.S. territory, closure of all overseas bases, prosecution of American war criminals, and transition to non-offensive national defense of U.S. territory."

The Democratic incumbent for this district, Dianne DeGette has not endorsed. And she has not opposed funding for the Afghan war. When back in her very liberal district, she talks like she opposes these wars. But, she never does anything about it. And when the war funding needs a vote, she's been a ready vote for the Democratic leadership in favor of escalating the Afghan war. She certainly wouldn't endorse this statement, and she'd never really oppose war funding and mean it and stick with it.

This is her statement on the latest 'New Afghanistan policy' from her congressional website.

“I am pleased that President Obama has laid out a clear strategy to end the war in Afghanistan. It is in our national security interest to stabilize the country and prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist activity. Accelerating the recruitment and training of Afghan security forces will allow Kabul to take control and responsibility for its own security more quickly. Unfortunately, these goals were long-delayed when the previous Administration was distracted by a war in Iraq.

“Before I agree to support funding the President’s increased troop levels in the 2011 budget, I will closely examine the efficacy of his plan to ensure that it is stabilizing Afghanistan, and preparing the country to defend itself.”

She tries to talk anti-war, but the key to the statement is her support for the war in Afghanistan and more war funding. Only conditioned by her review to make sure that we are efficiently killing the people of Afghanistan.

This picture probably looks like a lot of other districts. A Democrat faux-liberal that talks lefty but is really a sure vote for war money when they need it. But there are usually other names on the ballot that might take a different position. If people really want the wars to end, its time to abandon the fake-Democrats who won't end them, and to instead vote for the candidates that say they really will go to Congress and vote to end these wars.

This is the key question. The writers of the Constitution put the power of the purse in the hands of Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. If someone asked them today how to end these wars, they would simply point out that they gave the Congress the power to end any such war by making sure that the Congress had control of the money.

Do you want a vote for more war money in Congress? Or do you want a vote for no more war money in Congress? The choice is likely clearly before you on the fall ballot. And if it isn't, maybe its time to get a campaign started where you live and make sure there is a solid vote against the war on the ballot in every district in this country.

Lexicalist - Peace and War

Progressive Review had a link to an interesting web site called Lexicalist.

This website monitors a lot of blogs and other 'chatter' on the internet, and then can report back on the how often words are used. Somehow this only focuses on America.

For example, I typed in "Peace" and "War"

Peace
Words per time used ..... 1 in 12,456
increasing / decreasing ..... same as last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines steadily with age
highest gender ..... male (51.1%)
highest state ..... N.Dakota (7.9%)


War
Words per time used ..... 1 in 10,492
increasing / decreasing ..... 17% more than last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines more steeply with age than "Peace"
highest gender ..... male (67.0%)
highest state ..... W.Virginia (4.9%)

Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace,

Hello Mr. Taliban

Interesting nugget from the CIA worldfactbook web page on Afghanistan.

The population of Afghanistan as decreased by 4,000,000 people since Dr. Brezizenski started the war with the Soviet Union there.

There are 4,000,000 fewer people in Afghanistan today. Wow!

All these wars might be good for some people in Moscow and Washington, but they sure as heck aren't good for the people of Afghanistan.

BTW, since Afghanistan is now part of the US empire, they get to have a census this summer. I wonder if they are just going to let each regional warlord report how many people he rules so he gets that much of the US money that flows into the central government. Or, if they are going to have Afghan census workers knocking on the doors and saying "Hello Mr. Taliban, I'm with the Afghan government and we'd like to ask you a few questions verifying your numbers and your consumer preferences."

Check for your nearest lifeboat

Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix By Pepe Escobar

Pepe Escobar is usually an interesting writer. And one who's far too unread in the US. Today, he's striking an eerily similar theme to my recent posts, but on a completely different topic- Iran and sanctions and yet more war.

Of course, at all times remember that this whole debate/crisis is about a nuclear weapons program that Iran supposedly has but about which no one can ever offer any real proof that they have.

Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is one hell of a dominatrix.
...
She framed the drive towards sanctions as "an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days". Wait a minute. Immediately after a genuine - and fruitful - mediation on a very sensitive dossier by two emerging powers - and honest brokers - in the multipolar world, Brazil and Turkey, Washington and its two European Union allies at the Security Council, France and Britain, torpedo it. Is this what passes for global "diplomacy"?

Yep, that's a pretty nice description of American diplomacy these days. A few years ago I went back and read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". Its an interesting read. Especially the chapters on how Hitler 'negotiated' during the crisis over the Rhineland, Austria and Czecoslovakia before WWII began. If you go read a description of those negotiations, don't be surprised if they sound eerily familiar.

And a second thought on this. Do you notice how Clinton as Obama's Secretary of State sounds absolutely identical to Rice as Bush's Secretary of State? Are you getting the change you voted for? Hint, if not, vote for a different party in November.

But back to the parts of Mr. Escobar's piece that caught my eye.

China and Russia pull a Sun Tzu
Ancient Chinese military general, strategist, philosopher and author of The Art of War, Sun Tzu said, "Allow your enemy to make his own mistakes, and don't correct them." China and Russia, both master strategists, are applying this maxim with panache regarding the US.

which, after a description of the details of the current situation with the Security Council, leads to this ...

So we have come to a situation whereby a real, Iran-approved nuclear fuel swap is on the table at the International Atomic Energy Agency while an offensive towards sanctions on Iran is ongoing at the UN. Who is the real "international community" going to trust? Erdogan could not have put it better; "This is the time to discuss whether we believe in the supremacy of law or the law of the supremes and superiors ..."

Most of all, what the developing world sees is the past - US, France, Britain, Germany - fighting against the advance of the future - China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia. The global security architecture - policed by a bunch of fearful, self-appointed Western guardians - is in a coma. The "Atlanticist" West is sinking Titanic-style.

Mr. Escobar sounds about as confident about the long-term future of American diplomacy as I sound about the short to medium term future in Afghanistan. Mainly that its time for anyone in danger to start thinking about grabbing an early spot in the lifeboats. Because you can dang well bet that the people in charge of these disasters haven't provided nearly enough lifeboats.

It gets worse, or better, depending on your point of view.

At a recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, luminary Dr Zbigniew "let's conquer Eurasia" Brzezinski warned that a "global political awakening", along with infighting among the global elite, was something to be deeply feared. The former US national security adviser remarked that "for the first time in all of human history mankind is politically awakened - that's a total new reality - it has not been so for most of human history".

Who do these politically awakened upstarts such as Brazil and Turkey think they are - daring to disturb "our" rule of the world? And then uninformed Americans keep asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" Because, among other reasons, unilateral to the core, Washington does not hesitate to lift its middle finger even to its closest friends.

Who's all for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING? Here, Here! Everyone, all together, three cheers for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING! Whooo - HOOOO! Sounds better than what we got now. At least to a American worker bee who's been told by corporate America that he's no longer needed.

This is a fascinating little nugget buried at the bottom of this story. The first is that this very well-informed and plugged-in strategist of the militarists and corporate elite says that the political awakening HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!

Sitting at the bottom of the US propaganda bubble, its awfully hard some times to tell what's going on. One is constantly blasted with news of their supposed victories, denied any news of defeats unless they can't be hidden, and generally told that the rest of us have lost and that there is no alternative to the mighty power of wall street.

Yet, here's one of their leading strategists saying that the worldwide political awakening has already occurred. What an American leftist can only dream about occuring someday, we are being told that this is a world wide reality.

I suppose Prof. Brzenski thinks that I should view this as bad news. He certainly seems to be presenting it as bad news to his elite audience. But, to view it as bad news, I have to believe a long and complicated threat that says that what's bad for "America" is bad for me, and that what's bad for Exxon or Goldman Sachs or GE or the rest of the mega, originally American corporation, or even a British corporation like BP, is bad for "America".

Therefore, a global challenge of a politically awakened world to the rule by force of the Exxons and GEs and Goldman Sachs and the BPS of the world is supposed to be bad for me. Thus, I am supposed to be willing to hand over all of my money in taxes, and then either go die myself or send my children to go die to make sure that the rule of the world by Exxons and Goldman Sachs of the world can continue uninterrupted.

As a free citizen, I disagree. And I view a globe full of politically awakened people to be a very good thing. The predominant pattern of human history has been dominant leaders using an unawakened world population to fight and work for the enrichment of these elite, dominant leaders. One can only hope that an awakened world would someday stop doing that.

The fascinating thing is that the elites seem to be flailing hopelessly in dealing with all of these challenges. In fact, they seem committed to a course of certain stupidity.

After all, the empire is massing all of its available troops in Afghanistan. And, even then it finds itself so short of fighting strength that it can only manage a desperate hail mary type operation to turn the tide of a war that currently has insurgents attacking the perimeters of the empires major bases. When you can't control a poor country of 29,000,000, does it really seem to be wise to be expanding and escalating a war into a bigger and richer nation of Pakistan (178,000,000 people) and threaten to start a new war with Iran (68,000,000 people with the 17th richest economy in the world).

If you're a bully, perhaps you should take note of the fact that the scrawny, underfed poor kid is giving you a tougher fight than you expected, and not start fights with crowds of bigger kids who are in better shape?

Back to the quote from Sun Tsu. Let your enemies make their own mistakes, then don't correct them.

Every where you look, it starting to look like 'head for the lifeboats' time. And maybe to start thinking about what sort of world we can have after this Titanic finally sinks and the new world of a globally awakened populace takes charge.

More between the lines

Latest news from Afghanistan ....

Taliban admit Kandahar attack from the Independent (UK)

I love the wording of that headline. Like the headline writer expects the Taliban to be ashamed of kicking our rears. They 'admit' it. More likely they jumped up and down and shouted it at the top of their lungs.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for an assault with rockets, mortars and automatic weapons on Kandahar airport, Nato's biggest base in southern Afghanistan, in the third major attack on the military in six days. Several coalition troops and civilian employees were wounded.

This post goes with the one below. So read it as well.

Then, think about Gen. McCrystals quote in that post. And then think about this. The insurgents in Afghanistan have launched three major attacks on NATO/US installations in a week. That's as close as McCrystal is going to get to having the guerrillas come out in the open and fight the battle that a US general who was trained to fight the Soviets in a massive tank battle in central Europe wants.

Three times in the last week, the guerrilla have massed themselves for a major attack on a NATO installation.

The Saturday night attack against Kandahar base was the second ground assault on a major NATO installation this week. Officials said a number of soldiers and civilians were wounded but gave no figures. They said there were no confirmed deaths among the more than 20,000 people who live and work at the base.

Militants unleashed rockets and mortars about 8pm and then tried unsuccessfully to storm the northern perimeter of the base, about 300 miles southwest of Kabul. One of the rockets hit a shop-lined boardwalk where soldiers socialize in the evenings.

Its one thing for guerrillas to sneak up outside a base, fire off a couple of mortar rounds, and then run away before there's a response. You'd think a mighty empire that rules the world could control the perimeter around its massive major bases well enough to stop this, but it still happens.

The key words in that paragraph are how they tried to 'storm the northern perimeter'. Think about that. They are trying to openly launch ground assaults on the perimeter of a major base that holds 20,000 NATO troops and civilians.

Gen. McCrystal? Are you there? You say you want an open battle against the guerrillas. Well, they are at the northern perimeter right now and it looks like they want to come fight you as well.

This is not good for a guerrilla war. When the guerrillas stop hiding in caves and instead come out and openly attack your major bases at the airfields of Kabul and Kandahar, that's usually a sign of the beginning of the end. That's Tet Offensive time, and a sign that our fantasies about convincing the Afghan people to become model western consumer/slaves are coming to an end.

Read between the lines when dealing with propaganda. Especially with military propaganda that comes from a military that openly states it wages information wars and tries to control information. When you hear that the guerrillas who are always described as cowards who are too afraid to fight are instead massing and attacking NATO/US bases with impunity, pay very close attention. This is not news from a victorious army.

Note also how these are becoming NATO bases. Can't tell the US people that US bases are being attacked and in some places captured. So, suddenly the spin machine starts to call them all 'NATO' bases. If this war continues to go downhill, watch how much this becomes a 'NATO' war in the US media.

If they put the US brand on this war, then that says they think they are winning and they want to claim the glory for themselves. That's how Afghanistan was for years. But, when they start to pull the US brand away from this war, that tells you they don't want the brand name tarnished by what's to come.

PS ... if you like observing how the propaganda works, note how this same attack was portrayed in the LA Times. U.S. troops, Afghan police sweep through Taliban stronghold

In the US papers, the attack on a major base of 20,000 soldiers/workers becomes just a minor little footnote in an article that describes yet another victory and successful operation for our brave troops. We actually sent 400 or so troops and police out of their forts into an Afghan town in the daylight. This is a major victory worthy of a major LA Times article ... and the detail that our major base in the area was attacked is reduced to mere footnote.

Hours later, insurgents launched a rocket, mortar and ground attack on the main base used by foreign troops, at Kandahar's air field a few miles east of Kokaran. Explosions wounded several troops and civilian workers, said Capt. Scott Costen, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesman at the base. Costen said he could not provide details on the attack, the number of wounded or any insurgent casualties.

But the attack seemed similar to an insurgent assault Wednesday on the sprawling U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul.

That single sentence 2nd paragraph is weird. It has the smell of a remnant of a larger paragraph that didn't clear the censors. If all the writer wanted to say was that one sentence, then it makes more sense attached to the end of the previous paragraph. I wonder what was cut from that 2nd paragraph?

Funny, other reporters got more details. But in the US, they can't be mentioned apparently. In fact, its highly likely that this LA Times reporter who was out with the troops in the daytime was staying inside this major base of 20,000 people when it was attacked that night. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that this American propaganda artist, who openly walks around with US troops, just checked into a local Taliban bed and breakfast to get a room.

But, we certainly aren't allowed any eyewitness details that he might have experienced. Instead we get the vague excuse from a NATO officer that no more details are available. Meanwhile, the article goes back to the 28 of 30 paragraphs the describe our victorious troops actually out in an Afghan city.

But even in the LA Times, note how they are pulling the US brand away from this. Especially when its a defeat or a setback. Now its just a base housing 'foreign' troops that was attacked, and that its NATO officers that they associate with this base. One would get the impression that this was a completely separate fight, involving few if any US troops, and unconnected with our great victory.

Instead, after a day when 400 soldiers and police, who have to be heavily armed and travel in a large force to even walk the streets, tried to hand out candy bars to win the local hearts and minds, their base was attacked that night with an attack that tried to storm their perimeter.

Yeah, we're winning, right? Its just a lot harder to tell what's going on if you read propaganda organs like the LA Times.

Hail Mary

In American football, a 'hail mary' is a last second and desperate long pass attempt at the end of game by a team that needs to score immediately or else lose the game.

Results of Kandahar offensive may affect future U.S. moves by By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post

The Obama administration's campaign to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's second-largest city is a go-for-broke move that even its authors are unsure will succeed.

The bet is that the Kandahar operation, backed by thousands of U.S. troops and billions of dollars, will break the mystique and morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war and validate the administration's Afghanistan strategy.

There is no Plan B.

That sounds like a classic 'hail mary' to me.

Lets see, how did the trial run for this in the great metropoltian area of Marjan go. The US troops met greater resistance than expected, took control of the area slower than expected. Then, after they did seem (or at least claim) to take control, they had a hard time convincing Afghan officials to go there and take up posts. And at last account most of the villagers still seem sympathetic to what we call the Taliban, and are mainly just keeping their heads down until we leave.

Which will probably be when this offensive meets greater than expected resistance and we proclaim a great victory of the pacification of the greater Marjan metropolitan area and pull the troops from there over to Kandahar.

In a system where you know you don't get honest facts about what is going on, and the military clearly states that they wage media and psychological warfare to control information, you have to read between the lines. When you do that with Afghanistan, the picture is very worrisome.

Our major Bagram airbase outside the capital of Kabul is under attack. Last month I saw another story about a US base occupied by insurgents. Meanwhile, we seem to be launching a desperate hail mary offensive. Since such plays are only called when defeat is imminent, what does that say about the situation in Afghanistan?

The one thing the Pentagon is not short of is people who've studied lots of military strategy. Its easy to think that an inexperienced Obama is launching a bad hail mary offensive that a more experienced military commander would have avoided. But that's not how things work in 21st century America. The US military wouldn't give up a golf course unless they wanted to, much less turn over control of military operations to a civilian. So, this plan is undoubtably coming from those many people in the Pentagon who've studied lots of military strategy.

If those guys and gals are doing that, and they are not dumb, then the war in Afghanistan is much more desperate than it seems.

Given the flood of propaganda that we all get blasted with about our brave and wonderful troops and all the victories that they win, it seems incredible to think that we might be on the verge of losing the Afghan War. But, that's what this plan in Kandahar seems to indicate. Its definitely a 'hail mary' of a military plan.

If you like military strategy, you should read this article. Its hilariously funny. Although I'm certain that this important propaganda writer at one of the American government's lead propaganda organs didn't mean it to be so.

For just one example of many ....

U.S. civilian officials are simultaneously trying to wrest control from local power brokers and to correct imbalances that favor one tribal group. They plan to set up 10 administrative districts, each with a representative council and money to spend.

Since Kandahar is a largely Pashtun city, if they are 'correcting imbalances that favor one tribal group', then these councils aren't going to be very 'representative' of all the Pashtun's who live there.

But that's not as good as ...

"I actually think the U.S. military would love to find an enemy that was dug in on a piece of terrain, that we could establish a D-Day and we could attack with no civilians around," McChrystal said,

Uh, dude, guerrillas have known not to do that since at least "Lawerence of Arabia". And this is from the US military's leading genius on fighting a guerilla war. Or at least the propaganda says that. If that's true and this is what he's saying, then maybe I'll have to take back that part back about the Pentagon having lots of people who know military strategy.

[edit 5-24] ... from the story above. As this was being published, the guerrillas were coming out and offering just such a fixed battle when they tried to launch a ground assault on the perimeter of the Kandahar base housing 20,000 NATO soldiers/workers. There is of course one time when the guerrillas do come out in the open and fight. And that's when they've been building their strength for years and now feel strong enough to come out and fight ... and win. This is the final stage of a guerrilla war, when the guerrillas come out of hiding, show the true numbers that they've recruited, and march to take Saigon or Damascus. Gen. McCrystal might be having one of those times when you are sorry you get what you asked for.

Leaps in Logic

Sometimes, you see the most incredible leaps of logic in order to keep the propaganda line going.

Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report from Reuters.

For instance, spot the leap in logic in this small enclosed space of one sentence.

The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying.

Ok, so they identified the torpedo as being of German orgin. That's the fact part, established by analysis of the explosive traces and metals found.

But, the only conclusion drawn from this is that North Korea must be trying to hide its involvement.

Huh?

Notice also the writing style where they try to connect the fact to the incredible leap of logic as tightly as possible. All in the same sentence with barely even a slight pause and the comma before rushing into the part you aren't supposed to think about very closely. From fact to fantasy without even a pause for breath.

What's obvious about that is that the official being quoted has made up his mind in advance that North Korea did this and he's adjusting his theories as he goes to maintain that conclusion. Ok, the official is an unidentified South Korea official (vaguely sourced quotes are always a indicator of propaganda), so I can maybe understand that attitude from them. But, for a reputable newswire to publish such an unsupported conclusion as the only possibility as to what's occurred? C'mon man.

I'm not saying North Korea didn't do this. Just pointing out that to go from saying the torpedo was from Germany to saying that its obvious that North Korea did this and they are only trying to cover their tracks is an incredible leap of logic.

Don't know what happened out there. But surely there are other possibilities that fit these facts as least as loosely as that theory does.

Now, read the post right below this one and ask this question. Would I be ok here since I've already link to government propaganda in order to show the incredible way logic leaps within it. Or since, I'm being critical of government propaganda, would this Obama 'communications czar' require that I link to still more government propaganda in order to counter-balance my critique of the original propaganda?

Under that proposal, I would of course be required to link to the identical Republican and Democrat statements that say that of course the presence of a German (aka NATO) torpedo indicates North Korean (non-NATO) involvement, and that we need to simultaneously strike North Korea and raise the defense budgets by $100 billion dollars and pay for a new trillion dollar Strategic Torpedo Defense Initiative because of this dastardly deed. And oh yeah, completely give up the last of our freedom because of the horrible threat North Korea poses to our very existence. At least I could try to have fun by searching for the incredibly tiny differences between Democrats and Republicans on an issue like North Korea.

Such a tangled web. Freedom is always much simpler.

Obama's direct attack on free speech

Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites

Disturbing audio has emerged of White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a previous white paper called for banning “conspiracy theories,” demanding that websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.

You will be force fed your government propaganda. If you dare to turn off Faux News or CNN and choose to try to get your news elsewhere, the Obama administration likes the idea of 'mandates' to force every political blog to link to government information that they insist that you see.

Welcome to Obamaland. Regardless of whether this becomes law or not, they've told you what they want. Like Bush saying he'd love to be a dictator, eventually their true desires slip out. Obama would really love a law requiring that every political website give his point of view.

I keep saying 'Please stop voting Democrat'. Or Republican for that matter. You are killing us and our country by doing so.

Why does a democracy have a 'communications czar' anyways?

Since we have to have budget cuts to pay for Obama's wars and the Wall Street bailouts and the Bush tax cuts that are now guarded by Democrats, couldn't we at least cut the 'communications czar' before taking away Social Security and Medicare? How about a 'czar reduction plan'? We got many more czars in this country than any democracy should have? Shouldn't we be able to save some money by getting rid of a few?

Obama's Tiananmen?

Student Strike at University of Puerto Rico Enters 28th Day



University students in Puerto Rico are on strike. The administration and the government of Puerto Rico are trying to cut funding. And of course, as one would expect under Obama's rule, the cuts are aimed at students and staff .... and especially at poor students who get financial aid.

The students and staff are on strike, and have shut down the university's campus' across the island. There is only one American response to such an act. The campus' have been surrounded by armed riot police, and the riot police are using starvation to try to end the strike. Wall street's riot police are at it again.

Most parents urge their children to study. American parents in Puerto Rico are reduced to trying to throw bread and water in to their children over the fences. The video includes film of the riot police attacking a parent who wants the students to have some food and water. Welcome to Obama's America ... parents trying to throw food and water to their children, and being grabbed and arrested by riot police for doing so.

As someone who watched Obama's riot police outside his coronation convention here in Denver, this isn't a surprise. This is the Democratic response to any who protest rule by wall street and for wall street. Obama's riot police are at work again.

In Puerto Rico, they are trying to organize a general strike to support the students. Too bad the rest of America can't learn from that. The best thing to do would be to join the strike, and to do similar to protest our own university cuts, fee hikes and privatizations. Puerto Rico isn't the only place where wall street's depression is being used to attack the democratic idea of public education. Apparently the decedents of the Sons of Liberty now have to learn from Puerto Ricans how to defend their democracy.

And make no mistake. An attack on the idea of public education at all is a direct attack on democracy. Democracy can not survive with an uneducated public. Which is why public education has been under direct attack for at least the last 30 years.

At some point, Americans will have to choose what's more important to them. Wall Street? Or democracy? Its rapidly appearing as if we can't have both.

Feingold -- Why the Finanical Reform Bill doesn't go far enough

Why the Finanical Reform Bill doesn't go far enough by Sen. Russell Feingold.

A very good article, as far as it goes. Like most Democrats, Mr. Feingold seems at best to tiptoe around the edges of the problem. But, at least unlike most of the other Wall Street Democrats, he at least seems to see that there is a problem.

Banks have a very special role in our free market system; they are rationers of capital. When fewer and fewer banks are making more and more of the critical decisions about where capital is allocated, there is an increased risk that many worthy enterprises will not receive the capital needed to grow and flourish.

Close. But the real problem is that as there are fewer and fewer big banks it becomes easier and easier for them to operate as complete crooks and rig the system.

If the mafia controls one of fifteen local trash companies, you can (maybe) choose not to do business with them. But, when they control the only trash company that will pick up your trash, then you have no choice. And of course, they know this too which is why they set it up that way so they can masssively overcharge you and rip you off.

That's today's 'financial' system. If you think of it as being the mafia, you've got it about right. They just don't speak with Italian accents and hang out at the local meat shop. But, they operate in exactly the same way.

Take a look back at the Goldman Sachs hearings a short while back. Mr. Feingold's statement refers to GS's legitimate way of making money. But, what was really happening was that GS was not only making big fees supplying money to companies, but then they were secretly working behind their customers backs to bet against them in the markets. It was a rigged game. Companies and individuals who thought they were hiring GS to work for thier interests instead were really playing in a world where GS was using its enormous financial clout to make sure they failed ... as long as they did so in such a way that GS made even more money.

That's not a case of 'gee, its unfortunate that money didn't get allocated properly in a market with big consolidated banks.' Instead that's a case where the big consolidated banks are using their financial clout to screw you coming and going. You'd be better off dealing with Tony Soprano.

Feingold's ok, but I like Thomas Jefferson better.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

The banks do have 'issuing power' today in the form of the private Federal Reserve. And, its kind of a quaint little distinction anyways when the banks today own the whole damn government.

Obama loves the war in Iraq too.

Iraq violence set to delay US troop withdrawal from the Guardian.

The White House is likely to delay the withdrawal of the first large phase of combat troops from Iraq for at least a month after escalating bloodshed and political instability in the country.

Here's what no Democrat wants to admit. From the day he took office, Obama has followed the same policy on Iraq as Bush.

Bush and the generals always promised a withdrawal. Bush always promised a withdrawal of some troops at some future date. The date was always dependent on some future milestone, usually an election of some sorts. Bush always said that some day in the future the Iraqis will be dancing around with purple ink on their fingers, and that will be the sign that Iraq has now 'stabilized' and that we can withdraw some, but not all of our troops.

For all of his faux anti-war rhetoric back in the primaries, Obama has continued exactly the same policy in Iraq. Obama promised exactly the same troop drawdowns as Bush, and the milestone that Obama was always pointing too was this recent round of elections. It took a long time for this to occur. First the elections were postponed from last summer (always a sign of a free and democratic country). Then they were finally held in March. And now there's been a long round of playing games with the election results, disqualifying candidates only after they won, and negotiations for a coalition.

But, the milestone is finally here. The Iraqis have formed their new government, and so now its time for the US to finally start withdrawing some troops..... Not!

It turns out that Obama has run exactly the same con Bush always ran. Now that the milestone is passed, suddenly we are told that the security situation is still dangerous and that we still have to keep all of our young Americans in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

What people have to wake up to is the fact that the Democrats have supported this war completely from the beginning. The Democrats voted to authorize this war. The Democrats regularly all line up and vote to fund this war. The Democrats have religiously protected war funding from any opposition since they took control of Congress in 2006. And Obama has firmly supported this war since taking office.

And now Obama has taken a page straight from the Bush playbook and is now announcing that because the CIA's candidate (Allawi) hasn't taken control of the country in the 'free' elections we've allowed them, that suddenly we have to keep a hundred thousand or more Americans in Iraq ... until the next mythical milestone/withdraw date that they come up with next. The message seems to be that American troops will stay until the Iraqis 'freely' decide to put the CIA's man back into power.

The Democrats have only been an 'anti-war' party for two brief periods of their nearly 200 years of existence as a political party. During the height of popular rebellion against the Vietnam war, the Democrats became anti-war from 1972-76. Then, when the party hacks retook control of their party, they changed the rules to ensure that this doesn't happen again (see 'super-delegates' for an example). The only other time the Democrats were anti-war was when they opposed Lincoln's call for the Civil War since the Democrats were the party of the slave owners.

The Democrats are not and have only rarely been an anti-war party.

Are the American people finally ready to wake up to the fact that the Democrats love these wars just as much as the Republicans. The war in Afghanistan has been massively escalated. A year of drone strikes has killed some 700 civilians and expanded the war to Pakistan. Now, Obama seems to want to use the Times Square dud bomb as an excuse to put 'boots on the ground' in Pakistan. And the threats to start a war with Iran haven't even slowed down as the (D)'s trade places with the (R)'s in the White House. One could seemingly make a 'morphing' video of SOS Hillary and SOS Rice doing the same saber rattling towards Iran. And his promises to withdraw some, but not all, troops from Iraq are now being revealed as a fraud. And least we somehow seem to have avoided a war with Yemen.

If the American people are sick of these wars, they have to start voting for someone besides Democrats or Republicans.

Obama's War Drums

The war drums are beating loudly.  An incompetent bomber in Times Square appears to be leading to yet another round of war, death, destruction, maiming, torture and murder.

Clinton: Pakistan Officials ‘Harboring’ Bin Laden

'Consequences' if Pakistan car bomb link - Hillary Clinton 

US Threatens Pakistan Over Times Square Bomb

Of course, we've been bombing Pakistan for a year and a half now.
US Killed 700 Civilians in Pakistan Drone Strikes in 2009


So, if we are going to escalate and prove how tough we are over this sputtering amateur dud of a bomb, we have to do more that just our usual going and killing a few hundred (or a few thousand) innocent civilians in retaliation.

U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing

“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.

Does 'Sorry' cover murdering innocent people? Apparently so. If only Charlie Manson had figured that out, he could probably be Secretary of State today.

Of course, these post-bomb escalations almost always involve the US trying to use them to do what it had already been trying to do. In this case, its apparently the war-loving Obama's administration's wet dream to have American soldiers on the ground fighting in Pakistan.

That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.

Of course, on the 'sunday news shows', you can't just declare war.  You also have to say you are going to take rights away from people.  That's the only way to get the approval of such corporate opinion monitors as Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer.  

Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects

Be careful not to get whiplash if you are trying to follow along at home.  For in this story the AG is now saying that this incompetent bomber is now part of a complicated plot based in, you guessed it, Pakistan.  Pay no attention to the minor detail that just a few days ago officials were telling us with great certainty that the bomber worked alone.  After all, its obvious to everyone that it took weeks of sophisticated 'terrorist training' for this bomber to try to strap together propane tanks and fireworks.

And of course no mention of how all the domestic spying and torture and video cameras on every corner didn't do a lick of good in preventing this attempt.  Instead, only cries that we must all give up even more of our basic rights as free Americans in order to make sure that this never happens again.

Israel of course can't stand it if they hear other war drums beating and not be beating their own.

Deputy PM: Israel ‘Primed’ for War With Iran

Of course, as time passes, we always start to learn that the previous war drums and war plans weren't all they were cracked up to be.

Pentagon Doubts Grow on McChrystal War Plan

And the wars we've already started keep adding to their running tolls of death, destruction, maiming and murder.

At Least 126 Killed in Attacks Across Iraq

Quick pop quiz.  Point out how the Obama administration sounds any different from Bush.  Doesn't it seem like one could make a 'morphing' video that goes back and forth between SOS Hillary beating the war drums and SOS Rice beating the war drums without, shall we say, a beat being missed between them.


Isn't everyone glad they voted for the candidate that was against the wars in the last election?  The big question is this.  Will the people who oppose these wars, and that's some 70% of the American people according to the pollsters, will they vote Democrat again?  Or will they vote for some real anti-war party further down the ballot?

If you keep voting for people who back and fund and continue the wars, then the wars will continue.