Some things never change ....

May 1, 2003

"In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement."

Yep, he really said that as a part of this speech.

Aug. 31, 2010

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began.

Well, at least he has enough sense not to commandeer an aircraft carrier and stand in front of a giant banner.





Sept 5, 2010

American officials say that U.S. troops helped repel a complex attack by a group of heavily armed militants against a Baghdad military headquarters.
The fighting comes five days after the U.S. said it formally ended combat operations in Iraq.
A U.S. military spokesman said the Americans helped provide suppressive fire Sunday while Iraqi Army soldiers located two terrorists who had entered the compound.
Twelve people were killed in the attack. None of them were Americans.  Lt. Col. Eric Bloom also said the Iraqi military asked for support from helicopters, drones and explosives experts.

 Yeah, we turned over security.  The Iraqi Army can't defend one of its headquaters in the middle of Baghdad without calling on the US army.  Two, count em' two terrorists apparently got inside, and the Iraqi Army couldn't deal with it without calling in 'suprressive fire', and 'support from helicopters, drones and explosive experts'.  That's not really the fault of the Iraqi Army.  They were originally designed as a force that couldn't operate without US support. 

Oh, and if you thought that electing the Democrats would get us out of Iraq anytime soon ....

The United States likely will need to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to keep a lid on sectarian tensions and to bolster Baghdad's fledgling military, experts and former officers say.
American officials privately acknowledge that the US military presence in Iraq will almost certainly be extended, even though a security agreement in force requires all US forces to depart by the end of 2011.

So tell me, exactly which names on an American ballot do oppose the war?  An American voter gets a 'choice' between a pro-war Republican who openly says these wars are fantastic, and a pro-war Democrat who says these wars are awful, but still continues the wars on the same path as the Republicans.


Here was a statement from Bush on how he saw the future of the Iraq War.
"

George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd US President, in a Nov. 30, 2005 speech titled "Remarks on the War On Terror" in Annapolis, MD, stated:

"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

Now, for all the hot air from Obama and the Democrats about how they oppose these wars, does it really sound like anything has changed with their election?  Aren't Obama and the Democrats still running Bush's plan to the end?

And remember, for all their talk about ending the Iraq war, all they really did was to send the troops over to Afghanistan.


Turns out they promised a change we could not believe in. 





So, what's next.  Electing Republicans won't stop these wars.  And obviously, neither will electing Democrats

USA as Exporter of Terrorism

One of the documents Wikileaks has released is a report from a CIA internal think tank. Its titled "A Red Cell Memorandum".   Fascinating because it openly speaks of the US as an exporter of terrorism.  Now, from Vietnam to Central America to the Middle East, this is probably not a big surprise.  But its so 180 degrees different from the propaganda line that most Americans see and hear that everyone should read this report.  If you believe in America as a free society of free individuals, with a government that represents those free individuals, then its your duty as a citizen to know what your government is doing.

Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.

Of course, since its a CIA report, its not talking about the CIA having Saddam Hussein killing people in Baghdad back in his mis-spent youth. Nor is it talking about killer drones firing missiles. Nor any of those mysterious bombs going off in Iran these days. What its referring to is the history of groups like Zionists or the IRA using Americans in their operations.

And of course, since its the CIA, they view the biggest threat as American Freedoms. There's a whole section on this titled ....

American Freedoms Facilitate Terrorist Recruitment and Operations

Mostly, this just reveals the strange mindset within the CIA. You see this when the report moves on to the repercussions of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism.

Impact on Foreign Relations if US Seen as “Exporter of Terrorism” (S//NF)

If the US were seen as an exporter of terrorism, foreign partners may be less willing to cooperate with the United States on extrajudicial activities, including detention, transfer, and interrogation of suspects in third party countries. As a recent victim of high-profile terrorism originating from abroad, the US Government has had significant leverage to press foreign regimes to acquiesce to requests for extraditing terrorist suspects from their soil. However, if the US were seen as an “exporter of terrorism,” foreign governments could request a reciprocal arrangement that would impact US sovereignty.

Note the part about how the US is a "recent victim of high profile terrorism originating abroad." What's their idea of 'recent'? This report is 'recent', dated Feb 2010. But 9-11 is nine years ago now. 9-11 is two wars ago. Gawd knows how many drone strikes ago.

But, if anytime one gets a glimpse inside the US military or intel organizations, one sees that propaganda about 9-11 is still very prevalent. Our soldiers and operatives are hyped up to go kill the enemy by constant reminders of 9-11. Its a standard part of the propaganda that gets the US to be going abroad to kill and maim those who don't submit to corporate rule. So, its interesting the way it pops up here.

The CIA views 9-11 as a recent attack that is still getting the US sympathy from abroad. Pretty much everyone else views that as something a long time ago, and that US actions since, mainly in starting two wars, have long since removed any sympathy the US gets from the rest of the world. What shows up in this report is the CIA mindset where they believe their own propaganda. And yes, we pay many millions of dollars to have our own propaganda given backed to us as top secret intelligence. And its the end of democracy as we know it if any of this is made public.

The report discusses the impacts of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism by talking about how other countries might expect policies like rendition to go both ways. Of course, in a peaceful and just world, just that would happen.

Of course, one reason the report veers in this direction is probably the innate fear that most employees of the CIA have of someday being held accountable in a non-US court.

Interestingly, the report then sites as an example the case in Italy where ....

If foreign regimes believe the US position on rendition is too one-sided, favoring the US, but not them, they could obstruct US efforts to detain terrorism suspects. For example, in 2005 Italy issued criminal arrest warrants for US agents involved in the abduction of an Egyptian cleric and his rendition to Egypt. The proliferation of such cases would not only challenge US bilateral relations with other countries but also damage global counter-terrorism efforts.

Of course, the CIA thinks that kidnapping someone off the streets of Italy and sending them to be tortured in Italy is just an example of fine and upstanding international behavior. The notion that Italy might actually try to enforce there local laws against kidnapping is only viewed as 'obstructing US efforts'.

Of course, a group that came from overseas and started kidnapping American citizens off the streets to be taken away to be tortured in some terrorist cell's dungeons would be a great outrage.

What the CIA is really afraid of is a world where it has to obey the law.

Quick buck artists

What you get when you let Wall Street and the advertising industry run the country for half a century.

Manufacturing takes long term investment with an intention of long term building.  This is what happens when the quick-buck artists are giving the combination to the vault.

Wonder if its possible for all of us to earn a living working as a greeter at Walmart and playing online poker?  If we ain't making anything any more, that's about what's left.

Or maybe hustling each other with new financial scams?  This seems to be the new version of the American dream.

A Rose by any other name?

You can tell a lot by the names the Congress puts on bills.  Oh, nothing substantial about the bill.  But you can tell which way they want to spin the bill.  Usually the stuff they want to trumpet is in a bill named something like "The Prosperity For All By Inventing the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread Act".


Late Thursday night, the House of Representatives passed the bill that sends another $30 billion off to kill people by fighting a useless war on the other side of the world.  Lets see what they called this bill......

(the text is copied from the Clerk of the House website listing the proceedings of July 1st. ... its their 'fine print'.)

H.R. 4899:

making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes

.... its the "and for other purposes" that a) got almost all the money.  and b) which is going to cause people to die and be maimed from now until Oct when the war funding for next year kicks in.

And oh, by the way, just in case you want to participate in a democracy, the first step of which is knowing how your Representative voted, the Democratic leadership made this a confusing tangle of five different votes that tries to let a lot of Democrats lie and say they opposed this war when it was the Democrat in the White House who was asking for the funding and the Democrats in the Congress making sure he got it.

What's interesting is how ashamed all the Democrats are as to what they've just done.  They try to hide it wherever possible.  Which tells us all that they know what we know ... that we the citizens of this country want these wars to end!

If you want to try to untangle just how your Democrat helped let this pass, here's a list of the votes.

First was a very important vote on a new 'rule' that let them do the very strange procedure of splitting the approval of this bill into separate votes. 38 Democrats voted against this rule, notably Mr. Kucinich. It only passed by 5 votes. If it had failed, the whole war funding effort would have fallen apart. It passed entirely on Democratic votes.

The links should work to take you to the records of who voted which way on each vote. That's the main reason I copied the text straight from the House Clerk's website. So, sorry for Congress' fine print, but the links work to show you who did what.

On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 210 (Roll no. 428). 

If that vote had failed, the remainder could not have occurred.  A very important vote where almost every Democrat lined up with Pelosi and Obey and made sure the war funding would pass.

Then ...

ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Obey moved to concur in the Senate amendment to the text to H.R. 4899 with amendments. Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1500, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment with amendments shall be divided into each of its 5 portions. The first portion is considered as adopted pursuant to H.Res. 1500. The Chair shall put the question on adoption of each of portions 2 through 5 separately in their turn.

Then, the four votes in succession. First, although the house record works hard to hide which vote was which, this first was on the teacher funding and disaster relief.

10:33 P.M. -

On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the second portion of the divided question [amendment 2]. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 239 - 182, 1 Present (Roll no. 430). 

Next came a vote to defund the war, which lost miserably with only 22 Democrats supporting.

10:41 P.M. -

On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the third portion of divided question [amendment 3] Failed by recorded vote: 25 - 376, 22 Present (Roll no. 431). 

Next was a vote on limiting war funding based on a promise to withdraw. Again, it lost miserably, with only 93 Democrats voting no. This is likely the fake vote that the faux-progressive Democrats representing anti-war districts will use to try to say that they didn't approve of sending these billions off for more war, death and destruction.

10:47 P.M. -

On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the fourth portion of the divided question (amendment 4) Failed by recorded vote: 100 - 321 (Roll no. 432).

The last was a vote on an amendment to require the President to present to Congress both a National Intelligence Estimate and a withdrawal plan to get more money. 153 Democrats voted in favor of this.

10:54 P.M. -

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the fifth portion of the divided question (amendment 5) Failed by recorded vote: 162 - 260 (Roll no. 433).

For most votes, the process is to vote on amendments to the bill as the body works out the exact text of the bill. Then to have a final vote on passage. Notice how they flipped it over this time. To call this 'weird' is to insult the weird.

One thing to remember is that everyone knows the count on these votes before they are ever held. Thus, you can't always read a lot into a particular vote. The key vote was on the rule, which was very close. Notice how the Democrats lined up with their leadership to let all that followed occur.

Then, on the two votes the faux-progressive Democrats will use to try to claim that they oppose this war, everyone knew that there were plenty of votes to pass the money without any inconvenient things like intelligence or plans attached. So, for many, those were 'safe' votes where they could pretend to be against the war.

But, never forget that these same Democrats have their fingerprints all over the original 'rule' vote that allowed all of this to happen. That passed by 5 votes, so only a very small handful of Democrats could have blocked war funding right then and there. All who voted Yes on that resolution supported the war.

Independence Day

The name of the holiday is "Independence Day"

Its not, "the Fourth of July".  Yet, that's what's blasted at each of us out of the corporate media boxes.  Everything says 'Fourth of July".  You very rarely see "Independence Day."

Is there something that they want us to forget?

How would Bill O'Reily and friends react if someone tried to take the "Christ" out of "Christmas" by just calling the holiday "the Twenty-Fifth of December"?

This holiday celebrates all that was and is great about America.  It celebrates that once in this land there were people willing to stand up to governments, armies and corporations and declare their INDEPENDENCE!  It celebrates that they were willing to fight for years to win it. 

And it should serve as a reminder that we are a free people in a free land.

Why do they want us to forget this?

Call the holiday by its proper name ....  "INDEPENDENCE DAY!"

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."