Thursday, March 5, 2009
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss
Supreme Court urged to drop enemy combatant case on Yahoo News.
The Obama administration once again continues the course of the Bush administration. What they desperately don't want is a Supreme Court decision that states the obvious. Under the US Constitution, a President can not order the indefinite detention of a person.
Of course, the great lie is put forward that Obama is different from Bush.
That's a total, bald-faced lie. This case is being handled in exactly the same way the Bush Administration handled the Padilla case. That is they kept him in a military brig up until the moment when the Supreme Court threatened to rule against their power to do so. Then they hurriedly filed criminal charges against Padilla before telling the Supreme Court not to rule because the arguments were no longer valid. Obama is doing EXACTLY what Bush did.
Al-Marri's lawyers filed papers to the Supreme Court late Tuesday asking the justices to keep the case alive because the government "has not renounced the legal authority under which al-Marri was designated and detained as an 'enemy combatant' and has made no commitment that al-Marri will not be re-designated and re-detained as an 'enemy combatant' in the future."
The Obama administration once again continues the course of the Bush administration. What they desperately don't want is a Supreme Court decision that states the obvious. Under the US Constitution, a President can not order the indefinite detention of a person.
Of course, the great lie is put forward that Obama is different from Bush.
The transfer signals that Obama is likely to handle accused terrorists in a significantly different way from the Bush administration's aggressive use of preventive detention.
That's a total, bald-faced lie. This case is being handled in exactly the same way the Bush Administration handled the Padilla case. That is they kept him in a military brig up until the moment when the Supreme Court threatened to rule against their power to do so. Then they hurriedly filed criminal charges against Padilla before telling the Supreme Court not to rule because the arguments were no longer valid. Obama is doing EXACTLY what Bush did.
Ron Paul on War Lies
Ron Paul on War Lies
This is a short video of a speech made on the floor of the US House of Representatives, so no text excerpts. Follow the link to watch it.
One giant problem we have is that our efforts are always splintered into separate little pieces, while we never unify behind a single effort. We see that in our protest efforts, where we always have separate groups staging their own protests. Or in the current case, we see the groups that are closer to the Democrats refusing to protest at all against a Democratic President's wars. What we don't see is one mass unified protest.
We see it in campaigns, where we splinter off into separate campaigns. In the last election, there were three separate candidates who all took nearly identical positions on issues like opposing the wars, opposing the attacks on civil liberties, and calling for the prosecution of Bush/Cheney officials for their crimes. Barr, McKinney and Nader all had nearly identical positions on key issues like these, but they ran three separate campaigns instead on one unified campaign.
Our goal is of course to return America to being a nation with a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' to recall Lincoln's wonderful turn of a phrase. To do that, we must throw out of power forces that are powerful in their own right, and which also have the power of the incumbency in controlling the power of the US. We want a country that puts the interests of its people first. But if we achieve that, the people and forces now in control will lose wealth, power and influence. And they are determined to hold on to just that.
We face an uphill battle in every fight we wage. We face a government that is turned against us. We face a corporate media that serves the interests of those in power and not our own. We face deceit and trickery. We face dirty tricks and sabotage. We face an enemy that can spend great amounts of money to defeat us and not release its hold on what they regard as the golden goose making even larger sums of money for them. Its nothing for them to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to retain their control over billions of dollars.
I don't say this to discourage or depress others. I say this to point out that its critical that we stop being stupid. When we fail to unify. When we all splinter and go our separate ways, we weaken ourselves. And we already seem to be fatally weak. One key measure of this is that our political campaigns are lucky to get say 2% or 3% of the vote.
Its ridiculous for us to fail to unify to oppose such great power. So, go give a listen to this speech by Ron Paul, and ask yourself what parts of this you disagree with. Then ask yourself in the last election why we ran two separate campaigns in the primaries (Paul and Kucinich) when neither had anything close to the strength required to challenge in either party? Then ask yourself why we ran three separate Presidential campaigns when none had anything close to the strength required to challenge Obama or McCain?
There is great agreement between the dissenters on the left and the dissenters on the right. Sure, there are differences. But why can't we focus on what we agree on, which to me happen to be the key issues of ending these wars, returning our economy to one that benefits the people and not the elite, and cleaning up our corrupt elections and government?
So, follow the link and watch this speech.
This is a short video of a speech made on the floor of the US House of Representatives, so no text excerpts. Follow the link to watch it.
One giant problem we have is that our efforts are always splintered into separate little pieces, while we never unify behind a single effort. We see that in our protest efforts, where we always have separate groups staging their own protests. Or in the current case, we see the groups that are closer to the Democrats refusing to protest at all against a Democratic President's wars. What we don't see is one mass unified protest.
We see it in campaigns, where we splinter off into separate campaigns. In the last election, there were three separate candidates who all took nearly identical positions on issues like opposing the wars, opposing the attacks on civil liberties, and calling for the prosecution of Bush/Cheney officials for their crimes. Barr, McKinney and Nader all had nearly identical positions on key issues like these, but they ran three separate campaigns instead on one unified campaign.
Our goal is of course to return America to being a nation with a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people' to recall Lincoln's wonderful turn of a phrase. To do that, we must throw out of power forces that are powerful in their own right, and which also have the power of the incumbency in controlling the power of the US. We want a country that puts the interests of its people first. But if we achieve that, the people and forces now in control will lose wealth, power and influence. And they are determined to hold on to just that.
We face an uphill battle in every fight we wage. We face a government that is turned against us. We face a corporate media that serves the interests of those in power and not our own. We face deceit and trickery. We face dirty tricks and sabotage. We face an enemy that can spend great amounts of money to defeat us and not release its hold on what they regard as the golden goose making even larger sums of money for them. Its nothing for them to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to retain their control over billions of dollars.
I don't say this to discourage or depress others. I say this to point out that its critical that we stop being stupid. When we fail to unify. When we all splinter and go our separate ways, we weaken ourselves. And we already seem to be fatally weak. One key measure of this is that our political campaigns are lucky to get say 2% or 3% of the vote.
Its ridiculous for us to fail to unify to oppose such great power. So, go give a listen to this speech by Ron Paul, and ask yourself what parts of this you disagree with. Then ask yourself in the last election why we ran two separate campaigns in the primaries (Paul and Kucinich) when neither had anything close to the strength required to challenge in either party? Then ask yourself why we ran three separate Presidential campaigns when none had anything close to the strength required to challenge Obama or McCain?
There is great agreement between the dissenters on the left and the dissenters on the right. Sure, there are differences. But why can't we focus on what we agree on, which to me happen to be the key issues of ending these wars, returning our economy to one that benefits the people and not the elite, and cleaning up our corrupt elections and government?
So, follow the link and watch this speech.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Impeach Obama!
Obama DOJ Defies Federal Judge from "The Washington Independent"
We've already had him break his campaign promises to withdraw from Iraq. And we've already had what's been a combination of a refusal to investigate and indict criminals from the last administration combined with an active defense to shield them. As a part of that work to shield the Bush criminals, the Obama administration has taken up exactly the same sort of fascist arguments about the power of the executive that the Bush administration used.
Now, in front of at least one federal judge, those don't seem to have worked. A judge is ordering that defense lawyers be able to see a document that the Bush/Obama administration considers to be a 'state secret.' The defense lawyers would have to obtain security clearances to even see the document, and would not be allowed to make it public. The document is important because it is purported to state that their client was indeed under NSA surveillance. The government has made other lawsuits about their illegal spying go away by contending that the plaintiffs had no 'standing' to sue as they couldn't prove they were the targets of the secret and illegal spying. So, I'm guessing that's the reason this document is important in this case.
So, a federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to make this document available. And the Obama administration is now in OPEN DEFIANCE of a federal court by REFUSING to do so.
The original design of this country's government was to have three separate but co-equal branches of government. The idea was that each would provide checks and balances against the others grabbing too much power and destroying our sacred liberties. One would suspect that a case like this, where the government has been engaging in illegal and unconstitutional spying on its own citizens is precisely the sort of case that the framers of our constitution had in mind when they create this system.
And note very, very carefully, this puts the Obama administration as taking exactly the same positions as the Bush administration in claiming unconstitutional powers for itself. And by claiming that its 'national security' powers somehow trump and over-ride the other branches of government.
During the last two years, as the Democratic controlled Congress refused to investigate or control the unconstitutional executive powers claimed by the Bush administration, one could get the sense that perhaps they didn't do so because they wanted those powers for themselves on the day they grabbed power.
The Democrats are fully in power today, and they are vigorously defending the executive's right to exactly those same powers that the Bush/Cheney group of criminals so obnoxiously claimed for themselves.
Anyone wishing they'd voted for McKinney or Nader last time? Or willing to start right now to be putting together the long grassroots campaigns we need for 2010 and 2012?
So on Friday, in a move that Al-Haramain’s lawyer called “mind-boggling”, the Obama administration told the federal court, once again, that it did not have the authority to order the government to make the critical document in the case available to the organization’s lawyers. The decision to reveal the document, wrote the government, “is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review.”
We've already had him break his campaign promises to withdraw from Iraq. And we've already had what's been a combination of a refusal to investigate and indict criminals from the last administration combined with an active defense to shield them. As a part of that work to shield the Bush criminals, the Obama administration has taken up exactly the same sort of fascist arguments about the power of the executive that the Bush administration used.
Now, in front of at least one federal judge, those don't seem to have worked. A judge is ordering that defense lawyers be able to see a document that the Bush/Obama administration considers to be a 'state secret.' The defense lawyers would have to obtain security clearances to even see the document, and would not be allowed to make it public. The document is important because it is purported to state that their client was indeed under NSA surveillance. The government has made other lawsuits about their illegal spying go away by contending that the plaintiffs had no 'standing' to sue as they couldn't prove they were the targets of the secret and illegal spying. So, I'm guessing that's the reason this document is important in this case.
So, a federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to make this document available. And the Obama administration is now in OPEN DEFIANCE of a federal court by REFUSING to do so.
The original design of this country's government was to have three separate but co-equal branches of government. The idea was that each would provide checks and balances against the others grabbing too much power and destroying our sacred liberties. One would suspect that a case like this, where the government has been engaging in illegal and unconstitutional spying on its own citizens is precisely the sort of case that the framers of our constitution had in mind when they create this system.
And note very, very carefully, this puts the Obama administration as taking exactly the same positions as the Bush administration in claiming unconstitutional powers for itself. And by claiming that its 'national security' powers somehow trump and over-ride the other branches of government.
During the last two years, as the Democratic controlled Congress refused to investigate or control the unconstitutional executive powers claimed by the Bush administration, one could get the sense that perhaps they didn't do so because they wanted those powers for themselves on the day they grabbed power.
The Democrats are fully in power today, and they are vigorously defending the executive's right to exactly those same powers that the Bush/Cheney group of criminals so obnoxiously claimed for themselves.
Anyone wishing they'd voted for McKinney or Nader last time? Or willing to start right now to be putting together the long grassroots campaigns we need for 2010 and 2012?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama and the Democrats RAISE Pentagon Spending by $22 Billion
Obama to seek $537 billion defense budget: Murtha by Reuters
OK, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when the government is having to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to try to prop of failing financial institutions and keep the economy from crashing, when the government is having to BORROW that money because its already running a deficit, when the government is having trouble borrowing the money and when the entire worldwide financial system is on the verge of switching to the EURO as its 'reserve currency' .............................. one would think this is the time to CUT BACK on military spending and try to invest any dollar we can into the American economy, right?
Not if you're Obama and the Democrats. They just announced that they plan on INCREASING the Defense Dept budget by $22,000,000,000.00 (that's $22 Billion if you don't want to count all those zeroes).
...
Further more, just like Bush and the Republicans, Obama and the Democrats are keeping the wars 'off-budget'. They won't announce the details until Thursday, but this article says they are going to ask for ANOTHER $140,000,000,000.00 (that's $140 Billion for those who don't want to count all those zeroes) to continue fighting the wars in Afghtanistan and Iraq.
Oh yeah, there's other stories out there that Obama now wants to keep the troops in Iraq both longer than the SOFA agreement allows and also longer than what his 'plan' was during the campaign.
REMEMBER
70% of the American people oppose these wars. We've tried voting Democrat to end what's been misleadingly labeled the 'Bush wars'. But that obviously hasn't worked. If that wasn't obvious from the actions of the last Congress before the last election, surely its becoming obvious now.
REMEMBER
Any news network that has to go out of their way to tell you how they are 'fair and balanced' likely is not fair and balanced. Likewise, any political candidate that has to go out of their way to tell you that they represent 'Change' probably doesn't.
WHAT TO DO?
Its time for the American people to stop these wars. We've been misled into believing that voting Democrat would do just that. But clearly that wasn't the solution. Join the MARCH 21, 2009 antiwar protests!
And next time, stop voting Democrat!
Update: When the announcement was made, the Obama Administration actually asked for over $200 billion more of our money to continue these wars. The number above that leaked early was only for the year 2010. There's another huge chunk of money requested to also continue the wars in 2009.
OK, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when the government is having to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to try to prop of failing financial institutions and keep the economy from crashing, when the government is having to BORROW that money because its already running a deficit, when the government is having trouble borrowing the money and when the entire worldwide financial system is on the verge of switching to the EURO as its 'reserve currency' .............................. one would think this is the time to CUT BACK on military spending and try to invest any dollar we can into the American economy, right?
Not if you're Obama and the Democrats. They just announced that they plan on INCREASING the Defense Dept budget by $22,000,000,000.00 (that's $22 Billion if you don't want to count all those zeroes).
Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense spending in the House, told Reuters that "$537 billion will be the base budget" for the Pentagon.
...
The Pentagon's base budget -- not counting most war funding -- totaled $515 billion for the current year.
Further more, just like Bush and the Republicans, Obama and the Democrats are keeping the wars 'off-budget'. They won't announce the details until Thursday, but this article says they are going to ask for ANOTHER $140,000,000,000.00 (that's $140 Billion for those who don't want to count all those zeroes) to continue fighting the wars in Afghtanistan and Iraq.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the White House Office of Management and Budget will announce a supplemental war request -- on top of the regular military budget -- on Thursday when it unveils the Obama spending plan for fiscal year 2010.
"There will be a war supplemental for FY'10," he told reporters at a briefing, without disclosing budget numbers.
Oh yeah, there's other stories out there that Obama now wants to keep the troops in Iraq both longer than the SOFA agreement allows and also longer than what his 'plan' was during the campaign.
REMEMBER
70% of the American people oppose these wars. We've tried voting Democrat to end what's been misleadingly labeled the 'Bush wars'. But that obviously hasn't worked. If that wasn't obvious from the actions of the last Congress before the last election, surely its becoming obvious now.
REMEMBER
Any news network that has to go out of their way to tell you how they are 'fair and balanced' likely is not fair and balanced. Likewise, any political candidate that has to go out of their way to tell you that they represent 'Change' probably doesn't.
WHAT TO DO?
Its time for the American people to stop these wars. We've been misled into believing that voting Democrat would do just that. But clearly that wasn't the solution. Join the MARCH 21, 2009 antiwar protests!
And next time, stop voting Democrat!
Update: When the announcement was made, the Obama Administration actually asked for over $200 billion more of our money to continue these wars. The number above that leaked early was only for the year 2010. There's another huge chunk of money requested to also continue the wars in 2009.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Messages ...
Not sure what happened to the little message tool. I went back to try to find the Gadget again in Google\Blogger, mainly to see if the author left any contact links. The one hint I found there said that they'd added the popup ads because they couldn't afford the bandwidth the tool was using. Maybe the author hit some limit and the site is now shut down???????
All I really wanted was something that could be commented on, but that stayed at the top of the page. Oh well. I'll try to remember to add some Open Thread entries ... Feel free to comment below.
Also, since there seems to be a small number of people who like to comment, I could also open up the ability to post new blog posts to others.
All I really wanted was something that could be commented on, but that stayed at the top of the page. Oh well. I'll try to remember to add some Open Thread entries ... Feel free to comment below.
Also, since there seems to be a small number of people who like to comment, I could also open up the ability to post new blog posts to others.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Messages
Hi ....
Thanks for the idea about a way to leave messages at the top of the page. When I first read that, I thought "Gee, I can't do that." But it got me exploring the 'gadgets' that Blogger provides. It turns out I'd just been looking at a page called 'Basic' in setting up my blogs. But now I found lots of new toys. :) Probably wouldn't have gone looking, certainly wouldn't have tonight, if someone hadn't made the suggestion. :) Thanks!
And once I started looking, the "Home Foreclosure Search tool" gadget seemed like such a nice statement on the times. What a lovely way to remember to say THANK YOU to Wall Street and all their Republican and Democratic friends!
Holy Cow! Is that tool correct? I typed my home Denver, CO zip code into it, and came back with a page listing about 425 properties as coming up in auction and over 500 as "bank" or "government" owned. Is that all really in my one little Zip Code?
Damn. And here I was thinking of trying to sell my condo now that I'm unemployed. Maybe not!
And Denver's not supposed to be getting hit that bad. I wonder what a south Florida or a LA or a Las Vegas zip code looks like? If that's any indication of the problem, and not just a bad website or me misreading something, that points out the real problem they needed to be solving all along. All those loans are 'bad' or 'toxic' because of the drop in real estate prices. As the market keeps getting flooded with more foreclosures, that keeps getting worse. That means more home end up as foreclosures and the problem gets worse. I know the Democrats have started doing little bits to try to say they are trying to slow down foreclosures, but if the problem is this big, then what they really needed was to be putting all of those trillions of dollars they keep promising to their Wall Street buddies instead into propping up the housing market from the bottom. If their ain't no bottom on that market, then all the money they keep pumping into the banks won't do any good. If it isn't 'stolen', or euphemistically used for 'bonuses', then it will just go down the tubes as everything else follows the housing market down.
Thanks for the idea about a way to leave messages at the top of the page. When I first read that, I thought "Gee, I can't do that." But it got me exploring the 'gadgets' that Blogger provides. It turns out I'd just been looking at a page called 'Basic' in setting up my blogs. But now I found lots of new toys. :) Probably wouldn't have gone looking, certainly wouldn't have tonight, if someone hadn't made the suggestion. :) Thanks!
And once I started looking, the "Home Foreclosure Search tool" gadget seemed like such a nice statement on the times. What a lovely way to remember to say THANK YOU to Wall Street and all their Republican and Democratic friends!
Holy Cow! Is that tool correct? I typed my home Denver, CO zip code into it, and came back with a page listing about 425 properties as coming up in auction and over 500 as "bank" or "government" owned. Is that all really in my one little Zip Code?
Damn. And here I was thinking of trying to sell my condo now that I'm unemployed. Maybe not!
And Denver's not supposed to be getting hit that bad. I wonder what a south Florida or a LA or a Las Vegas zip code looks like? If that's any indication of the problem, and not just a bad website or me misreading something, that points out the real problem they needed to be solving all along. All those loans are 'bad' or 'toxic' because of the drop in real estate prices. As the market keeps getting flooded with more foreclosures, that keeps getting worse. That means more home end up as foreclosures and the problem gets worse. I know the Democrats have started doing little bits to try to say they are trying to slow down foreclosures, but if the problem is this big, then what they really needed was to be putting all of those trillions of dollars they keep promising to their Wall Street buddies instead into propping up the housing market from the bottom. If their ain't no bottom on that market, then all the money they keep pumping into the banks won't do any good. If it isn't 'stolen', or euphemistically used for 'bonuses', then it will just go down the tubes as everything else follows the housing market down.
Friday, February 13, 2009
ANALYSIS-U.S. raises hackles with Karzai, looks for change
ANALYSIS-U.S. raises hackles with Karzai, looks for change from Reuters via Antiwar.com
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
Karzai has become increasingly vocal about saying that the US killing Afghan civilians is wrong and must end. So, what a shock, now the US is talking about how Karzai must go.
Most of the reasons given in this article are probably bs. The US knew he was basically powerless, and had a big say in creating the office that way. The US has always empowered the warlords outside of Kabul by making their own deals with them. You've never seen the US make any major effort to strengthen the central government or to weaken the warlords.
Nope, this one seems pretty obvious. Karzai has been making statements critical of the US killing innocent civilians in his country. Afghan Govt Condemns Australian Raid That Killed Children is just the latest example. The message to Karzai is very clear ... he's expected to be a puppet that toes the US line. If he won't do that, then he can be replaced.
So, one of Obama's early acts is going to be putting his own puppet leaders into place? Wow, I'm so glad we elected the Obama administration and everything is changing from the way it used to be.
And why is it that the Diem assasination\coup in Vietnam under Kennedy comes to mind?
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
Karzai has become increasingly vocal about saying that the US killing Afghan civilians is wrong and must end. So, what a shock, now the US is talking about how Karzai must go.
Most of the reasons given in this article are probably bs. The US knew he was basically powerless, and had a big say in creating the office that way. The US has always empowered the warlords outside of Kabul by making their own deals with them. You've never seen the US make any major effort to strengthen the central government or to weaken the warlords.
Nope, this one seems pretty obvious. Karzai has been making statements critical of the US killing innocent civilians in his country. Afghan Govt Condemns Australian Raid That Killed Children is just the latest example. The message to Karzai is very clear ... he's expected to be a puppet that toes the US line. If he won't do that, then he can be replaced.
So, one of Obama's early acts is going to be putting his own puppet leaders into place? Wow, I'm so glad we elected the Obama administration and everything is changing from the way it used to be.
And why is it that the Diem assasination\coup in Vietnam under Kennedy comes to mind?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What Price Hollywood?
What Price Hollywood? by Chris Hedges on Truthdig.com
Chris Hedges on 'celebrity culture.' Brilliant, as usual with Mr. Hedges. I guess maybe going to the seminary after years of working in war zones gives one an excellent perspective on American culture ... or what passes for culture.
Been reading Cornell West of late. He points out that for a long time, American culture compared itself to and strove to achieve what European culture was achieving. American culture tended to be either a copy. Or the sort of insecure statements that tried to assert American culture as independent of European culture.
Of course, that's changed since WWII and the assumption of the United States of the role of great power in the world. Today its American culture that blasts itself into every brain, and to which other cultural ideas try to compete or imitate. But, is this really culture at all? Journeys to Graceland or Hollywood to gawk at 'the stars'? Or trips to Las Vegas where we can pretend to be a celebrity ourselves and try to live like one, as long as one has the money?
Chris Hedges on 'celebrity culture.' Brilliant, as usual with Mr. Hedges. I guess maybe going to the seminary after years of working in war zones gives one an excellent perspective on American culture ... or what passes for culture.
Been reading Cornell West of late. He points out that for a long time, American culture compared itself to and strove to achieve what European culture was achieving. American culture tended to be either a copy. Or the sort of insecure statements that tried to assert American culture as independent of European culture.
Of course, that's changed since WWII and the assumption of the United States of the role of great power in the world. Today its American culture that blasts itself into every brain, and to which other cultural ideas try to compete or imitate. But, is this really culture at all? Journeys to Graceland or Hollywood to gawk at 'the stars'? Or trips to Las Vegas where we can pretend to be a celebrity ourselves and try to live like one, as long as one has the money?
Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully
Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully by Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com
I always liked the music of the Talking Heads. Right now, I've got that voice going in my head saying
"Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was ..."
Same as it ever was. Did you think you voted for Change?
If the Obama administration refuses to prosecute criminal acts that occurred in the previous administration, and if they assertively act in the courts to try to protect and shield those who committed crimes in the previous administration, then that makes the Obama administration an accomplice to those crimes.
No grey area here. You either prosecute torturers, or you protect and shield them. The Obama administration has come down quite clearly on the side of the torturers and is acting to protect and shield them.
Not only is this highly immoral, but its also doing terrible things to the nation. First, it means that any slow down (not a halt, just backing off a bit) of the Obama administration with regard to torture is temporary at best. That's because the Obama administration is sending a clear message to people who serve under future administrations. That is that the law will not be enforced in this area. If a future President feels that torturing other human beings (such as the recent revelations that people's genitals were being sliced), then they can look back on the Obama Administration and feel safe in ignoring the real laws of the land and the world that forbid such torture.
And secondly, the Obama administration is sending a general message to everyone on all fronts, whether it be theft or fraud or kidnapping or murder or torture, that crimes will not be prosecuted. The message is clear that there is no opposition party in this country, and no dedication to a rule of law, therefore, anything goes. If you are a criminal in the guise of a public servant or defender, then you don't need to worry that a change of the party in power might expose you to prosecution. Such criminals are obviously considered to be part of the team, and the protection of such criminals ranks as more important than protecting the nation, the Constitution, or the impartial rule of law in America.
From Glenn Greenwald ...
and ...
I always liked the music of the Talking Heads. Right now, I've got that voice going in my head saying
"Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was ..."
A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.
Same as it ever was. Did you think you voted for Change?
If the Obama administration refuses to prosecute criminal acts that occurred in the previous administration, and if they assertively act in the courts to try to protect and shield those who committed crimes in the previous administration, then that makes the Obama administration an accomplice to those crimes.
No grey area here. You either prosecute torturers, or you protect and shield them. The Obama administration has come down quite clearly on the side of the torturers and is acting to protect and shield them.
Not only is this highly immoral, but its also doing terrible things to the nation. First, it means that any slow down (not a halt, just backing off a bit) of the Obama administration with regard to torture is temporary at best. That's because the Obama administration is sending a clear message to people who serve under future administrations. That is that the law will not be enforced in this area. If a future President feels that torturing other human beings (such as the recent revelations that people's genitals were being sliced), then they can look back on the Obama Administration and feel safe in ignoring the real laws of the land and the world that forbid such torture.
And secondly, the Obama administration is sending a general message to everyone on all fronts, whether it be theft or fraud or kidnapping or murder or torture, that crimes will not be prosecuted. The message is clear that there is no opposition party in this country, and no dedication to a rule of law, therefore, anything goes. If you are a criminal in the guise of a public servant or defender, then you don't need to worry that a change of the party in power might expose you to prosecution. Such criminals are obviously considered to be part of the team, and the protection of such criminals ranks as more important than protecting the nation, the Constitution, or the impartial rule of law in America.
From Glenn Greenwald ...
That's what Barack Obama is now shielding from judicial scrutiny. Those are the torture victims he is preventing from obtaining judicial relief in our courts. And he's using one of the most radical and destructive tools in the Bush arsenal -- its wildly expanded version of the "state secrets" privilege -- to accomplish all of that dirty work. I've been as vigorous a proponent as anyone for waiting to see what Obama does before reaching conclusions about his presidency, but this is a very real and substantial act
and ...
At the end of 2006, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick listed the Bush administration's "10 most outrageous civil liberties violations" and it included this:
6. The State-Secrets Doctrine
Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans
Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans by Gareth Porter of IPS via Antiwar.com
Yesterday, when I was writing, I referred to Gen. Petreus' statements on Afghanistan as a 'Gen. Petreus is mounting a pre-emptive strike against ongoing 'strategy' reviews...'
Of course, I'm not sitting in Gen. Petreus' office, so I didn't know that as a fact. But it seemed logical from bits I'd heard. I'd heard the Obama White House say they were doing 'strategy reviews'. And it just seemed very natural to assume that a political general like Petreus was not just talking randomly to some reporter, but instead was trying to push a specific point of view out into the media. And to do it before the Obama strategy reviews were finalized to both influence those reviews and to get the first shots in of any media campaigns to try to swing the people and Congress to a particular plan. It just seemed logical.
Today, I'm reading Antiwar.com, and I see a longer piece by Gareth Porter describing the media manipulation that Gen. Petreus is currently involved in concerning timetables to withdraw from Iraq.
One interesting note is that you almost never see mentioned in the media that the withdraw date for American troops in Iraq has already been set. Its in the SOFA that the US and Iraq signed in the waning months of the Bush Administration. From reading the mass media, it appears that the US feels that this agreement is totally optional, and that Gen. Petreus and\or the Obama administration are perfectly free to pick slower withdrawal plans if the choose.
Of course, there are already other news stories out there that say the US is already violating other terms of that agreement.
Yesterday, when I was writing, I referred to Gen. Petreus' statements on Afghanistan as a 'Gen. Petreus is mounting a pre-emptive strike against ongoing 'strategy' reviews...'
Of course, I'm not sitting in Gen. Petreus' office, so I didn't know that as a fact. But it seemed logical from bits I'd heard. I'd heard the Obama White House say they were doing 'strategy reviews'. And it just seemed very natural to assume that a political general like Petreus was not just talking randomly to some reporter, but instead was trying to push a specific point of view out into the media. And to do it before the Obama strategy reviews were finalized to both influence those reviews and to get the first shots in of any media campaigns to try to swing the people and Congress to a particular plan. It just seemed logical.
Today, I'm reading Antiwar.com, and I see a longer piece by Gareth Porter describing the media manipulation that Gen. Petreus is currently involved in concerning timetables to withdraw from Iraq.
One interesting note is that you almost never see mentioned in the media that the withdraw date for American troops in Iraq has already been set. Its in the SOFA that the US and Iraq signed in the waning months of the Bush Administration. From reading the mass media, it appears that the US feels that this agreement is totally optional, and that Gen. Petreus and\or the Obama administration are perfectly free to pick slower withdrawal plans if the choose.
Of course, there are already other news stories out there that say the US is already violating other terms of that agreement.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Third-Party Delusion and the Need for a Mass Movement for Progressive Change
The Third-Party Delusion and the Need for a Mass Movement for Progressive Change By Dave Lindorff up on Commondreams.org
The problem with this piece is revealed if you carefully read Mr. Lindorff's tortured logic. He starts by saying that he routinely hears many people say he's nuts when he calls for pressure on Democratic politicians. Then he goes on to bash 3rd parties throughout the rest of the piece. Easy to see why the Democrats at CommonDreams put it at the top of the page.
But, while he manages to bash any hopes of a 3rd party for several hundred words, he fails to provide any alternative. Mr. Lindorff is one of the people who spent much of the last three years trying to 'pressure' the Democratic politicians into impeachment. How'd that work out for ya? Seems like the Democratic politicians just laughed in his face, that is if they paid any attention to him at all.
The key is to realize is that there is no mechanism for people to try to apply any pressure on Democratic politicians. The Democrats have chosen to build their party entirely on money. They collect huge amounts of money in each election cycle now. They've gone from the party that was always outspent by the Republicans to one that massively outspent the Republicans in the last election. The Obama campaign alone raised over $700,000,000.00.
If you want to pressure the Democrats, one way to do it would be to be a major contributor and threaten to cut off the money. The Democrats certainly listen to their major contributors. Just to give one example, the major contributors to the Democrats include the insurance and health care agencies. So, you see one critic of single-payer health care after another appointed to this administraion.
But, since we all know that we are not the rich moneybags that currently fund the Democratic party, just exactly are the other means to 'pressure' the Democrats? There's only one other way to get their attention. Threaten their ability to win elections. That's the real power over any politician. Threaten their ability to win elections.
There are two ways of doing this. One is to challenge the Democrats within their own party in primaries. Of course, the problem is that the current leaders of the Democrats set the rules for those contests. And they set the rules such that the rich, and the candidates backed by the rich, have huge advantages. There are no campaign funding limits or public financing schemes in internal Democratic party races that are any stricter than federal law. None. The Democrats could set rules in their own races outlawing say contributions bigger than $100. But it ain't gonnna happen. The rich own this party and they intend to keep it.
So, what have we seen since 2000? We've seen precious few real primary challenges inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats appoint well-funded candidates, and if there dares to be a challenger to them, we see 1) pressure on the challenger to withdraw, 2) attempts to take away the challenger's funding and support, 3) major support from national Democratic sources to the candidate for the rich in the primary, 4) no sense of neutrality at all from the national Democrats, and 5) elections often run by well connected Democrats who control local voting boards.
At best it is a very uphill struggle. Its playing a rigged game in a rigged casino. And so far its been very unsuccessful. And then there are the quixotic campaigns like Kucinich that seem designed to go absolutely nowhere, but suck up tons of progressive money and effort.
Nope, if you want to 'pressure' the Democrats, the way to do it is in the General Elections running as a UNIFIED opposition third party. The key is that 'success' in 'pressuring' the Democrats can be had for much fewer votes. All you need is for the Democrat to lose. We don't have to beat them ourselves. Just make them lose.
Think for an instant if the Democrats were looking ahead to the 2010 elections and seeing either 1) a number of internal primary challengers, or 2) 3rd party candidates running campaigns in key districts across the country. The leaders of the Democratic party would just laugh at the first. But the second would cause them to be taking 'safe' races and having to mark them as 'competitive' or 'losing' races. This then would mean they would be taking seriously the notion of losing control of the House. And if its the left that is doing this with the 3rd party, well then congratulations, you've successfully 'pressured' the Democrats. They'll come to you asking what you want, and for the first time in a generation we would see the corporate Democrats picking up progressive causes.
Mr. Lindorff is correct in one way. We need to build a large populist opposition movement. But there is no reason on earth why this can't be done as a part of also building a 3rd party. Heck, its a pre-requisite for success in any case, not some sort of bizarre 'either-or' choice like Mr.Lindorff suggests. He appears to be saying that we need to give up all hopes at political power to build some movement beyond politics that will somehow then change politics and political power in this country. That of course is nonsense.
If you want change, we must build political power. You don't do that outside of politics. You don't do that by running hopeless primary campaigns in a game rigged by the Democrats such that money always wins. The only way to do it is to take the Democrats head on in close races they feel then need to win.
The problem with this piece is revealed if you carefully read Mr. Lindorff's tortured logic. He starts by saying that he routinely hears many people say he's nuts when he calls for pressure on Democratic politicians. Then he goes on to bash 3rd parties throughout the rest of the piece. Easy to see why the Democrats at CommonDreams put it at the top of the page.
But, while he manages to bash any hopes of a 3rd party for several hundred words, he fails to provide any alternative. Mr. Lindorff is one of the people who spent much of the last three years trying to 'pressure' the Democratic politicians into impeachment. How'd that work out for ya? Seems like the Democratic politicians just laughed in his face, that is if they paid any attention to him at all.
The key is to realize is that there is no mechanism for people to try to apply any pressure on Democratic politicians. The Democrats have chosen to build their party entirely on money. They collect huge amounts of money in each election cycle now. They've gone from the party that was always outspent by the Republicans to one that massively outspent the Republicans in the last election. The Obama campaign alone raised over $700,000,000.00.
If you want to pressure the Democrats, one way to do it would be to be a major contributor and threaten to cut off the money. The Democrats certainly listen to their major contributors. Just to give one example, the major contributors to the Democrats include the insurance and health care agencies. So, you see one critic of single-payer health care after another appointed to this administraion.
But, since we all know that we are not the rich moneybags that currently fund the Democratic party, just exactly are the other means to 'pressure' the Democrats? There's only one other way to get their attention. Threaten their ability to win elections. That's the real power over any politician. Threaten their ability to win elections.
There are two ways of doing this. One is to challenge the Democrats within their own party in primaries. Of course, the problem is that the current leaders of the Democrats set the rules for those contests. And they set the rules such that the rich, and the candidates backed by the rich, have huge advantages. There are no campaign funding limits or public financing schemes in internal Democratic party races that are any stricter than federal law. None. The Democrats could set rules in their own races outlawing say contributions bigger than $100. But it ain't gonnna happen. The rich own this party and they intend to keep it.
So, what have we seen since 2000? We've seen precious few real primary challenges inside the Democratic Party. The Democrats appoint well-funded candidates, and if there dares to be a challenger to them, we see 1) pressure on the challenger to withdraw, 2) attempts to take away the challenger's funding and support, 3) major support from national Democratic sources to the candidate for the rich in the primary, 4) no sense of neutrality at all from the national Democrats, and 5) elections often run by well connected Democrats who control local voting boards.
At best it is a very uphill struggle. Its playing a rigged game in a rigged casino. And so far its been very unsuccessful. And then there are the quixotic campaigns like Kucinich that seem designed to go absolutely nowhere, but suck up tons of progressive money and effort.
Nope, if you want to 'pressure' the Democrats, the way to do it is in the General Elections running as a UNIFIED opposition third party. The key is that 'success' in 'pressuring' the Democrats can be had for much fewer votes. All you need is for the Democrat to lose. We don't have to beat them ourselves. Just make them lose.
Think for an instant if the Democrats were looking ahead to the 2010 elections and seeing either 1) a number of internal primary challengers, or 2) 3rd party candidates running campaigns in key districts across the country. The leaders of the Democratic party would just laugh at the first. But the second would cause them to be taking 'safe' races and having to mark them as 'competitive' or 'losing' races. This then would mean they would be taking seriously the notion of losing control of the House. And if its the left that is doing this with the 3rd party, well then congratulations, you've successfully 'pressured' the Democrats. They'll come to you asking what you want, and for the first time in a generation we would see the corporate Democrats picking up progressive causes.
Mr. Lindorff is correct in one way. We need to build a large populist opposition movement. But there is no reason on earth why this can't be done as a part of also building a 3rd party. Heck, its a pre-requisite for success in any case, not some sort of bizarre 'either-or' choice like Mr.Lindorff suggests. He appears to be saying that we need to give up all hopes at political power to build some movement beyond politics that will somehow then change politics and political power in this country. That of course is nonsense.
If you want change, we must build political power. You don't do that outside of politics. You don't do that by running hopeless primary campaigns in a game rigged by the Democrats such that money always wins. The only way to do it is to take the Democrats head on in close races they feel then need to win.
Why Sanjay Gupta is the Wrong Man for the Top US Health Job
Why Sanjay Gupta is the Wrong Man for the Top US Health Job By Vincente Navarro on counterpunch.org
I find it highly worrisome that Dr. Sanjay Gupta is likely to be appointed head of the USPHS. He is not an expert on public health and is not sufficiently knowledgeable, or competent, to do the job. Training and experience in neurosurgery do not provide the public health knowledge that the position requires. But, what is far more alarming is that he will most likely be the media spokesperson for the task force on health care reform. And this means that a person hostile to a single-payer system (the type of system that has most support among people in the U.S.); a person clearly unsympathetic to the principle of the government’s guaranteeing universality of health care coverage; a person who is part of the media that have been obfuscating, negating, and avoiding the real problems in health and medical care in this country , will be in control of selling the message of change in U.S. medical care. Is this the change we were promised by candidate Obama?
Afghanistan
Two articles on Afghanistan ....
Grim Appraisal in Afghanistan on Antiwar.com
Blog entry that contains links to several articles on Afghanistan. The main 'story' is that Gen. Petreus is mounting a pre-emptive strike against ongoing 'strategy' reviews and declaring that Afghanistan is in a 'downward spiral', and that of course the answer is that we need to send more troops and kill more people.
Of course, the main question is .... what on earth are we fighting in Afghanistan for? How is this is the strategic interests of the American people?
A quick review. We supposedly went to Afghanistan because Bin Laden had camps there. Supposedly, the only reason we attacked the Taliban was because they were sheltering Al-Qaida. Well, couldn't we have just left afterwards? Let them know that if they dare to let Bin Laden back, then we'll come back and blow up more stuff? Why on earth are we still there some 8 years later? How is spending billions of dollars, getting young Americans killed, and killing many (700 is the estimate for last year) civilians who dare to do things like hold a wedding party in their home village, doing anything to improve life for Americans?
It makes much less sense for us to be in Afghanistan than it ever did to be in Iraq. And it makes zero sense for us to send MORE troops. The only reason I can see for it is that the Afghan war 'polled' well so Obama and the Democrats seized on it to try to pretend they they can be as viscious and unprinicipled killers as the Republicans even though the Democrats thought we should (slowly) get out of Iraq and (slowly) close Gitmo.
Anti-war lawmakers worry over plan for Afghanistan from the AP
Of course, knowing the Democrats, this will amount to just a few speeches and a few symbolic 'No' votes. They'd never do anything real, like refuse to support the House leadership. I'm not sure of the size of the 'anti-war' caucus in this Congress, but I think if they left the Democratic Party then the Democrat's majority in the House would be in question. But, they'd never do anything like that. They'll just make a few statements, cast the symbolic 'no' votes, then let the money and the troops flow to Afghanistan ... and let the body bags start to come home in greater numbers.
Grim Appraisal in Afghanistan on Antiwar.com
Blog entry that contains links to several articles on Afghanistan. The main 'story' is that Gen. Petreus is mounting a pre-emptive strike against ongoing 'strategy' reviews and declaring that Afghanistan is in a 'downward spiral', and that of course the answer is that we need to send more troops and kill more people.
Of course, the main question is .... what on earth are we fighting in Afghanistan for? How is this is the strategic interests of the American people?
A quick review. We supposedly went to Afghanistan because Bin Laden had camps there. Supposedly, the only reason we attacked the Taliban was because they were sheltering Al-Qaida. Well, couldn't we have just left afterwards? Let them know that if they dare to let Bin Laden back, then we'll come back and blow up more stuff? Why on earth are we still there some 8 years later? How is spending billions of dollars, getting young Americans killed, and killing many (700 is the estimate for last year) civilians who dare to do things like hold a wedding party in their home village, doing anything to improve life for Americans?
It makes much less sense for us to be in Afghanistan than it ever did to be in Iraq. And it makes zero sense for us to send MORE troops. The only reason I can see for it is that the Afghan war 'polled' well so Obama and the Democrats seized on it to try to pretend they they can be as viscious and unprinicipled killers as the Republicans even though the Democrats thought we should (slowly) get out of Iraq and (slowly) close Gitmo.
Anti-war lawmakers worry over plan for Afghanistan from the AP
"WASHINGTON – After campaigning on the promise to end one war, President Barack Obama is preparing to escalate another.
Obama's dual stance on the two wars is not lost on congressional Democrats, many of whom also ran on anti-war platforms. In coming weeks, they expect to have to consider tens of billions of dollars needed for combat, including a major buildup of troops in Afghanistan."
Of course, knowing the Democrats, this will amount to just a few speeches and a few symbolic 'No' votes. They'd never do anything real, like refuse to support the House leadership. I'm not sure of the size of the 'anti-war' caucus in this Congress, but I think if they left the Democratic Party then the Democrat's majority in the House would be in question. But, they'd never do anything like that. They'll just make a few statements, cast the symbolic 'no' votes, then let the money and the troops flow to Afghanistan ... and let the body bags start to come home in greater numbers.
Indians face racist mascot backlash
I received the following via email, so no link to follow.
Does anyone remember the debates of the definiion of 'terrorism' right after 9-11? If I remember correctly, the official government definition was along the lines of someone who uses violent acts to try to change political policy.
So, what about people who use death threats and violent physical attacks (throwing a rock at peaceful protestors) to try to change the town policy about a friggin school mascot of all things?
I've long felt that immigrants of middle-eastern background were not nearly the most dangerous 'terror' threat in this country. Maybe its because I grew up in the south at the tail end of the KKK era, but I know the way violence and intimidation have been used by some whites against any other group that may want to have a say in what happens in their community. And don't ever forget who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Shouldn't people who are willing to threaten to kill other people over something as minor as a school mascot be considered very dangerous? More likely the Feds are busy investigating some family of arab immigrants who came here to try to find a better life.
--------------------------------------------------------
Indians face racist mascot backlash
Posted by: "Mark Anquoe by way of Mark Cohen" buildingbridges@mindspring.com acjobim2002
Sun Feb 8, 2009 1:48 pm (PST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Mark Anquoe
American Indian Movement - West
(415) 566-5788
gazelbe@yahoo.com
http://www.aimwest.info
Corine Fairbanks
American Indian Movement Santa Barbara
(805) 212-4947
corine68@yahoo.com
http://www.myspace.com/aimsantabarbara
Native Americans Face Violence and Intimidation
Over Mascot Removal in Carpinteria
CARPINTERIA, California - The small town of
Carpinteria, California is the latest
battleground in Native Americans’ fight against
racism. The controversy over a supposedly
“harmless†high school sports mascot has
alienated the Native American population of
Carpinteria, who have come to fear violent
reprisals from the non-Native community.
The Carpinteria “Warriors†mascot is the
standard Indian chief stereotype, complete with
generic plains-style war bonnet and stoic gaze.
The school logo consists of a spear with dangling
feathers; a visual symbol also associated with
plains Indian cultures. Last spring, 15 year old
Chumash youth Eli Cordero voiced his objections
to the use of this stereotypical imagery by
Carpinteria High School. On April 22nd, 2008, he
brought his concerns before the school board
which then voted to retire the use of all Native American imagery.
Since the April 2008 decision, many citizens of
Carpinteria have waged a campaign of terror
against those who supported the school board’s
decision, as well as the school board itself. A
local businessman placed a quarter-page ad in the
local newspaper explicitly naming and targeting
Eli Cordero, the young student who originally
brought the issue to the school board. Since that
time, the 15 year old has received death threats
and his family has been harassed. Death threats
were also made against the child of a school
board member who voted to remove the imagery.
Local police began escorting school board members
to and from school board meetings. Some citizens
of Carpinteria shouted racial epithets at John
Orendorff, a Native American Army Reserve colonel
who spoke at a school board meeting in favor of removing the racist imagery.
Some Native American people have moved out of
Carpinteria due to the climate of fear and
anti-Indian sentiment. Ashleigh Brown, until
recently a resident of Carpinteria, spoke of her
decision to move away, “There is a community
member who refused to do our printing for our
cultural awareness event. Her son…started telling
my roommate to keep my nose out of Carpinteria
issues, or else I might regret it…So after other
townsppeople found out where I lived I decided to move out of Carpinteria.â€
An organization called “Recall CUSD - Warrior
Spirit Never Dies†(http://www.recallcusd.org),
has waged a largely successful campaign to
discredit and oust the school board members who
supported the anti-mascot measure. Having
successfully installed pro-mascot sympathizers on
the school board, there is now a petition to
rescind the earlier decision and keep the racist
imagery at the public high school. On January
27th, local Native American people organized a
protest to voice their objection to the measure,
and were met with verbal abuse by drivers and
passers-by. One protestor was hit with a rock
thrown by an adult man shouting obscenities. This
occurred despite the presence of a representative
of the federal justice department, who was sent
from Los Angeles to ensure proper police conduct
and the safety of the demonstrators. Many local
Native Americans, while supporting the
anti-mascot effort, refused to join the protest, fearing violent reprisals
by the townspeople.
The next school board meeting in Carpinteria is
scheduled for February 10th.. At this meeting the
board will hear from a committee which was formed
to assess each specific Native American image on
display at Carpinteria High School. The school
board is then expected to adjourn until February
24th, when the vote to rescind the previous
ruling will be held. Protests and
counter-protests are expected at both board meetings.
Does anyone remember the debates of the definiion of 'terrorism' right after 9-11? If I remember correctly, the official government definition was along the lines of someone who uses violent acts to try to change political policy.
So, what about people who use death threats and violent physical attacks (throwing a rock at peaceful protestors) to try to change the town policy about a friggin school mascot of all things?
I've long felt that immigrants of middle-eastern background were not nearly the most dangerous 'terror' threat in this country. Maybe its because I grew up in the south at the tail end of the KKK era, but I know the way violence and intimidation have been used by some whites against any other group that may want to have a say in what happens in their community. And don't ever forget who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Shouldn't people who are willing to threaten to kill other people over something as minor as a school mascot be considered very dangerous? More likely the Feds are busy investigating some family of arab immigrants who came here to try to find a better life.
--------------------------------------------------------
Indians face racist mascot backlash
Posted by: "Mark Anquoe by way of Mark Cohen" buildingbridges@mindspring.com acjobim2002
Sun Feb 8, 2009 1:48 pm (PST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Mark Anquoe
American Indian Movement - West
(415) 566-5788
gazelbe@yahoo.com
http://www.aimwest.info
Corine Fairbanks
American Indian Movement Santa Barbara
(805) 212-4947
corine68@yahoo.com
http://www.myspace.com/aimsantabarbara
Native Americans Face Violence and Intimidation
Over Mascot Removal in Carpinteria
CARPINTERIA, California - The small town of
Carpinteria, California is the latest
battleground in Native Americans’ fight against
racism. The controversy over a supposedly
“harmless†high school sports mascot has
alienated the Native American population of
Carpinteria, who have come to fear violent
reprisals from the non-Native community.
The Carpinteria “Warriors†mascot is the
standard Indian chief stereotype, complete with
generic plains-style war bonnet and stoic gaze.
The school logo consists of a spear with dangling
feathers; a visual symbol also associated with
plains Indian cultures. Last spring, 15 year old
Chumash youth Eli Cordero voiced his objections
to the use of this stereotypical imagery by
Carpinteria High School. On April 22nd, 2008, he
brought his concerns before the school board
which then voted to retire the use of all Native American imagery.
Since the April 2008 decision, many citizens of
Carpinteria have waged a campaign of terror
against those who supported the school board’s
decision, as well as the school board itself. A
local businessman placed a quarter-page ad in the
local newspaper explicitly naming and targeting
Eli Cordero, the young student who originally
brought the issue to the school board. Since that
time, the 15 year old has received death threats
and his family has been harassed. Death threats
were also made against the child of a school
board member who voted to remove the imagery.
Local police began escorting school board members
to and from school board meetings. Some citizens
of Carpinteria shouted racial epithets at John
Orendorff, a Native American Army Reserve colonel
who spoke at a school board meeting in favor of removing the racist imagery.
Some Native American people have moved out of
Carpinteria due to the climate of fear and
anti-Indian sentiment. Ashleigh Brown, until
recently a resident of Carpinteria, spoke of her
decision to move away, “There is a community
member who refused to do our printing for our
cultural awareness event. Her son…started telling
my roommate to keep my nose out of Carpinteria
issues, or else I might regret it…So after other
townsppeople found out where I lived I decided to move out of Carpinteria.â€
An organization called “Recall CUSD - Warrior
Spirit Never Dies†(http://www.recallcusd.org),
has waged a largely successful campaign to
discredit and oust the school board members who
supported the anti-mascot measure. Having
successfully installed pro-mascot sympathizers on
the school board, there is now a petition to
rescind the earlier decision and keep the racist
imagery at the public high school. On January
27th, local Native American people organized a
protest to voice their objection to the measure,
and were met with verbal abuse by drivers and
passers-by. One protestor was hit with a rock
thrown by an adult man shouting obscenities. This
occurred despite the presence of a representative
of the federal justice department, who was sent
from Los Angeles to ensure proper police conduct
and the safety of the demonstrators. Many local
Native Americans, while supporting the
anti-mascot effort, refused to join the protest, fearing violent reprisals
by the townspeople.
The next school board meeting in Carpinteria is
scheduled for February 10th.. At this meeting the
board will hear from a committee which was formed
to assess each specific Native American image on
display at Carpinteria High School. The school
board is then expected to adjourn until February
24th, when the vote to rescind the previous
ruling will be held. Protests and
counter-protests are expected at both board meetings.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
AP Impact: Pentagon boosts spending on PR
AP Impact: Pentagon boosts spending on PR by the AP.
Hey, I think we just found $5 billion a year that can be diverted to helping economic recovery and preventing home foreclosures on hard working (or trying to work) Americans.
So, do you think sometimes you see articles in the local paper, or stories on local TV news that seem ridiculously tilted towards the US military. Well, that's your tax dollars hard at work.
First off, this is very, very close to being illegal. Even the AP, which is not exactly hostile to the US military, hints at that in this article.
And the reason that this was at one time made illegal is that this is very destructive to democracy and freedom. Do you ever notice how its become almost impossible to speak against the US military in this country? Its becoming very hard to have any sort of discussion that might lead to lower defense budgets, or less of our military going around the world killing people. And when you realize there's a $5 billion a year operation employing 27,000 people promoting the US military, then one starts to see why.
In a democracy, power is supposed to reside with the people. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. As such, its not the government's role to be telling the people what to think. That distorts the process. That puts power with the government, as opposed to power residing with the people.
Anyone want to make a small wager that this doesn't change under Obama? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe his radical pick of Gates as Sec of Defense means that policies like this under previous Sec of Defense Gates will be reversed.
Hey, I think we just found $5 billion a year that can be diverted to helping economic recovery and preventing home foreclosures on hard working (or trying to work) Americans.
On an abandoned Air Force base in San Antonio, Texas, editors for the Joint Hometown News Service point proudly to a dozen clippings on a table as examples of success in getting stories into newspapers.
What readers are not told: Each of these glowing stories was written by Pentagon staff. Under the free service, stories go out with authors' names but not their titles, and do not mention Hometown News anywhere. In 2009, Hometown News plans to put out 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, among other work — 50 percent more than in 2007.
The service is just a tiny piece of the Pentagon's rapidly expanding media empire, which is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies.
So, do you think sometimes you see articles in the local paper, or stories on local TV news that seem ridiculously tilted towards the US military. Well, that's your tax dollars hard at work.
First off, this is very, very close to being illegal. Even the AP, which is not exactly hostile to the US military, hints at that in this article.
And the reason that this was at one time made illegal is that this is very destructive to democracy and freedom. Do you ever notice how its become almost impossible to speak against the US military in this country? Its becoming very hard to have any sort of discussion that might lead to lower defense budgets, or less of our military going around the world killing people. And when you realize there's a $5 billion a year operation employing 27,000 people promoting the US military, then one starts to see why.
In a democracy, power is supposed to reside with the people. The government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. As such, its not the government's role to be telling the people what to think. That distorts the process. That puts power with the government, as opposed to power residing with the people.
Anyone want to make a small wager that this doesn't change under Obama? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe his radical pick of Gates as Sec of Defense means that policies like this under previous Sec of Defense Gates will be reversed.
In Washington, Public Policy and Private Wealth are Hopelessly Tangled
In Washington, Public Policy and Private Wealth are Hopelessly Tangled by William Pfaff on Truthdig.com
Good article on health care ....
My one problem with the article is that he perpetuates the myth that Obama is some sort of saint trying to work around all of this corruption. To check that, let's go to Maplight.org. There we can find who the health insurance industry gives money to in Congress. Hey, look, there's Obama as the number 1 recipient of health insurance money in Congress at $232,000.
Note carefully that this is only money given to Congressional campaigns. I don't believe it includes any health insurance money that's a part of the $700,000,000.00 that just got Obama elected President. This is only money given to Senate campaigns from 2001 to 2008. Interestingly, Obama's first campaign was in 2004. So, he either became the largest recipient of health insurance money in that one race, or they were giving a lot of money to his 2010 accounts on top of other money that probably went to his Presidential campaign.
Now, is it any big surprise that Obama's first choice for HHS was someone else who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the health insurance industry? And he sure as heck ain't gonna pick a proponent of 'single-payer', or maybe someone like the head of the CA Nurses union to replace Daschle.
Good article on health care ....
To get back to Washington, while ex-Sen. Daschle is a reputed expert on health systems, he has also, since leaving the Senate, made a quarter of a million dollars as speaker, consultant and adviser to private health insurance and health-care companies.
Does anyone think that, as secretary of health and human services, he would have recommended a new system that cuts out the private health insurance industry? The insurance companies are the ones that killed Hillary Clinton’s health proposals eight years ago. Where do you think the money goes that makes American health care the most expensive in the world? It’s not going into nurses’ salaries.
My one problem with the article is that he perpetuates the myth that Obama is some sort of saint trying to work around all of this corruption. To check that, let's go to Maplight.org. There we can find who the health insurance industry gives money to in Congress. Hey, look, there's Obama as the number 1 recipient of health insurance money in Congress at $232,000.
Note carefully that this is only money given to Congressional campaigns. I don't believe it includes any health insurance money that's a part of the $700,000,000.00 that just got Obama elected President. This is only money given to Senate campaigns from 2001 to 2008. Interestingly, Obama's first campaign was in 2004. So, he either became the largest recipient of health insurance money in that one race, or they were giving a lot of money to his 2010 accounts on top of other money that probably went to his Presidential campaign.
Now, is it any big surprise that Obama's first choice for HHS was someone else who gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from the health insurance industry? And he sure as heck ain't gonna pick a proponent of 'single-payer', or maybe someone like the head of the CA Nurses union to replace Daschle.
Green960 Radio and Cindy Sheenhan's Soapbox
I guess I'm still on Cindy Sheehan's email lists after the elections. One thing I got from her was a letter saying she's already planning on running against Pelosi again in 2010. Yahoo! Pelosi needs a challenger. And one thing I think we have a problem with is that too many of our political campaigns are 'one and done'. We need to build a grassroots movement, and to do it in the face of massive propaganda. That doesn't happen overnight, and having the same campaign just roll over into the next cycle is a very good way to fight.
Her recent email was about her radio show. And it mentioned that it could be 'podcast' (ie played back anytime) on the Green960.com website. Then, the link I followed not only led me to her shows, but also what seems like a bunch of other decent voices from the left. So, I thought I'd pass it along. And I'll also add it to the lists on the left.
Green960.com Podcast Page
Her recent email was about her radio show. And it mentioned that it could be 'podcast' (ie played back anytime) on the Green960.com website. Then, the link I followed not only led me to her shows, but also what seems like a bunch of other decent voices from the left. So, I thought I'd pass it along. And I'll also add it to the lists on the left.
Green960.com Podcast Page
Afghanistan says foreign fighters coming from Iraq
Afghanistan says foreign fighters coming from Iraq on Antiwar.com
Interesting. For years we heard about the 'foreign fighters' in Iraq. Of course, they never showed up as prisoners captured after actions, or as dead bodies on the battlefield. Analysis of those sorts of hard facts always showed the Iraqi resistance was almost entirely Iraqi. There were a few foreign fighters, but never the numbers that were implied by the propaganda about them.
Now, amazingly enough, as the US shifts its active war fighting from Iraq to Afghanistan, these mythical foreign fighters are also flocking to Afghanistan.
Growing up in East Tennessee, I used to watch some pro wrestling on TV. I became convinced that they only had a limited number of scripts that were constantly recycled. Now I'm starting to think the same thing about US propaganda. They really don't have many new stories to tell. They just keep recycling the same scripts over and over. Heck, this reminds me a lot about those nasty Cubans and Soviets that were flooding into Nicaragua so they could drive up through Texas and thus destroy the American way of life. Same script, they just changed the name of the bad guys. These days with computers and printers, they don't even have to use 'white-out'.
Interesting. For years we heard about the 'foreign fighters' in Iraq. Of course, they never showed up as prisoners captured after actions, or as dead bodies on the battlefield. Analysis of those sorts of hard facts always showed the Iraqi resistance was almost entirely Iraqi. There were a few foreign fighters, but never the numbers that were implied by the propaganda about them.
Now, amazingly enough, as the US shifts its active war fighting from Iraq to Afghanistan, these mythical foreign fighters are also flocking to Afghanistan.
Growing up in East Tennessee, I used to watch some pro wrestling on TV. I became convinced that they only had a limited number of scripts that were constantly recycled. Now I'm starting to think the same thing about US propaganda. They really don't have many new stories to tell. They just keep recycling the same scripts over and over. Heck, this reminds me a lot about those nasty Cubans and Soviets that were flooding into Nicaragua so they could drive up through Texas and thus destroy the American way of life. Same script, they just changed the name of the bad guys. These days with computers and printers, they don't even have to use 'white-out'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)