Monday, July 14, 2008

Treasury Acts to Shore Up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In this piece from today's NYT, we can see further proof of the truism, "banks are bailed out, people are thrown out". Also on display is corporate socialism, since losses are always socialized - only profits are privatized. How far must it go before it is stopped? We are not powerless.--Pete


July 14, 2008

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.

In a separate announcement, the Federal Reserve said it would make one of its short-term lending programs available to the two companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed said that it had made its decision “to promote the availability of home mortgage credit during a period of stress in financial markets.”

An official said that the Fed’s decision to permit the companies to borrow from its so-called discount window was approved at the request of the Treasury but that it was temporary and would probably end once Congress approved Treasury’s plan. Some officials briefed on the plan said Congress could be asked to extend the total line of credit to the institutions to $300 billion.

The actions, which taken together could provide an overwhelming surge of capital to the companies, were the second time in four months that the housing crisis had prompted the government to scramble over a weekend to rescue a major financial institution. Last March, the Treasury Department engineered the sale of Bear Stearns to prevent it from going into bankruptcy and cause a shock to the financial system.

The plan was disclosed on Sunday evening to calm jittery markets overseas and on Wall Street in advance of a debt sale by Freddie Mac on Monday morning. Officials said that after talking to senior lawmakers through the weekend, they expected that Congress would attach the proposals to a housing bill that could be completed and sent to the White House for approval as early as this week.

“The president has asked me to work with Congress to act on this plan immediately,” the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., said Sunday on the steps of the Treasury building. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction.”

While senior Democratic and Republican officials in successive administrations have for many years repeatedly denied that the trillions of dollars of debt Fannie and Freddie issued is guaranteed, the package, if adopted, would bring the Treasury closer than ever to exposing taxpayers to potentially huge new liabilities. The two companies could face significant new losses this year as the wave of housing foreclosures continues. Officials seemed to suggest, however, that they had little choice but to intervene.

Over the weekend, Treasury officials sought assurances from Wall Street firms that the $3 billion auction by Freddie Mac of short-term debt would go off without a hitch. While $3 billion is a relatively small sum for an institution of Freddie’s size officials said they did not want to risk even a small misstep that could set off a new round of problems.

The government officials said that the more drastic alternative that has been considered — placing one or both companies under the control of a government-appointed conservator — would be done only as a last-ditch measure if the intermediate steps failed to restore confidence. The failure of just one of the companies could be catastrophic for economies around the world.

The officials said they were prompted to act because, despite repeated assurances by top officials that the companies had adequate cash to weather the current financial storm, Fannie and Freddie suffered a withering blow of confidence last week when their stocks plummeted on the New York Stock Exchange. As a result, Freddie faced an uncertain debt offering on Monday.

The companies, known as government-sponsored enterprises, or G.S.E.’s, touch nearly half of the nation’s mortgages by either owning or guaranteeing them, and the debt securities they issue to finance their operations are widely owned by foreign governments, pension funds, mutual funds, big companies and other large institutional investors.

“G.S.E. debt is held by financial institutions around the world,” Mr. Paulson said in his statement. “Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets. Therefore we must take steps to address the current situation as we move to a stronger regulatory structure.”

The proposal would give the Treasury secretary authority to determine when to invest in the companies or extend loans to them. Those purchases would be made with the agreement of the companies.

Officials said the proposed investment and lending elements of the plan were to last two years.

While the Treasury did not specify the size of the packages, officials briefed on the plan said they were told by administration officials that, to be meaningful, Congress should consider extending the line of credit to the two institutions to $300 billion.

Each company now has a $2.25 billion credit line, set nearly 40 years ago by Congress. At the time, Fannie had only about $15 billion in outstanding debt. It now has total debt of about $800 billion, while Freddie has about $740 billion. Today the two companies also hold or guarantee loans valued at more than $5 trillion, about half the nation’s mortgages.

Lawmakers said that as part of the plan, the administration called on Congress to raise the national debt limit. And it asked Congress to give the Federal Reserve a role in setting the rules for how big a capital cushion each company must hold. Giving the Fed a consulting role in the companies’ oversight is seen as another way to reassure markets.

Initial reaction to the plan by some Congressional Democrats was positive.

An early endorsement came from Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is also a senior member of the banking committee.

“The Treasury’s plan is surgical and carefully thought out and will maximize confidence in Fannie and Freddie while minimizing potential costs to U.S. taxpayers,” Mr. Schumer said. “While Fannie and Freddie still have solid fundamentals, it will be reassuring to investors, bondholders and mortgage-holders that the federal government will be behind these agencies should it be needed.”

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, and one of the authors of the housing legislation, said he supported the Treasury proposal. He said he expected the plan would be included in the housing bill, which he said would be approved, sent back to the Senate and likely land on the president’s desk by the end of the week.

“The general thrust of what they’re doing is right,” said Mr. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told reporters in San Diego on Sunday that any government action to rescue the two mortgage companies should be done from the perspective of homeowners, “not just shareholders and investors and C.E.O.’s of companies.”

His presumed Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said last week that he expected the government would do all it could to prevent the failure of either company.

The administration’s announcement was made after senior officials from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve spent Saturday and Sunday closely monitoring preparations by Freddie Mac to raise money to help meet its short-term financing needs. Officials said they were watching to see if the steep declines last week of Freddie and Fannie stock would spill into the debt market and undermine the confidence of lenders.

A senior official said that the administration had been receiving mixed signals from Wall Street about the Monday auction. But other officials denied that the prospect of a weak debt offering had motivated the Treasury to rush out its rescue plan.

“There is nothing that motivated us to act tonight that changed from Friday night,” said a Treasury official. “There has been no further deterioration in the markets.”

Daniel H. Mudd, the president and chief executive of Fannie Mae, said the company “appreciates today’s announcements and the expressions of support.”

“We continue to hold more than adequate capital reserves and maintain access to liquidity from the capital markets,” Mr. Mudd said. “Given the market turmoil, having options to access provisional sources of liquidity if needed will help to strengthen overall confidence in the market.”

Richard F. Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac, said, “This affirmation of the important role of the G.S.E.’s, and that we should continue to operate as shareholder-owned companies, should go a long way toward reassuring world markets that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will continue to support America’s homebuyers and renters.”

On the prospect that the government could buy shares, Sharon J. McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac, said, “It’s important to note that our understanding with Treasury is that any agreement to purchase equity can only occur with the mutual agreement of both parties.”

Reporting was contributed by Jenny Anderson and Gretchen Morgenson from New York; Charles Duhigg from Macatawa, Mich.; and David Herszhenhorn and Carl Hulse from Washington.

Today's reason to smile






















Click pic for larger image

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Big Pharma Is in a Frenzy to Bring Cannabis-Based Medicines to Market

A post on Alternet tells the truth about the medical properties of cannabis and the rush to patent the various compounds related to its many and varied medicinal properties. One of the points rarely discussed in these arguments is the fact that the human brain has receptors specific to cannabis, meaning that it has been an important part of the human diet/pharmacopoeia for a very long time. Read on.--Pete

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story/90469/

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.

It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor persuasive. Here's why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.

Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

So Much For The Fourth Amendment...

Well campers, the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been trashed. The passage of the FISA bill - complete with retroactive telecom immunity for their illegally handing over our private information to the NSA on a request from the illegitimate Bush administration - has set a legal precedent of monstrous proportion. Your privacy - one of those natural rights retained by the people and protected by the ninth amendment - has been canceled in our representative government's rush to totalitarianism. Mourn the death of the republic and fly the black flags of anarchy as a firm statement of intent. There are those of us who need to start by turning off their consensus-manufacturing devices.

All of us who held out hope that the elections of November '06 would turn the tide of tyranny, corruption, lies and mass-murderous foreign policy in what remains of the republic have had their hopes dashed repeatedly, and some have had their intuitions confirmed that the U.S. political system is a complete sham. Those elected serve their biggest campaign contributors - period. Even constant pressure from constituents doesn't work, if those constituents aren't "pioneer-level" donors. Congress is nothing but a brothel and all of our elected legislative officials are whores. Am I being too hyperbolic? I think not, considering all the empirical evidence.

Saturday, July 05, 2008

It’s Not the Man, It’s the Movement

Good God, I love's me some Amy Goodman! That girl rocks like a house on fire, don't she? Here's the latest from the spitfire, which goes a long way toward healing my soul after reading E. J. Dionne's latest (whom I normally love): http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080703_obamas_leap_of_faith/
--Pete

By Amy Goodman

I was on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado this week when Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter asked me, “Is Obama a sellout?” The question isn’t whether he is a sellout or not—it’s about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?

Richard Nixon’s campaign strategy was to run in the primaries to the right, then move to the center in the general election. Bill Clinton’s strategy was called “triangulation,” navigating to a political “Third Way” to please moderates and undecided voters. This past week, Barack Obama has made some signal policy changes that suggest he might be doing something similar. Will it work for him?

Take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example. A Dec. 17, 2007, press release from Obama’s Senate office read: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.” Six months later, he supports immunity for the companies that spied on Americans.

I asked Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., about Obama’s position on the FISA bill. He told me: “Wrong vote. Regrettable. Many Democrats will do this. We should be standing up for the Constitution. When Sen. Obama is president, he will, I’m sure, work to fix some of this, but it’s going to be a lot easier to prevent it now than to try to fix it later.”

Feingold and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., are planning on filibustering the bill. It will take 60 senators to overcome their filibuster. It looks like Obama will be one of them. Disappointment with Obama’s FISA position is not limited to his senatorial colleagues. On Obama’s own campaign Web site, bloggers are voicing strident opposition to his FISA position. At the time of this writing, an online group on Obama’s site had more than 10,000 members and was growing fast. The group’s profile reads: “Senator Obama—we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!”

Then there were the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on gun control and the death penalty. Obama supported the court in overturning the 32-year-old ban on handguns in the nation’s violence-ridden capital. It’s the court’s most significant ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. And in a blow to death-penalty opponents, Obama disagreed with the high court’s prohibiting execution of those who were found guilty of raping children.

In a Jan. 21, 2008, primary debate, Obama called the North American Free Trade Agreement “a mistake” and “an enormous problem.” He recently told Fortune magazine, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified ... my core position has never changed ... I’ve always been a proponent of free trade.” This, after the primary-campaign scandal of the alleged meeting between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and a member of the Canadian consulate. A Canadian memo describing the meeting suggested Obama was generally satisfied with NAFTA. Goolsbee described the accounts as inaccurate. Now people are beginning to question Obama’s genuine opposition to NAFTA and “free trade.”

Then there is the floating of potential vice presidential candidates. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post was on the Aspen panel and noted that he has been receiving e-mails from gay men who angrily oppose former Sen. Sam Nunn as an Obama running mate. They can’t forget Nunn’s key role in shaping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The e-mails trickled up, prompting the writing of an influential Capehart column, “Don’t Ask Nunn.”

It may be the strategy of the Obama campaign to run to the middle, to attract the independents, the undecided. But he should look carefully at the lessons of the 2004 Kerry campaign. John Kerry made similar calculations, not wanting to appear weak on the war in Iraq. Uninspired, people stayed home. There are millions who care about the issues from which Obama is distancing himself, from FISA to gun control to gay rights to free trade to the death penalty. Rather than staying home, they should recall the words of Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America.

© 2008 Amy Goodman

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080702_its_not_the_man_its_the_movement/

True Patriots infiltrate BushCo's desecration of Monticello

Free-thinking Americans, sick to death of the media saturation tactics decrying and denying their numbers, took to action at Thomas Jefferson's historic home yesterday to shout down the face of fascism in America, George W. Bush, CEO of BushCo., as well as the illegitimate Chief Executive of these Not Quite United States. Seems the Resident of the United States was there to speak at a mass citizenship swearing in. It was absolutely beautiful. This blogger wishes he could have been there to see Unca George proclaim to hold near and dear to his heart America's "freedom of speech", while protesters were literally dragged out and most likely jailed.

Download Windows Media Player Version

Download Quicktime Version


If links don't work, go here. The videos are wonderfully life-enhancing!

Karl doesn't wanna play nice with the neighbor boys

The big news yesterday was that Karl Rove has "declined to appear" before a House judiciary subcommittee despite a subpoena directing him to do so.

Surprise! Why, who could have seen his coming?

Daily Kos is reporting the toothless judiciary committee angle, saying that the Dems have announced that they might consider a compromise allowing Mr. Rove to testify in private, unsworn testimony, calling this "an important step forward" and that they were "encouraged by the suggestion".

It wasn't and they shouldn't have been. Karl's lawyer put the kibosh on the whole shebang right quick. Apparently, since Mr. Rove hired a private attorney - instead of White House representation - this game can be played out indefinitely.

Doesn't Karl Rove's status as private citizen strip away the magical powers of immunity provided by the cloak of "executive privilege"? And what about the rule of law - does it not apply to all, especially those who have gone on record saying that this administration "creates its own reality"?

So much for demonstrating respect for the law...

Friday, July 04, 2008

Okay, so I really don't mean "Fuck The Fourth"...

...the Fourth of July being the end result of free-thinking patriots flipping off their colonial occupation governent - always a good thing. Some folks believe that it is only a good thing in regards to America's revolution, though, without applying the paradigm to other occupied nations (hmmm...what could he possibly be talking about?).

What I meant in the last post was that as a people, we have been robbed of the meaning of this day by a tyrannical administration bent on effecting fascist dictatorial powers for the executive branch in defiance of the Constituution. This process has been going on slowly for 30 years, but in the last eight years the gloves have truly come off. It is apparent that both parties care little about restoration of the Republic, knowing as they do which side their bread is buttered on. They can no longer be seen as public servants, and must be viewed as the enemy, with the hopelessly broken electoral process as their ally.

"Fuck the fourth" was also meant as a hyperlink to purchase inexpensive black flags to fly as a statement of intent. Oh that we were as courageous as the people of Oaxaca, Georgia, Chiapas, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela et all. To rally together with a singular purpose - reversal of the socio/political/economic tide and the indictment and possible incarceration of those criminals responsible. Damn, my hairs are standing on end!

Maybe after American Idol, huh? I'll get the chips...

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Oh Hell, Here We Go, Campers!

For all you Obama lovers, looks like you are going to get exactly what you deserve for your continued support of the duopoly electoral system here in these Not Quite United States. Since becoming the de facto Democratic nominee (this, in lieu of an actual labor/social party nominee), Mr. Obama has been backpedaling furiously regarding key issues in this campaign. His support of retroactive immunity for corporate telecoms who illegally gave over our information to the NSA under a presidential request sounds more like "Old Johnny Mac", the candidate the Grand OLD Party is sending up for consideration by either 51 or 49 per cent of us. He is also transmitting signals that he is "continuing to refine" his position regarding troop withdrawals (I'm getting a headache already).

Look, it's not gonna end here, and I'm damn tired of those who've accepted this charade and just love to spout the "lesser evil" line. Seems that's all we're left with, isn't it? Might as well just learn to live with it. The fuck I will!

Okay, watch this latest Obama-nation for yourself.




Fuck the Fourth, kiddies.

Kisses, Pete

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

What's So Special About Veterans?

The military is not democratic

By Dave Lindorff, Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07022008.html

The teacup tempest over retired Gen. Wesley Clark’s self-evident remark about John McCain—to whit that flying a fighter aircraft and getting shot down and captured is not particularly relevant to the skill set needed to be a president—raises a larger question: Why do veterans, and particularly the veterans of the criminal and pointless war in Iraq, or the earlier one in Vietnam, automatically get hero status, and why are they seen as naturals to run for higher national office?

I’m sure there are plenty of heroes in the military—people who put their lives on the line, and even give their lives, for their comrades, people who give up safe jobs and leave their families for what they see as a patriotic duty. But let’s face it: the whole recruiting project is about convincing young men and women that joining the military is in their self-interest—a way to get ahead, a way to see the world, a way to get financial aid for college, a way to have some excitement, a way to get a fat signing bonus so you can buy that new car you wanted. And people who sign up for these self-interested reasons are no more heroic than people who go to work for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, while there are dangerous posts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nature of the military is that the vast majority of people who wear a uniform just work in offices or motor pools, and face dangers no greater than workers who do the same thing in civilian life at home. In fact, in the case of more hazardous work, like heavy equipment repair, it’s probably safe to say that after years of gutting worker safety rules and inspections, it may be safer working for the Pentagon than working for a civilian employer.

Beyond that, there are people who easily as heroic as many of our uniformed citizens who don’t get any credit for their courage and dedication to humanity and their country. How about young doctors who eschew lucrative careers in plastic surgery to work in low-income communities or on Indian reservations? How about Peace Corps or Vista volunteers who go to dangerous places at home and abroad to help people improve their lives? Even in uniform there are heroes who don’t get credit for their courage. How about people like Lt. Ehren Watada or Sgt. Camilo Mejia, or other members of the military who risked jail, or even did hard time rather than continue to fight in an illegal war?

There are heroes in our schools, heroes on the job, heroes who work in jobs like police officer or firefighter, even heroes in politics (though few and far between!). Most of them aren’t ever recognized by society for what they do. Not everyone who serves in the military is a hero, and plenty of people who don’t, or won’t, wear a uniform are heroes.

Furthermore, as Gen. Clark noted, wearing a uniform, and going to war, do not make a person better suited for government or politics. But I’d go him one further. Even having significant administration experience in the military does not make an officer any better suited for an executive or a legislative position in government. In fact, arguably, it makes a person less well suited for government in a democratic society.

The military is not a place that values open expression of opinions. It is a top-down organization in which obedience to “superiors” is valued more highly than initiative and self-direction. The military isn’t even as democratic as the old Bolshevik Party. At least in theory, the Bolshevik model was supposed to encourage democratic discussion until a decision was reached by the leadership, after which there would be discipline and unquestioned obedience. In the military, the democratic discussion part is eliminated from the model. What that has to do with democratic governance I don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong. I have a endless sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of military personnel, active duty, reservist and National Guard members, who got dragged off under false pretenses to have to serve in an illegal war of aggression, even to get seriously wounded or to die there, and I’m a strong supporter of generous veterans’ benefits for all of them and for their long-suffering families.

But let’s not cheapen the term “hero” by assigning it to all of them—especially while ignoring the heroism of those who have refused to fight, or of those who engage in heroic efforts to better the lives of their fellow human beings instead of just helping to kill them.

And let’s stop pretending that having worn a uniform somehow automatically makes someone a better person, and a more competent leader, than someone who never wore one.

The returned soldiers I’ve known from Vietnam, and the soldiers I’ve spoken to who have served in Iraq, have for the most part been the first to say that they don’t feel like heroes. It is, in fact, the charlatans and political cowards in government who are busy promoting endless war who are tossing that label around with such abandon. They are in both parties, and we should recognize their abuse of the term, “hero” and their fake stances of “respect” and “support” for the troops, for what it is: cheap political posturing, designed to intimidate critics of a criminal war.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Monday, June 30, 2008

America is the rogue nation

By Charlie Reese, AntiWar.Com
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=13061

One gets the impression that there are some people in Washington who believe that Israel or the U.S. can bomb Iran's nuclear reactors, fly home, and it will be mission complete.

It makes you wonder if perhaps there is a virus going around that is gradually making people stupid. If we or Israel attack Iran, we will have a new war on our hands. The Iranians are not going to shrug off an attack and say, "You naughty boys, you."

Consider how much trouble Iraq has given us. Some 4,000 dead and 29,000 wounded, a half a trillion dollars in cost and still climbing, and five years later, we cannot say that the country is pacified.

Iraq is a small country compared with Iran. Iran has about 70 million people. Its western mountains border the Persian Gulf. In other words, its missiles and guns look down on the U.S. ships below it. And it has lots of missiles, from short-range to intermediate-range (around 2,200 kilometers).

More to the point, it has been equipped by Russia with the fastest anti-ship missile on the planet. The SS-N-22 Sunburn can travel at Mach 3 at high altitude and at Mach 2.2 at low altitude. That is faster than anything in our arsenal.

Iran's conventional forces include an army of 540,000 men and 300,000 reserves, including 120,000 Iranian Guards especially trained in unconventional warfare. It has more than 1,600 main battle tanks and 21,000 other armored combat vehicles. It has 3,200 artillery pieces, three submarines, 59 surface warships and 10 amphibious ships.

It's been receiving help in arming itself from China, North Korea and Russia. Unlike Iraq, Iran's forces have not been worn down with bombing, wars and sanctions. It also has a new anti-aircraft defense system from Russia that I've heard is pretty snazzy.

So, if you think we or Israel can attack Iran and not expect retaliation, I'd have to say with regret that you are a moron. If you think we could easily handle Iran in an all-out war, I'd have to promote you to idiot.

Attacking Iran would be folly, but we seem to be living in the Age of Folly. Morons and idiots took us into an unjustified war against Iraq before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Now we have troops tied down in both countries.

For some years now, I've worried that we seem to be more and more like Colonial England – arrogant, racist, overestimating our own capacity and underestimating that of our enemies. As the fate of the British Empire demonstrates, that is a fatal flaw.

The British never dreamed that the "little yellow people" could come ashore by land and take Singapore from the rear or that they would sink the pride of the British fleet, but they did both.

I suppose no one in Washington can imagine the Iranians sinking one of our carriers in the Persian Gulf. How'd you like to be the president who has to tell the American people that we've lost a carrier for the first time since World War II?

Exactly how the Iranians will respond to an attack, I don't know, but they will respond. In keeping with our present policy, our attack on Iran would be illegal, since under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Who would have thought that we would become the rogue nation committing acts of aggression around the globe?

AT&T Billing Site Jokes About Company's Participation in Warrantless Wiretapping

By , bOING bOING
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//89872/

By Cory Doctorow

Reid sez, "I, unfortunately, have an AT&T cell phone. I check my bill every few weeks. Today, I went to log in, and was greeted by a terrific new advertisement for their online billing system. It's as if their marketing department thinks that warrantless wiretapping is funny or something. " Link, Link to screenshot

(Thanks, Reid!)

Cory Doctorow blogs at Boing Boing.

© 2008 bOING bOING All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//89872/

Saturday, June 28, 2008

8 year old plays Electric Funeral by Black Sabbath

OMG!!!!

This song was my first intro to metal-meisters Black Sabbath, through my friend Jay's older brother, drummer Carey Wehrer! He used to practice to it. I was not much older than this wee laddy.

Rock on, Les Paul-slinging kid!

Bush Cites Enviro Concerns to Curb Solar Development...While Accelerating Oil Drilling

LAFAYETTE, IN - A few weeks back, I wrote a New York Times magazine article about the populist uprising against unbridled oil and gas drilling in the Mountain West. The article highlighted a major theme in my new book, THE UPRISING. In the article, I discussed how the Bush Bureau of Land Management has thrown the principle of environmental caution overboard by opening up a huge amount of federal land to drilling. So it is with more than a little bit absurd to read this New York Times story today:
"Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years. The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states."
Look - I agree that we need to do a better job of measuring environmental impacts of all proposed energy development - whether that development is solar, oil or gas. But what's so incredible about this story is that the BLM is working to curtail solar development in Western states by citing environmental concerns while at the same actively accelerating oil and gas drilling in Western states - drilling that is way, way worse for the environment than solar energy, from both an emissions perspective and a land-use perspective.

This kind of government fealty to the rapacious fossil fuel industry is precisely what the energy-related populist uprising in West is revolting against.

U.S Spy Bill Creates the 'Infrastructure for a Police State'

The delayed vote on the on the illegal wiretapping bill is being touted by some as a chance to wedge the people's voice into the debate by our supposed representatives, who seem hell-bent on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom giants who illegally handed our private information to the NSA. I have my doubts. Campaign contributors come before citizens in our corrupted system - way before. The argument being used is that the corporations were merely responding to a request from the president, as if the chief executive had the power to transcend the law of the land. This defense wasn't allowed at Nuremberg, and shouldn't be allowed here. If it is (and it probably will be), it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Republic.--Pete

The whistleblower at the heart of a lawsuit against AT&T for illegal eavesdropping says Congress is set to stage a 'coup against the Constitution' as it nears passage of a new spying bill. Former AT&T technician Mark Klein provided internal company documents that he claims show that AT&T spied on the internet inside the United States.

read more | digg story

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Scalia Used False Information in Gitmo Dissent

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story/89401/

To bolster his argument that the Guantánamo detainees should be denied the right to prove their innocence in federal courts, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Boumediene v. Bush: "At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantánamo have returned to the battlefield." It turns out that statement is false.

According to a new report by Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research, "The statistic was endorsed by a Senate Minority Report issued June 26, 2007, which cites a media outlet, CNN. CNN, in turn, named the DoD as its source. The '30' number, however, was corrected in a DoD press release issued in July 2007, and a DoD document submitted to the House Foreign Relations Committee on May 20, 2008 abandons the claim entirely."

The largest possible number of detainees who could have "returned to the fight" is 12; however, the Department of Defense has no system for tracking the whereabouts of released detainees. The only one who has undisputedly taken up arms against the United States or its allies, "ISN 220," was released by political officers of the DoD against the recommendations of military officers.

Scalia bolstered his hysterical claim that the Boumediene decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" with stale information that was proven to be false one year ago. Professor Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Center, said, Scalia "was relying uncritically on information that originated with a party in the case before him."

The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the Guantánamo detainees were entitled to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. More than 200 men who have been held for up to six years and have never been charged with a crime, will now have their day in court. Many were snatched from their homes, picked up off the street or in airports, or sold to the U.S. military by warlords for bounty.

Scalia, who sits on the highest court in the land, has acted as a loyal foot soldier for the executive branch of government.

This article first appeared at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/89401/

Man Who Used Stick To Roll Ball Into Hole In Ground Praised For His Courage

June 19, 2008 | | Onion Sports

SAN DIEGO—A man who used several different bent sticks to hit a ball to an area comprised of very short grass surrounding a hole in the ground was praised for his courage Monday after he used a somewhat smaller stick to gently roll the ball into the aforementioned hole in fewer attempts than his competitors.

"What guts, what confidence," ESPN commentator Scott Van Pelt said of the man, who was evidently unable to carry his sticks himself, employing someone else to hold the sticks and manipulate the flag sticking out of the hole in the ground while he rolled the ball into it. "You have to be so brave, so self-assured, so strong mentally to [roll a ball into a hole in the ground]. Amazing."

The man in question apparently hurt his knee during this activity.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Dying Is Hard. Comedy Is Harder.

THE honest truth is, for a comedian, even death is just a premise to make jokes about. I know this because I was on the phone with George Carlin nine days ago and we were making some death jokes. We were talking about Tim Russert and Bo Diddley and George said: “I feel safe for a while. There will probably be a break before they come after the next one. I always like to fly on an airline right after they’ve had a crash. It improves your odds.”

I called him to compliment him on his most recent special on HBO. Seventy years old and he cranks out another hour of great new stuff. He was in a hotel room in Las Vegas getting ready for his show. He was a monster.

You could certainly say that George downright invented modern American stand-up comedy in many ways. Every comedian does a little George. I couldn’t even count the number of times I’ve been standing around with some comedians and someone talks about some idea for a joke and another comedian would say, “Carlin does it.” I’ve heard it my whole career: “Carlin does it,” “Carlin already did it,” “Carlin did it eight years ago.”

And he didn’t just “do” it. He worked over an idea like a diamond cutter with facets and angles and refractions of light. He made you sorry you ever thought you wanted to be a comedian. He was like a train hobo with a chicken bone. When he was done there was nothing left for anybody.

But his brilliance fathered dozens of great comedians. I personally never cared about “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” or “FM & AM.” To me, everything he did just had this gleaming wonderful precision and originality.

I became obsessed with him in the ’60s. As a kid it seemed like the whole world was funny because of George Carlin. His performing voice, even laced with profanity, always sounded as if he were trying to amuse a child. It was like the naughtiest, most fun grown-up you ever met was reading you a bedtime story.

I know George didn’t believe in heaven or hell. Like death, they were just more comedy premises. And it just makes me even sadder to think that when I reach my own end, whatever tumbling cataclysmic vortex of existence I’m spinning through, in that moment I will still have to think, “Carlin already did it.”

Jerry Seinfeld is a writer and a comedian.

Real Road Rage

June, 24 2008 By Mumia Abu-Jamal

As the price of gasoline soars, Americans are forced to think in ways that they haven't in generations: to drive, or not to drive?

Do they park the car and opt for public transportation?

Or do they try to sell the ole gas guzzler (better known as SUVs) for a tiny foreign import?

For most of the latter 20th century, a car was seen as an American right, more sacred than freedom of the press, for while many may've felt that the functions of a free press was problematic, the freedom to drive (with relatively cheap gas) was part of the national psyche.

For 50 years suburbs sprang up in the hinterlands of major American cities -- white rings around blacker and bleaker urban centers. Those mass migrations were made possible by the car, and affordable gas.

Those days are fast receding into yesteryear as gas prices break records almost daily.

And despite the sound and fury echoing from the nation's Capitol, or various presidential campaigns, the simple truth is that U.S. politicians have little impact on this phenomenon.

That's because oil is an international resource, affected by global economic and political forces beyond American control. It's also true that the toxic tensions released by the Iraq war have destabilized the region so much that a mere rumor can send prices spiking, feeding speculation, which profits from his cycle.

In 2003, before bombing even began over Baghdad, oil was selling at nearly $30 a barrel.

It's now over $135 a barrel.

More than a natural resource, oil has become a financial asset in itself, like stocks, bonds, real estate or gold. And like many assets, as long as it appreciates in value it will attract speculators who trade in oil futures, and in the absence of any real regulation, will push the price as far as the market will bear (and, after all, isn't that what a 'free market' means?).

One industry observer, Daniel Yergin, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted, "People are hedging against a falling dollar by buying oil and that hits the price. The most important thing that could be done would be for the dollar to rebound. And that is nothing you can legislate. " * Moreover, some industry experts have written that speculation hikes prices from 20 to 40%! That means that the price of a barrel of oil is really closer to $54 than $135, and thus that the price per gallon should be closer to $2.70!

So, the next time you coast into a gas station, and your jaw tightens as you notice the latest gas prices, remember why. That price was spiked by the twin forces of the Iraq war, and the government policy of deregulation.

Those who expect politicians to ease this problem are dreaming, as shown by the rejection of a recent bill seeking a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the Senate.

Exxon, for example, made more money in the last several quarters than any corporation in the history of business. Will the politicians who accepted millions from the likes of them choke this golden goose?

I think not.

So, get angry at the goof who just cut you off, or stole your parking space. Get angry at the car full of boys who are banging the bass so loudly the highway is bouncing.

Get angry at everybody, except the system that made this situation inevitable.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an acclaimed American journalist and author who has been writing from Death Row for more than twenty-five years. Mumia was sentenced to death after a trial that was so flagrantly racist that Amnesty International published a detailed report describing how the trial "failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings." Mumia is author of many books, including Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. The USA, forthcoming from City Lights Books.

Note

[*Source: Mouawad, Jad, "Oil Prices Are Up and Politicians Are Angry, Yawn.," New York Times, May 11, 2008, Sun., p.2 (Week in Review section).


From: Z Space - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3533

Real Road Rage

June, 24 2008By Mumia Abu-Jamal

As the price of gasoline soars, Americans are forced to think in ways that they haven't in generations: to drive, or not to drive?

Do they park the car and opt for public transportation?

Or do they try to sell the ole gas guzzler (better known as SUVs) for a tiny foreign import?

For most of the latter 20th century, a car was seen as an American right, more sacred than freedom of the press, for while many may've felt that the functions of a free press was problematic, the freedom to drive (with relatively cheap gas) was part of the national psyche.

For 50 years suburbs sprang up in the hinterlands of major American cities -- white rings around blacker and bleaker urban centers. Those mass migrations were made possible by the car, and affordable gas.

Those days are fast receding into yesteryear as gas prices break records almost daily.

And despite the sound and fury echoing from the nation's Capitol, or various presidential campaigns, the simple truth is that U.S. politicians have little impact on this phenomenon.

That's because oil is an international resource, affected by global economic and political forces beyond American control. It's also true that the toxic tensions released by the Iraq war have destabilized the region so much that a mere rumor can send prices spiking, feeding speculation, which profits from his cycle.

In 2003, before bombing even began over Baghdad, oil was selling at nearly $30 a barrel.

It's now over $135 a barrel.

More than a natural resource, oil has become a financial asset in itself, like stocks, bonds, real estate or gold. And like many assets, as long as it appreciates in value it will attract speculators who trade in oil futures, and in the absence of any real regulation, will push the price as far as the market will bear (and, after all, isn't that what a 'free market' means?).

One industry observer, Daniel Yergin, of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, noted, "People are hedging against a falling dollar by buying oil and that hits the price. The most important thing that could be done would be for the dollar to rebound. And that is nothing you can legislate. " * Moreover, some industry experts have written that speculation hikes prices from 20 to 40%! That means that the price of a barrel of oil is really closer to $54 than $135, and thus that the price per gallon should be closer to $2.70!

So, the next time you coast into a gas station, and your jaw tightens as you notice the latest gas prices, remember why. That price was spiked by the twin forces of the Iraq war, and the government policy of deregulation.

Those who expect politicians to ease this problem are dreaming, as shown by the rejection of a recent bill seeking a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the Senate.

Exxon, for example, made more money in the last several quarters than any corporation in the history of business. Will the politicians who accepted millions from the likes of them choke this golden goose?

I think not.

So, get angry at the goof who just cut you off, or stole your parking space. Get angry at the car full of boys who are banging the bass so loudly the highway is bouncing.

Get angry at everybody, except the system that made this situation inevitable.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is an acclaimed American journalist and author who has been writing from Death Row for more than twenty-five years. Mumia was sentenced to death after a trial that was so flagrantly racist that Amnesty International published a detailed report describing how the trial "failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings." Mumia is author of many books, including Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. The USA, forthcoming from City Lights Books.

Note

[*Source: Mouawad, Jad, "Oil Prices Are Up and Politicians Are Angry, Yawn.," New York Times, May 11, 2008, Sun., p.2 (Week in Review section).


From: Z Space - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3533

Thursday, June 19, 2008

BEING DEMONIZED FOR OTHERS' INCOMPETENCE AND CRIME

The mayor and police chief of Washington DC established unconstitutional check points in the city's Trinidad neighborhood which has raised considerable objections from the city council and others who still believe in constitutional government. Chief Lanier gained some of her views on policing while being trained by Israeli apartheid operatives. She would have done better learning from 27-year-old Naji Mujahid, whose impressive testimony to the DC city council follows:

NAJI MUJAHID, BLACK AUGUST PLANNING ORGANIZATION -
My name is Naji Mujahid, I'm 27 years old, I was born in the district and I've lived here all of my adult life; I spent most of my childhood in Prince George's County, MD. I do not live in Trinidad, I live in Ward 7, in the Marshall Heights area. . .

Crime in our community should absolutely be of [our] foremost concern and its something that those of us that are most affected by it should be dedicating ourselves to minimizing and eliminating. When we examine the statistics of the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of our residents, it becomes clear the we have [either] an innate inclination towards sociopathic behavior or there is a systematic flaw in the administration of our community affairs.

The first that any intelligent person does when confronted with a problem is to critically analyze the cause of that problem. And when we look closely at our community I believe that what we witness is not a haven for a degenerate species of human beings, but we see reflections of ourselves reacting to the criminally and sadistically poor social conditions of their environment. The poor education, the poor economics, the lack of opportunities, the broken homes, etc., which is the result of either a protracted plan to keep us as a dependent, subservient, and easily exploitable under-class or of endemic malfeasant and contemptuous neglect by our elected officials and those in league with them. In other words, we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others.

One example I'd like to point out is the existence of drugs in our communities as a catalyst for crime. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a suffering people are likely to self-medicate with substances that make their conditions easier to deal with (I could just as easily be talking about Prozac as crack/cocaine) and when those substances can be provided with the incentive of monetary gain for the provider (I could just as easily be talking about Merck Pharmaceuticals as your local pusher man), particularly when economic opportunities are scarce. . . the outcome of those given dynamics should not be surprising; crime follows.

What should be kept in mind and considered is where the drugs in our community came from. And it has been documented by Journalist Gary Webb in his expose 'Dark Alliance,' by former DEA agent Celerino Costillo III in his book 'Powderburns', and by Professor Alfred McCoy in his book 'The Politics of Heroin', that there has been undeniable government complicity and participation in the global and local drug trade; [facilitating] the influx of illegal drugs into our communities.

As the police are deployed into our communities to seek and destroy crime - crime as defined by outsiders who stand to benefit from our arrest and incarceration - they themselves become criminals as they follow questionable orders without question. They become the antagonists in this tragedy. With their claims of protecting our well being, they become similar to an abusive spouse with a literary gift for writing love sonnets. The police are the government's answer for their inability to provide our community with the establishment of justice, the insurance of domestic tranquility, the provision of a common defense, the promotion of the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty. Once again, we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others.

Last year a 14 year-old was shot to death by the police with impunity of the law. Over the past two years, surveillance cameras have sprung up across our communities. This year the police initiated a door-to-door search program and resolved to arm the department with high-powered military assault rifles, AR-15s (at a time when the government is fighting against the right of law abiding citizens to arm themselves). And we are joined here today to discuss the new initiative of check points being used in our communities. This is clearly the development of a police state designed under the guise of ensuring public safety and securing our communities from the criminal element in our midst, while ignoring the real criminal element outside of our midst. When will this stop? At what point have the police crossed the line from security to intrusion [. . . .to occupation]? This is unacceptable and I repeat for a final time that we refuse to be demonized for the incompetence and criminality of others. Thank you for your indulgence.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Let The Russert Revisionism Begin!

by Justin Raimondo, AntiWar

June 18, 2008

Enough already with the encomiums to Tim Russert, whose untimely death has sparked a veritable chorus of eulogies depicting him as the epitome of objectivity and the greatest of journalists. This is all coming, quite naturally, from his fellow journalists and intellectual gatekeepers, who share his prejudices, his politics, and – alas! – his shortcomings. It's time for a little Russert revisionism.

As Bill Moyers pointed out in Buying the War, his trenchant PBS documentary on how the War Party successfully sold us on the invasion of Iraq, Russert's show was a favored venue for the administration to publicize stories they had planted in the media. Administration officials would get booked on Meet the Press and point to their phony reports as "proof" of Saddam's WMDs.

Remember back when Vice President Dick Cheney was going around making speeches in which he asserted that "we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," that this was not in doubt, and he knew it for a fact? Few were skeptical, and the New York Times came out with yet another Judy Miller "scoop" that seemed to confirm Cheney's claim.

Citing anonymous U.S. government officials, the Times averred that the Iraqis were engaged in a global effort to gather the means to make nuclear weapons according to a design that specifically included aluminum tubes. "And there," says Moyers, "on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney" citing Scooter Libby's best buddy. Clearly trying to create the impression that Saddam Hussein already had nuclear weapons, or that he was well on his way to acquiring them, the vice president ticked off three elements essential to the construction of a nuclear device: technical expertise, a viable design, and fissile material. According to Cheney, the Iraqis had all three – and Russert just sat there, not challenging Cheney but actually cueing him:

Cheney: "The third thing you need is fissile material, weapons-grade material. Now, in the case of a nuclear weapon, that means either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs."

Russert: "Aluminum tubes."

Cheney: "Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning – this is – I don't – and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."

There were plenty of scientists in our very own Department of Energy who were warning the administration that this aluminum tube scenario was based on highly dubious "evidence," but Russert, the alleged reporter, was too busy kissing Cheney's butt to go out and find them. There were plenty of national security bureaucrats of one sort or another who strongly doubted the narrative Russert was allowing Cheney to present, unchallenged, on the most-watched political television show on the airwaves, but Russert didn't know about them, and doubtless didn't want to know about them at the time. In retrospect, however, Russert realized, at least to some extent, how badly he'd been used::

Moyers: "Critics point to September 8, 2002, and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the New York Times. And then the vice president comes on your show and points to the New York Times. It's a circular, self-confirming leak."

Russert: "I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the New York Times. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that. My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."

As Moyers pointed out in his scathing documentary, some journalists – not a lot, but a few of the really good ones – "didn't wait for the phone to ring."

Russert wanted to believe, as did the reporters and pundits who constitute the "mainstream" media, not only because this was the bipartisan consensus at the time, but also because of the incestuous relationship that often exists between journalists and the individuals whose doings they cover. The former are dependent on the latter for their bread and butter: if they don't toe the line and deliver the right cues at the right moment, then they might not get that "scoop," and – worse – they could soon find themselves frozen out of the information pipeline that runs through Washington like an underground sewer.

Okay, so Russert was an enabler of the neocons, who allowed his vastly influential program to function as the War Party's sounding board, but then again, so many were duped that it seems vindictive to emphasize this point so soon after his tragic death. Right?

Wrong. It wasn't just his sycophancy in the presence of power that motivates my little exercise in Russert revisionism – it's what was clearly his vehement hostility to anyone who challenged the status quo in any way and sought to provide an antidote to the Dick Cheneys of this world. Example number one: his disgraceful interview with GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who made opposition to the war and our foreign policy of "preemptive" imperialism the linchpin of his remarkable campaign.

In what has got to be one of the worst examples of high-handed hectoring and attempted intellectual intimidation I've seen in my lifetime, Russert tore into Paul the way he should have lit into Cheney, impugning his integrity, spending half the interview on the arcane subject of the Civil War – which Paul had never made a speech about, and obviously wasn't even a minor issue in the campaign.

When Paul raised the issue of U.S. intervention in the Middle East as fueling al-Qaeda's jihad and support for bin Laden, Russert fell back on that old neocon canard: "So you see a moral equivalency between the West and Islamic fascism."

When Paul pointed out that Bush was intent on invading Iraq just as soon as he got into office, and his war moves had little to do with 9/11, Russert's response was open hostility:

"You mentioned September 11th; a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero said this. 'When September 11th happened, he just completely changed,' talking about you. 'One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was, "Now we're going to get big government."' Was that your reaction?"

How pathetic: Russert couldn't be bothered to get on the phone and talk to even one of many CIA employees who were trying to counter the administration's line of BS about Saddam's alleged WMD, but he went and dug up the demented Dondero, a fool who has made a career out of gunning for the Good Doctor ever since he was fired from Paul's staff. Now that's American journalism at its best.

Oh yes, Russert did his research, all right, but he only utilized it to the War Party's advantage. He sucked up to power and was little more than a stenographer for high government officials whose confidence he coveted. He was, in short, a great journalist, at least by today's standards, and that's why the media blowhards are turning his death into a celebration of… themselves. Because they're virtually all the same – shameless, sycophantic suck-ups who will do anything to advance their careers and could care less about where it takes the country.

The sad state of American journalism is why Antiwar.com was founded: it's why we continue to provide you with the real news about vital issues of foreign policy, war and peace, and the myriad deceptions of our rulers. The "mainstream," which is defined by its subservience to the powers that be, has simply abdicated its responsibilities, the execution of which are so vital to a free society. Few journalists exemplified this abdication more clearly and consistently than the late ringmaster of Meet the Press.

~ Justin Raimondo

Copyright Antiwar.com

Monday, June 16, 2008

Same-Sex Couples In CA Given Equal Chance To Screw Up Marriage!

Equal Rights Under The Law, Homophobic Freepers Be Damned

SFGate Article

SAN FRANCISCO -- Cheers filled San Francisco's City Hall shortly after 5 p.m. as longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, partners for more than 50 years, began their second wedding - and their first legal union.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated the ceremony in the reception area of his office, said it was a fitting way to memorialize last month's state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California, which took effect at 5:01 p.m.

Lyon, 83, and Martin, 87, were the first couple married four years ago when Newsom told the county clerk's office to start offering marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Eventually more than 4,000 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco that year, but those unions were later nullified by the court. Today, the couple, and dozens of others, had their first chance to make their unions truly legal.

In at least five counties around the state, other couples were pronounced "spouses for life" once the clock chimed 5.

In Alameda County, Emeryville couple Kenny Latham, 47, and Keith Boadwee, 46, wore pink peonies in their lapels as they became the first gay couple in that county to marry. In Sonoma County, a giddy Mark Gren, 42 and Chris Lechman, 37, of Guerneville, applied for a marriage license at 5:01 p.m. And in Los Angeles County, lesbian couple Robin Tyler and Diane Olson - who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the high court's May 15 decision - donned matching white suits to tie the knot in a traditional Jewish ceremony.

Newsom waited until exactly 5:01 p.m. to begin the San Francisco ceremony, the only one in San Francisco tonight. The women were declared spouses for life at 5:07 p.m. in front of about 50 friends and family members. Martin came into the area in a wheelchair but stood for the ceremony.

The couple made their way out of the office and onto the balcony area where a cake - and large crowd- was waiting. Rose petals fluttered down from the ceiling as the crowd cheered and cameras flashed.

"This is an extraordinary moment in history and extraordinary moment in time" Newsom said to the crowd. "They are extraordinary people who have lived extraordinary lives and spent half a century fighting for justice and equality."

Lyon drew laughter with her comments.

"When first got together, we were not really thinking about getting married, we were thinking about getting together," she said. "I think it's a wonderful day."

"Ditto," Martin said.

Just before 5:30 p.m., the couple cut their cake.

Although Lyon and Martin's ceremony is the only one at City Hall tonight, hundreds of couples are expected to flood the domed building Tuesday for the first full day of legal same-sex marriage. Elsewhere in California, most clerks are waiting until Tuesday to begin the same-sex weddings.

This evening in Sonoma County, dozens of county staff members and supporters counted the seconds down from 10. And at 5:01 p.m. - with a cheer - Gren and Lechman stepped up to apply for marriage license.

A few minutes later, the couple entered a small room adjacent to the clerk's office to take their vows - "in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, come what may" - then both men said "I do."

Outside, Unitarian Church members handed out little bunches of flowers, while another 18 couples and their families waited for their own special moment.

Joe Balestreri of Santa Rosa said he came just to witness the first wedding.

"Now that I have the choice it doesn't mean I am going to rush in to it," he said, laughing.

Oakland Mayor Ronald Dellums also planned to officiate about a dozen ceremonies at Oakland City Hall this evening, while another 35 couples are expected to wed at the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder's office on Madison Street.

By 5 p.m., the lobby of the clerk's office was packed with couples and their friends, everyone antsy to start the ceremonies. Around 5:20 p.m., the first couple, Latham and Boadwee, finished filling out their wedding certificate and made their way upstairs for the ceremony.

The Emeryville couple celebrated their 10-year anniversary in May, and chose traditional vows for their ceremony.

Janet Appel, a volunteer deputy marriage commissioner, officiated the wedding, telling the men that "no other words are as tender as these vows or important as these vows."

Latham described the moment as a "victory."

"We've been together so long, we know what it means to be a couple," Boadwee added. "However, now we have the legal protection, wherever we go throughout the state people will recognize it."

Not everyone is happy about the state Supreme Court decision, which ruled that denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to marry was a violation of their civil rights under the California Constitution.

Outside San Francisco's City Hall, hundreds of raucous opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage filled the sidewalk.

A woman from the church of Kansas pastor Fred Phelps - whose followers are known for their anti-gay slogans - stood behind several police barricades put up in Civic Center. Along with two of her children, the woman loudly sang while waving derogatory signs. Another protester drove around the block in a truck painted to look like an American flag with a sign that read "Sodomy is sin."

Luong Do, who said he drove up from San Jose, held a giant sign that read, "homo sex is a threat to national security."

"We want to tell people this lifestyle they're living is a death style that will get them diseases in this life and eternal hell in the second," he said.

Others were there to support the pending nuptials. One man strummed a guitar and sang "Going to the Chapel," while Kathryn Werhane threw rose petals on some of the protesters.

"We want to support these weddings. It's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"

Inside the building things were more subdued, though the excitement was palpable even earlier in the day.

Martin and Lyon's friends started gathering early. Arlene Rusche, 68, and Clara Brock, 80, sat on a bench outside the mayor's office shortly after 3 p.m. and planned to witness the wedding. Brock was one of the first members of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian-rights group that Martin and Lyon founded in 1955.

"I never thought this was going to happen to tell you the truth," Brock said.

"This is so, so big," agreed Rusche, Brock's partner for 17 years. "I never thought it would happen in our lifetime. It just shows we are making progress."

Several feet away sat a couple on vacation from Ireland who happened to stumble on the historic event. Christine Yearsley said she planned to stay at City Hall the rest of the afternoon to witness as much as she could.

"This gentleman just told me there are two elderly ladies who are getting married today after being together for 50 years," she said. "They're obviously committed! I think it's terrific. They're an example for heterosexuals, I think."

Chronicle staff writer Heather Knight contributed to this report. E-mail the writer at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Police Officer Steals Pot, Starts Trippin', Calls 911 To Report That He And His Wife Are Dying!

This is priceless!

Over at Police America, there's a story regarding a police officer who baked him up some good ol' magic brownies with stolen herbal evidence, then believed that he and his wife had overdosed (give me whatever he's havin'!).

Anyone familiar with the sacred herb knows that overdose is impossible, but this is funny as hell, as these news anchors discovered.

Go to Police America Video

Dramatic Chipmunk

I love the Dramatic Lemur, but this made me roll around until I nearly wet myself!

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Tellin' It How It Is: Hip-Hop Stands Up For Sean Bell

Jun 07, 2008 By Alexander Billet
Alexander Billet's ZSpace Page / ZSpace

"With the Sean Bell situation, New York is basically saying 'fuck niggas.'" Who in their right minds can honestly disagree with these words, bluntly stated by rapper/producer/activist David Banner? The April 25th aquittal of three New York City cops, who killed Bell after pumping fifty rounds into his car, sends a clear message to the African-American community: If the police can get away with gunning down one unarmed black man, they can get away with it again. Indeed, it happened several times over well before Bell. It's no wonder that the verdict has provoked outrage and frustration from religious leaders, local politicians and community activists.

Banner is certainly not alone as a rapper, either. The frustration, sadness and outrage provoked by the verdict has radiated through the entire hip-hop community, reaching even the upper echelons of the industry. Russell Simmons has spoke about the need for the police to be more accountable. His heir-apparent Jay-Z has set up a charity for Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre Bell. As always, though, the most meaningful solidarity hip-hop has to offer is that of the artists themselves.

This solidarity has, notably, not just been limited to the sector of "conscious hip-hop," that artificial category created by the music industry in order to cheapen the genre; a diverse array of artists have verbally trounced the verdict, ranging from Ice Cube to Immortal Technique to Chamillionaire. By now, it's become something of a cliche to repeat Chuck D's line about rap being "CNN for black people," but the staggering hypocrisy and gutter racism of the case has once again pushed artists into that role.

In the month since the verdict, there have been enough recordings dedicated to Bell to fill a compilation album. Posted on YouTube, Brooklyn MC Papoose (who also penned a song directly following the original shooting in November 2006) calls for a new civil rights movement in "We Shall Overcome." Though lyrically awkward at times, the track almost serves as a blow-by-blow of the entire trial, highlighting the arrogance of Judge Arthur Cooperman, the flimsy defence of the officers, and the complete dismissal of all witness testimony. As the song progresses, Pap lays into the past racist brutalities of the NYPD, bringing up the shooting of Amadou Diallo and the police torture of Abner Louima, and broadens the story even further to immigrants' rights and the shipping of poor black kids to fight in Iraq: "How can they find find freedom in south Iraq? Please! / They can't even find freedom in south-side Queens."

Papoose is only the tip of the iceberg. The web has been swarmed by tracks dedicated to Bell, sometimes released withing mere hours of the verdict. Major-label artists like The Game and Joell Ortiz have released songs on the web. Unsigned artists have been able to chime in too. Pittsburgh rapper Jasiri X (whose song about the Jena Six was named by hip-hop journalist Davey D as the best political rap of 2007), posted not one but two tracks about Bell on his MySpace page the very next day. A simple Google search for "Sean Bell" and "hip-hop" will yield literally thousands of results.

Artists who haven't necessarily had the chance to hit the studio in recent weeks have nonetheless done what they can to protest the verdict. The Roots, performing on the David Letterman Show three days afterwards, wore all black in mourning for Bell as well as pins with Bell's face on it. And then, of course, there is dead prez, whose first show after the verdict in Amhearst, Massachusetts was performed in the memory of Bell. Stic.man, speaking from the event on "Breakdown FM," radio show of hip-hop activist Davey D, summed up the all-encompassing question "what now?": "That verdict's been cast down on us since slavery. We've been denied justice way before April 26th, 2008... But it's not a time to be demoralized... it's a time to organize."

It's been two and a half years since Kanye West appeared on an NBC-televised Katrina benefit to tell the world the obvious: "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Last year, after the news that a group of black teenagers were being unjustly thrown in jail in Jena, Louisiana, many in hip-hop also protested the town's style of Jim Crow justice. Now, with the killers of Sean Bell getting off the hook, artists and MCs are once again raising their voices. The sentiments coming from artists like dead prez--that more organizing, more activism, is needed--are for obvious reasons finding resonance not only in the studios, but in the streets and communities. Hip-hop, born out of the deliberate neglect of black America, is finding itself pushed into the political arena more and more. Its message is simple: Enough is enough. Maybe this is the reason politicians find are so threatened by the mere presence of hip-hop.


Alexander Billet is a music journalist and socialist activist living in Washington, DC. He is a regular contributor to Znet, Dissident Voice, and SleptOn.com. His blog, Rebel Frequencies, can be viewed at http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com, and he can be reached at rebelfrequencies@gmail.com.



From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3516

Friday, June 06, 2008

Former Drug Czar Admits War Has Failed 1.5 Million Addicts

This is a bigger story than McClellan's "revelation" that he was wrong about Iraq. That one was to sell lots of books. This one is from the bulldog former drug czar for the Clinton Administration. He was nothing short of the biggest cheerleader for the War On Some Drugs that there ever was.

Apparently, he woke up.--Pete

ST LOUIS TODAY American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now in prison were instead treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of drug court professionals. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S. drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on lawmakers to increase funding for such courts. "This is not a war on drugs," McCaffrey said. "This is a problem for our families in America. In order to turn drugs around in this country, we're going to have to treat those 1.5 million people who are addicted.". . .

The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they complete the program. "Most addicts need something more than being warehoused," said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in Greenville, S.C. "Drug courts are putting families back together, and they are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers."

Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said. McCaffrey said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.

Housing prices falling faster than during Great Depression

This is the time when the house-of-cards that is corporate crony capitalism will have to withstand the worst hit it has taken in its inequitable, wealth-to-the-wealthy history. The housing crisis is just the catalyst for the rest of the dominoes to fall.

It is a good thing to remember, though, that banks get bailed out while people get thrown out. The government, while not understanding how, will try to do everything to artificially prop up this dead dinosaur, beginning with the ridiculous "stimulus" rebates (used mine to pay down debt - not an approved usage). We need to be ready with our alternatives at the right time in the right place. Participatory Economics Now.--Pete

AMERICA'S HOUSE PRICES ARE FALLING EVEN FASTER THAN DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION

ECONOMIST As house prices in America continue their rapid descent, market-watchers are having to cast back ever further for gloomy comparisons. The latest S&P/Case-Shiller national house-price index, published this week, showed a slump of 14.1% in the year to the first quarter, the worst since the index began 20 years ago. Now Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and co-inventor of the index, has compiled a version that stretches back over a century. This shows that the latest fall in nominal prices is already much bigger than the 10.5% drop in 1932, the worst point of the Depression. And things are even worse than they look. In the deflationary 1930s house prices declined less in real terms. Today inflation is running at a brisk pace, so property prices have fallen by a staggering 18% in real terms over the past year.