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...

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...

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

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

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/

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

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.

Dying Is Hard. Comedy Is Harder.

By JERRY SEINFELD, NYT

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

Mumia Abu-Jamal's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

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

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.

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

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.

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!