Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 12h 34m 38s|
Your Whiteness Is Showing
This is totally awesome. I got the snippet from AmericaBlog, but the piece is from an old college buddy of mine
Click here for the article in Lip
Back in the day, 1987-1991, Tim had a unique way of making his point irrefutable. I'm glad to see he still has that knack.
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their
commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are....
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what
you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity,
in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press.
On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be
more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least
until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever
media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against
Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at
some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding,
and it is grotesque....
[B]lack folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they
were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from
the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell,
for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black
man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the
one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?
Your whiteness is showing.
Personally I am getting sick of Hillary supporters calling "Hillary haters" those who are disgusted by her feckless self-serving
compromises over the last 7 years. It's not like our disgruntlements don't actually have a basis in fact.
Hillary used push-polls to
try to disparage people from voting for Obama. Hillary made comments like "Obama is alienating White voters" after she won
West Virginia. Hillary made comments like "Obama is not a muslim, at least as far as I know" when the press barraged her with
that nonsense. How come she didn't stand up for Obama vociferously and criticize the person who kept asking this question and
use it as a moment to be disgusted with the way media tries to manipulate the message?
But she didn't do that did she. Just like
she didn't stand up for the constitution when the Republicans were passing laws without oversight. Nope, she played nice and
tried to work the mythical middle ground. How come she didn't act like Russell Feingold or Henry Waxman or Barbara Lee or
Dennis Kucinich, instead of trying to be Republican-lite? Did she think she could still sell her brand-name despite the
Obviously, the answer is yes. The shame is that so many people out there in the pundit media-consultant land are still talking
tripe about how 18
million people voted for Hillary and that this is supposed to represent a ground-swell of revolutionary fervor. How many of those
18 milion people are just plain racist or rigidly feminist? How many are just knee-jerk brand-name voters who couldn't tell you
why Hillary did not vote when the bankruptcy bill came up (Obama voted NO)? How many accuse Obama of voting
for the war spending, when Hillary also voted for the same appropriations bills?
Does the name blind hypocrite mean anything?
|Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 8h 52m 40s|
Helping democracy by insisting upon 58 military bases
This is absolutely incredible.
BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that
will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal
along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile
act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war
between the United States and Iran.
"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a
leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said,
referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now
we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."
Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from
prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to
cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said....
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30
major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.
" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,"
Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers | 9 June 2008]
So when the French helped us in the 1780's, did they insist on 58 permanent military bases? How many foreign military bases
would any sovereign nation want to act independently within the national boundaries?
But of course, only terrorists are resisting the will of the United States, right?
|Monday, 9 June 2008 at 17h 37m 50s|
The real story about Laura Bush Visiting Afghanistan
Laura Bush Visits Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL for the New York Times
Published: June 9, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan — Laura Bush flew by helicopter deep into central Afghanistan on Sunday on a one-day visit to
perform a face-saving media stunt for her husband highlight the United States’ continued commitment to the
country and to President Hamid Karzai, ahead of an international moment of pity for a disentegrating nation being used
by the United States donors conference this week in Paris.
Her visit comes as concern has been growing, particularly in Europe and at the United Nations, that Mr. Karzai might
soon be driven from office or assassinated by the Afghan resistance movements not be up to the task of
addressing Afghanistan’s many economic and political problems.
The occasion was marred, too, by continuing violence around the country. Eleven police officers were killed in an ambush
south of the capital, and a local journalist was found shot dead in southern Helmand Province after he was abducted by gunmen
from his house on Saturday. Also in Helmand Province on Sunday, three British soldiers were killed and a fourth was wounded by
a suicide bomber, Reuters reported.
As on her two previous visits to Afghanistan, Mrs. Bush emphasized her
deranged insincerely and politically
motivated support for women’s development and educational and training projects. She flew to Bamian, one of the
country’s poorest provinces, which is overseen by Afghanistan’s only female governor, Habiba Sarabi, a former minister of
Bamian suffered some of the worst massacres and devastation under the Taliban, including the destruction of the two
colossal Buddhas just months before the United States intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. Today, however, it is one of the most
violent and chaotic peaceful and secure places in the country so much so that President Karzai cannot
leave the palace confines without being surround by 100 troops for fear of snipers.
Mrs. Bush’s visit was a demonstration of support for Mr. Karzai and his government as it prepared to
ask for about $50 billion in pledges of assistance from international donors at the conference this week. Mrs. Bush said she
would attend the conference.
In Kabul she met with Mr. Karzai as well as Afghan teachers in training and students
in yet another staged public
relations campaign for this reporter to write about, and she announced $80 million but did not guarantee
because the program and the funds might just be terminated for two American government programs in education.
The United States Agency for International Development will spend $40 million on scholarships and on bribing the
government officials developing the campus of the American University of Afghanistan (the money barely got
to the University), and it will spend $40 million on a national literacy program over the next five years that
will dissappear into the bank accounts of various corrupt officials, she said at a brief appearance with Mr. Karzai in the
gardens of the presidential palace.
Western donors are expected to meet Afghanistan’s most urgent priorities in agriculture, energy, security and education, but
a number of them are demanding that the conference also be used for a critical review of the government’s performance, in
particular its failure to curb rampant corruption.
My very point is thus proven, you see how this
Mr. Karzai promised that his government would
flee go to Paris when the inevitable government
falls apart with a “very rehearsed realistic evaluation of the last six years, of our achievements, of our
progress and our problems,” especially including corruption.
He added that he was confident of continued international
willingness to fund his secret bank accounts for his
dutiful role pretending to be President during the American occupation support. “We’ll come back with some significant
tangible assets assistance from the international community irregardless of the plight of to
the Afghan people,” he said.
|Sunday, 8 June 2008 at 9h 9m 52s|
Spying on Americans is unconstitutional
Here is the reason we have FISA laws, and the reason why ATT and the other Telecoms should not get immunity for
Reuters: "A spate of chilling snooping scandals involving some of their country's biggest corporations has
unsettled Germans who have not forgotten the dark days of the Cold War. Revelations by Deutsche Telekom, Europe's biggest
telecommunications firm, that it illegally monitored phone records in 2005 have reawakened memories of communist East
Germany's Stasi secret police and even Hitler's Gestapo. [...] The Telekom scandal, based on a report that the firm had spied on
journalists and directors to find out who was leaking information to the press, is the dominant case but others have also made
headlines. Discount retailer Lidl was investigated after accusations it was monitoring staff activity -- from toilet breaks to
suspected love affairs. Rail operator Deutsche Bahn this week denied illegal snooping despite using the same firm as Telekom.
These incidents may be seen as ordinary business practice in some countries. But not in Germany. ..."
The telecoms were invited to break the law by the Bush administration as soon as they took over in February 2001. All data (from
telephones, cell phones, and emails) was sent to government servers, without any oversight by a FISA judge. And the
government did not notify the FISA court 72 hours after the surveillance was being conducted either.
This was never about terrorism. It was about political and press intimidation so they could run their agenda over the american
people without anyone contradicting their lies and propaganda. And just look how incompetently the administration handled
This has been a case history about why we have a system of checks and balances, why we have government and media oversight,
and why the consolidation of media into large holding companies is a very bad thing for our democracy. The result is group think
and government run by the selfish interests of political insiders, whose morbid stupidity does not get analyzed or contradicted -
- and now millions have died, the economy is in shambles, and we are going to have a much more difficult time getting our
foreign policy and economy in order.
You can read about the perfidy here and here.
Here is the pdf of phase Two of the
Congressional investigation on how the Bush administration purposely misrepresented and distorted the actual intelligence on
Iraq to justify the agenda. This should have been the major story in the press this last week. But alas, our media doesn't tell the
American people the important news stories. Instead, CNN promotes "Alabama drummer lawsuit", "Earthquakes in Greece",
"What will Hillary do next?", "5 of 6 missing sailors rescued in Gulf", and "Troops are on anti-depressants".
CNN did one story on Thursday, 5 June 2008. Here is that story. Naturally, the CNN story actually misrepresents the Senate report by
including choice quotations from Republican partisans and the liberal use of qualifiers and secondary phrases to render the truth
Absolutely pathetic. The media that couldn't tell the truth in 2002-2003, still can't tell the truth in 2008.
The gung-ho mindless patriots need to shut the f**k up, because they are anything but patriotic. They are slavish followers of a
small group of arrogant political nincompops who have used the bumper sticker patriots to pursue their own self-serving ends,
and will leave them
holding the debts and the debacle while they flee to their mansions in Switzerland and South America on their yachts and jet
|Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 9h 15m 52s|
Richard Clarke speaks ... again
Will anyone listen this time? Or watch American idol instead?
for the podcast
Clarke talks about his recent book "Your Government Failed You." He was the counter-terrorism chief from Reagan to Dubya Bush,
and resigned in disgust in March 2003 because he is a patriotic american. He talks about how bin laden was allowed to escape at
Tora Bora by direct intervention from Centcom. He talks about how General Franks and Rumsfeld refused to allowed government
oversight into their military operations. He talks about how purposely bungled the department of Homeland Security has become,
and how it is just a cash cow for political operators and government contractors that get paid even though their projects don't get
This won't be on the history channel.
|Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 58m 6s|
Hillary is trying to strip Texas delegates
Here is yet another reason why I have become disgusted with Hillary Clinton. I quote from John Aravosis, because he says what I feel.
Hillary Clinton, champion of the blue collar, Jack Daniels' drinking woman is now trying to unseat delegates in Texas. You see, you
can't claim that the only reason you're still in the race, after you lost, is because you want to see every vote counted, and then
repeatedly try to stop people from having their vote count in Texas and Nevada, for starters. That makes you a hypocrite. It makes
you an opportunist. And it makes you a liar. It makes you every nasty thing that the Republicans have said about you for years.
Please stop proving them right.
[SOURCE: | Dailykos.com | 29 May 2008]
[SOURCE: | Americablog.com | 30 May 2008]
|Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 44m 4s|
How Florida and Michigan happened
Before the media starts re-writing history again, and before the ignorant masses start believing the re-writes, let's all
remember how the Michigan and Florida primary mess happened.
From John Aravosis at America Blog:
The DNC sanctioned Florida on August 25, 2007 by stripping away its delegates. That made it painfully clear what would happen
to any state that moved its primary up in violation of DNC rules. So what does Michigan do one week later, on September 4,
2007? Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, signs a law establishing their January 15th primary, in violation of DNC
rules. Michigan knew exactly what was going to happen if they broke the rules, they just watched Florida lose its delegates one
week earlier, and they did it anyway. And now they're acting all surprised.
There really are some atrocious issues underlying this entire conflict.
1. Florida and Michigan Democrats were complicit in all of this. This wasn't something the Republicans forced on them - they
wanted to break the rules, and they did.
2. Florida and Michigan knew in advance that they'd lose their delegates if they moved their primaries up. They didn't care.
3. The reason we have these rules, the reason we have these sanctions, is to protect the primary process, and in particular to
protect the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. If FL and MI are let off the hook, as
Hillary is proposing, then there are no rules, and we'll have a free-for-all the next time around when every state keeps moving
their primaries up and up and up until we have non-stop primaries for 4 years.
|Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 30m 52s|
Here's a few choicey quotes from the man with military know-how and expertise:
- "But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man
worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it
was in 1991." -- John McCain, September 15, 2002.
- "Absolutely. Absolutely,"says John McCain, when asked by Chris Matthews, "[Do] you believe that the people of Iraq or
at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" -- March 12, 2003.
- "[There] there "are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today."
says John McCain, after touring a Baghdad market wearing a bulletproof vest and guarded by "100 American soldiers, with three
Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead -- April 1, 2007.
You'll have to check out the full link to read the compiled list.
Perr | perrspectives.com | 27 May 2008]
|Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 8h 19m 56s|
McCain uses a General Petraeus in a fundraising photo and fills his campaign team with lobbyists, while also pretending he's an
independent maverick. Now it seems that McCain is putting up billboard advertisements with "West Point Grads for McCain" as the
Hmmm...Paid for and approved by West Point Grads for McCain. Okay, so a few super gung-ho patriots think McCain is
the man to lead the nation down the path towards World War Three. Wowwie-zowwie.
There is a problem with this ad however, as Cliff Schecter points out:
It seems just two years ago West Point sued another group also calling themselves "West Point Grads" who were in fact anti-war,
claiming trademark violation over use of the name West Point.
The above "West Point Grads" were not partisan. The McCain Campaign is. So it's a trademark violation when a progressive group
uses "West Point Grads," but when it is partisan Republicans, it's a-ok with West Point.
[SOURCE: Cliff Schecter | firedoglake.com | 30 May
Here's the 2006 lawsuit the United States Government pursued against the anti-war group.
The United States Military Academy, a/k/a, the United States Government, a/k/a the citizens of the United States are suing a
group of West Point graduates who have organized against the Iraq War to prevent their use of the “West Point” name.
The Army warned an anti-war group of former U.S. Military Academy cadets to stop using the words “West Point” in its name,
saying they are trademarked. A co-founder of West Point Graduates Against the War countered Friday that his organization is
simply following the cadets’ code. “At West Point, we were taught that cadets do not lie, cheat or steal — and to oppose those
who do,” said William Cross, a 1962 West Point graduate. “We are a positive organization. We are not anti-West Point or anti-
military. We are just trying to uphold what we were taught.”
West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the academy sent the April 12 warning letter because the group failed to go
through a licensing process to get permission to use the term “West Point.” The group’s anti-war stance is irrelevant, he said.
“This is not a political issue. They did not ask for permission. We are doing what any college or university would do to enforce its
trademarks,” Cassella said.
The Army registered the words “West Point” — as well as “United States Military Academy,” “USMA,” and “U.S. Army” — as
trademarks in 2000 to control their use on educational material and commercial goods.
An attorney hired by Cross and his colleagues said the warning raises questions of First Amendment speech protection and
selective enforcement. Joseph Heath said he noted the concerns in a response sent to the Army on Monday; he has not yet
received a reply, he said.
[SOURCE: James Joyner | outsidethebeltway.com | 6 May
|Sunday, 18 May 2008 at 9h 1m 24s|
News agency polls in perspective
I was reading the Mad Biologist today, and he mentioned that he thought the news agencies should release their poll data. There
was a comment to the blog that I found interesting, so I thought I'd share it.
[SOURCE: Mad Biologist | ]
I work at a call centre where we conduct these sorts of polls. Most of our clients are businesses wanting to gather information on
the success of their advertising, opinions on future advertising, or what people think of their competitors. Every so often,
however, we do get work from news and government agencies looking to gather this sort of stuff.
I must say that most of the questions are very loaded and it usually becomes fairly obvious to me who is sponsoring the poll.
Worse than that, most of these polls are just advertisements in disguise. The way that the questions are worded makes it almost
impossible for the respondent to do anything but agree. The idea behind it is either that if you repeat something to someone
enough times, they start to believe it, or that if you present poll results that show that 90% of people agree with X, people who
don't agree with X start to feel as though they are missing something and become more open to the possibility of agreeing with X.
The people who write these polls can make the results say whatever they want them to, even on the level of the data. So my point
in all of this is just to say that the interpretation of the data you are getting from the news agencies is probably about as accurate
as the data itself. What you want is the data AS WELL as the scripts that were used to gather it.
And remember that the sample used to collect this data is a list of publically phone numbers. Not cell phones and unlisted
telephone numbers. The time's when the phone calls are also placed are between 5pm and 8pm for most polls.
Now when you get samples from a large population you first have to analyze who might be excluded, because the sample will
not be representative of the larger population UNLESS each member of the larger population is equally likely to be selected.
So who is being excluded? People with unlisted phone numbers. People who don't answer their phones. People who tend to go
outside or don't go home after work People who use their cell phones as their primary source of phone calls.
What these polls are sampling are the people who are home that answer their publically listed telephone number. These people
are probably home because they watch a lot of television. So what these polls actually measure is the effectiveness of the media
spin machine. Pump out the propaganda and then follow up with polls until the desired results appear.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS