Monday, March 30, 2009

March 30:


1981 : President Reagan shot

On March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan is shot in the chest outside a Washington, D.C., hotel by a deranged drifter named John Hinckley Jr.

The president had just finished addressing a labor meeting at the Washington Hilton Hotel and was walking with his entourage to his limousine when Hinckley, standing among a group of reporters, fired six shots at the president, hitting Reagan and three of his attendants. White House Press Secretary James Brady was shot in the head and critically wounded, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy was shot in the side, and District of Columbia policeman Thomas Delahaney was shot in the neck. After firing the shots, Hinckley was overpowered and pinned against a wall, and President Reagan, apparently unaware that he'd been shot, was shoved into his limousine by a Secret Service agent and rushed to the hospital.

The president was shot in the left lung, and the .22 caliber bullet just missed his heart. In an impressive feat for a 70-year-old man with a collapsed lung, he walked into George Washington University Hospital under his own power. As he was treated and prepared for surgery, he was in good spirits and quipped to his wife, Nancy, ''Honey, I forgot to duck,'' and to his surgeons, "Please tell me you're Republicans." Reagan's surgery lasted two hours, and he was listed in stable and good condition afterward.

The next day, the president resumed some of his executive duties and signed a piece of legislation from his hospital bed. On April 11, he returned to the White House. Reagan's popularity soared after the assassination attempt, and at the end of April he was given a hero's welcome by Congress. In August, this same Congress passed his controversial economic program, with several Democrats breaking ranks to back Reagan's plan. By this time, Reagan claimed to be fully recovered from the assassination attempt. In private, however, he would continue to feel the effects of the nearly fatal gunshot wound for years.

Of the victims of the assassination attempt, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and D.C. policeman Thomas Delahaney eventually recovered. James Brady, who nearly died after being shot in the eye, suffered permanent brain damage. He later became an advocate of gun control, and in 1993 Congress passed the "Brady Bill," which established a five-day waiting period and background checks for prospective gun buyers. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

After being arrested on March 30, 1981, 25-year-old John Hinckley was booked on federal charges of attempting to assassinate the president. He had previously been arrested in Tennessee on weapons charges. In June 1982, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. In the trial, Hinckley's defense attorneys argued that their client was ill with narcissistic personality disorder, citing medical evidence, and had a pathological obsession with the 1976 film Taxi Driver, in which the main character attempts to assassinate a fictional senator. His lawyers claimed that Hinckley saw the movie more than a dozen times, was obsessed with the lead actress, Jodie Foster, and had attempted to reenact the events of the film in his own life. Thus the movie, not Hinckley, they argued, was the actual planning force behind the events that occurred on March 30, 1981.

The verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" aroused widespread public criticism, and many were shocked that a would-be presidential assassin could avoid been held accountable for his crime. However, because of his obvious threat to society, he was placed in St. Elizabeth's Hospital, a mental institution. In the late 1990s, Hinckley's attorney began arguing that his mental illness was in remission and thus had a right to return to a normal life. Beginning in August 1999, he was allowed supervised day trips off the hospital grounds and later was allowed to visit his parents once a week unsupervised. The Secret Service voluntarily monitors him during these outings. If his mental illness remains in remission, he may one day be released.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


General Interest
1981 : President Reagan shot
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihVideoCategory&id=6852
1814 : Allies capture Paris
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4873
1855 : Violence disrupts first Kansas election
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4874
1867 : Seward's Folly
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4875
1870 : 15th Amendment adopted
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4876

American Revolution
1775 : King George endorses New England Restraining Act
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=326

BREVITAS



EMENDATION

Contrary to our earlier report,
the provision for a commission to study the creation of a national draft was dropped from legislation providing for an expanded Americorps and Peace Corps. The provision has been reintroduced as HR1444.

OBAMALAND

Boston Globe -
President Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan immigrant who ignited controversy last year for living in the United States illegally, has returned to her quiet apartment in a Boston public housing project to prepare for an April 1 deportation hearing that will be closed to the public.

Zeituni Onyango, a tall, frail-looking woman in her late 50s who walks with a cane, had fled Boston to stay with relatives in Cleveland last fall after media attention erupted over her case. She was spotted at Obama's inaugural festivities in January and, according to neighbors, returned to Boston a few weeks ago for her third attempt to fight removal from the United States. She had been living in the country illegally since she was ordered deported in 2004. Now the woman Obama called "Auntie Zeituni" and described as a kindly woman who kissed him on both cheeks and guided him during his trip to Kenya 20 years ago, is in a national spotlight, where her case is seen as a test of the Obama administration's commitment to enforcing immigration laws. Critics, outraged that she is living in taxpayer-funded public housing while thousands of citizens and legal immigrants are on waiting lists, are scrutinizing the case for political favoritism. Others caution that she may have legitimate grounds to stay in the United States.

THE NEW BLACK POWER

Washington Post
- Under Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's proposed fiscal 2010 spending plan, the April 16 holiday, which commemorates the day President Abraham Lincoln freed the District's 3,000 slaves in 1862, would be discontinued next year. This would avoid paying holiday rates to critical personnel, saving $1.3 million -- enough to pay for 23 full-time employees, the mayor's office said. . .

THE YOUNG

Memphis Commercial Appeal -
A pair of Memphis legislators argued over whether a bill to fine people who wear their pants so low they expose their underwear amounts to "legislating fashion" or "legislating decency and hygiene." The "Saggy Pants Bill" makes it a misdemeanor to "knowingly wear pants below the waistline, in a public place, in a manner that exposes the person's underwear or bare buttocks." It defines underwear as "clothing worn between the skin and outer layer of clothing, including but not limited to boxer shorts and thongs."

DRUG BUSTS

CBS 5, San Francisco -
One week after President Barack Obama's top law enforcement official seemed to indicate the feds would no longer raid pot clubs, DEA agents busted a medical marijuana facility in San Francisco.As agents carried large plastic containers of marijuana plants out of Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard Street, a small crowd of protesters formed a gauntlet outside the door, booing the agents and chanting, "our medicine is marijuana … listen to Obama!" DEA spokeswoman Casey McEnry told CBS 5 the documents regarding the raid are sealed, so the DEA was not able to give any details. "Based on our investigation we believe there are not only violations of federal law, but state law as well," said DEA Special Agent in Charge Anthony D. Williams in a written statement.

Boston Globe - Dozens of Massachusetts cities and towns are taking steps to impose stiff new fines for smoking marijuana in public and even to charge some violators with misdemeanors, a trend that critics say subverts the state ballot question passed overwhelmingly last fall to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. In recent weeks, at least seven communities - Duxbury, Lynn, Methuen, Medway, Milford, Salem, and Springfield - have passed bylaws that target people who light up in public. And two dozen cities and towns expect to vote this spring on similar measures, which proponents liken to local open container laws that ban drinking alcohol in public. . . Question 2 passed by a vote of 65 to 35 percent, making Massachusetts one of a dozen states to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, Bernath said. Proponents of the change, including billionaire financier George Soros, who spent more than $400,000 in favor of decriminalization, said that it would ensure that those caught with small quantities would avoid the taint of a criminal record.

POLICE BLOTTER

The Connecticut Supreme Court
has ruled that an intoxicated man who started his car remotely and then sat behind the wheel without ever driving the vehicle can still be prosecuted from driving under the influence. The chief justice wrote, "The defendant clearly undertook the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle," The man, who could got to prison for a year, has a wife and two children. Said Jessica Cyr, "I don't know what I'm going to do. I've got no job. My husband won't be able to work. If I turn my heat on, the boiler leaks. . . . I can't believe it."

Reuters - Turkish police providing security for a water crisis forum in Istanbul say the cheapest way to keep protesters at bay is to use water cannons. . . Turkish police, who on Monday fired water canons and tear gas to disperse protesters gathered at the start of the forum, told state-run Anatolian they prefer to use water because it is cheaper than tear gas.

JUSTICE & FREEDOM

Slashdot -
After receiving a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion in a Houston, Texas, case, UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, the RIAA lawyers thought better of proceeding, and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case 'with prejudice', which means it is over and cannot be brought again. The defendant's motion papers detailed some of the RIAA's litigation history against innocent individuals, such as Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic Recording v. Andersen, and argued that the awarding of attorneys fees in those cases has not sufficiently deterred repetition of the misconduct, so that a stronger remedy - Rule 11 sanctions - is now called for."

ECO CLIPS

The Chinese,
according to Xinhua News Agency, are using 'tailor made' abortion pills to reduce the number of gerbils in the western part of the country. The pills allegedly don't affect other animals. Gerbils are being blamed for the desertification of the area being they use up too much grass.

SCIENCE & HEALTH

LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR RECTION FAQ


REVIEW MAIN PAGE
FREE EMAIL UPDATES
SEND US A DONATION
ABOUT THE REVIEW
NEW ARTICLES
READERS' PICKS
ALSO OF INTEREST
POCKET PARADIGMS
ESSAY ARCHIVES
SAM SMITH'S BIO
SAM SMITH'S BOOKS
SAM SMITH'S MUSIC

CRASH REPORT



Ralph Brauer, Progressive Historians - Geithner and Summers along with Rubin are why this financial crisis will not be satisfactorily resolved, for in order to take the necessary steps to alleviate it all would have to admit their part in causing it and even more pointedly admit that their boss at the time, William Jefferson Clinton, also played a role. . .

If one parceled out blame the way they do in auto accidents, the GOP would bear the majority of it for they supplied the Congressional majority--and even put their names on the bill that caused this mess, the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act. But Rubin and his two sidekicks convinced Bill Clinton that the bill would be a good idea. So on Rubin's advice, Clinton looked the other way while Citi put its considerable lobbying forces into motion to make Gramm-Leach-Bliley possible, which is why one of the pens Bill Clinton used to sign the bill hangs in a prominent place in the office of former Citi CEO Sandy Weill--the man who created what was once America's largest financial institution out of a loan-sharking business.

Both Geithner and Summers played a role in this fiasco. Summers was the more prominent for he served as Rubin's assistant Treasury Secretary before succeeding his mentor, who for his role in making Citi's mergers legal received a cushy job at Citi as his reward. Geithner at the time was serving as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under both Rubin and Summers. Several commentators have noted the closeness of the three.

Where Rubin's fortunes fell as Citi plunged into one of the greatest bubble implosions in economic history, one that rivals the collapse of the East India Company or the Tulip Bulb fiasco, Summers and Geithner were fortunate to remain some distance from ground zero. . .

Summers was chased from the Presidency of Harvard only to reemerge as one of Barack Obama's chief economic advisors. Geithner became head of the New York federal reserve where his chief accomplishment was to sign off on the Bush Administration's bailout plan, a plan that was supposed to rescue companies at the center of this mess--one of which was Citi. . .
.

The Glass-Steagall Act, as it became known, was one of the most important pieces of economic legislation in American history. Essentially it prohibited banks from entering into the securities market, which Glass felt was one of the root causes of the Great Depression. Sixty years later this history was ruled irrelevant for the "new economy" of the 1990s as Rubin openly campaigned for the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

If Glass-Steagall was one of America's greatest pieces of economic legislation, the bill which repealed it--Gramm-Leach-Bliley--is surely one of the worst. . . What is still not generally understood about GLB is that it not only allowed banks to play with the likes of derivatives and subprime mortgages, it spurred the economic concentration and interlocking institutions that lie at the center of this crisis. . .

The presence of Geithner and Summers in the administration of Barack Obama merely testifies that as long as they have the President's ear, the roots of this crisis--and hence its long term resolution--will be ignored, for to do otherwise would be to admit they helped to cause it. Yet we also should remember had Barack Obama not won in November, waiting in the wings was the man whose name is on the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall--Phil Gramm. . .

Geithner, Summers and Rubin ultimately were part of a fascinating convergence that took place at the end of the last century. For the first time since Grover Cleveland's Democrats and William McKinley's Republicans agreed on economic fundamentals, in the 1980s and 90s the two parties occupied the same economic common ground.

Gramm-Leach Bliley is not the result of some conspiracy or even a bald-faced attempt by Wall Street to buy off Congress and the Executive branch--although record amounts of lobbying funds were spent to be sure it passed. In the end GLB is about the power of shared ideas, an economic orthodoxy that made the likes of Rubin, Summers and Geithner indistinguishable from their Republican counterparts. . .

DC Examiner - Goldman Sachs has been everywhere in the crisis, yet has almost entirely escaped critical public attention. Goldman Sachs alumni have been in the forefront of the government's response to the crisis under both the present and former presidential administrations. . . What Goldman giveth, Goldman also taketh away. While little is known about where the AIG bailout money went, we do know that Goldman Sachs received $12.9 billion of it. As one Wall Street insider recently observed to The Examiner: "This is an investment bank that earned more than $12 billion and paid its CEO $68 million in 2007. Even in 2008, this self-proclaimed home to the 'Masters of the Universe' paid out more than $10 billion in compensation and received its own $10 billion in taxpayer funding." Congress ought to stop swatting at AIG bonus gnats and take on the real masters of the bailouts.

Real Clear Politics - No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well. From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 . . . In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)

Daily Beast - The New York Times reports that, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers made $11.6 billion. Leading the way was James Simons of Renaissance Technologies, who made $2.5 billion. John Paulson of Paulson & Company was next, with a rake of $2 billion. John D. Arnold, who is in his early 30s, made $1.5 billion, while George Soros made $1.1 billion. Wall Street may want to hold the champagne, however: "In a year when losses were recorded at two of every three hedge funds, pay for many of these managers was down by several million, and the overall pool of earnings was about half the $22.5 billion the top 25 earned in 2007."

Ken Silverstein, Harpers - Gary Gensler, the former Goldman Sachs employee and derivatives cheerleader who President Obama nominated to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Gensler's nomination sailed through the Senate Agricultural Committee but Senator Bernie Sanders has placed a hold on the nomination (as has a second senator who is as yet unnamed). A statement from Sanders's office said: "While Mr. Gensler is clearly an intelligent and knowledgeable person, I cannot support his nomination. Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of A.I.G. and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history. He supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which allowed banks like Citigroup to become "too big to fail." He worked to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron and the spike in energy prices."

PEDALPHILES & OTHER PERVERSIONS


This is a little old, but we just came upon it thanks to the Annals of Improbable Research

Telegraph, UK, 2008 - Telegraph, 2008 - Police and medical personnel were called to Lan Tian park in Hong Kong after the man, named as 41-year-old local Le Xing, got into difficulty after he put his penis through a hole in the bench and got stuck when he became aroused. Mr Xing, described in reports as "lonely and disturbed", told police that he thought it would be fun to have sex with the bench. When officers and doctors arrived at the scene they tried to release some of the pressure by removing some of his blood. But their efforts proved unsuccessful, forcing them to cut the bench from the ground and take it, with Xing attached, to a city hospital. It took doctors four hours to cut him free. They later said that if he had been stuck for just an hour longer they may have been forced to amputate his penis.

There have been several recent cases of people having sex with unusual objects. In May 2008, Edward Smith, claimed to be involved in an intimate relationship with a white Volkswagen Beetle.

Telegraph, 2008 - A 32-year-old man has been arrested in Wiltshire for allegedly simulating a sex act with a lamp-post. . . . The incident echoes a similar case last week when a Polish contractor was caught on his knees with a vacuum cleaner in a hospital staff canteen. . . In 1993, Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch.

Telegraph, UK, 2008 - A Polish worker has come up with an unusual excuse after being caught in the act with a vacuum cleaner. The building contractor claimed he was cleaning his underpants with Henry Hoover when he was found naked and on his knees in a hospital's staff canteen. A stunned security guard stumbled onto the man in the middle of a compromising act with the cleaner, which has a large smiley face painted on its front and a hose protruding from its "nose". According to the Sun, the contractor was supposed to be locking up the building site near the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital where his firm is refurbishing administration offices. . . When later questioned by his employers, the man said he was vacuuming his underpants, which was "a common practice in Poland". He has since been fired.

Telegraph, UK, 2007 - A "cycle-sexualist" caught half-naked in a compromising position with his bicycle has been put on probation for three years.He was caught by two cleaners who walked in on him in a hostel room. The 51-year-old was naked from the waist down and when the women opened the door he paused only to ask, "What is it, hen?", before continuing to "move his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex". The police were called and at a hearing last month Mr Stewart was placed on the sex offenders' register after admitting a sexual breach of the peace. . . Sheriff Colin Miller added: "In almost four decades in the law I thought I had come across every perversion known to mankind, but this is a new one on me. I have never heard of a 'cycle-sexualist'. "

CIA EXPERT SAYS ELECTRONIC VOTING EASILY HACKED

McClatchy - The CIA, which has been monitoring foreign countries' use of electronic voting systems, has reported apparent vote-rigging schemes in Venezuela, Macedonia and Ukraine and a raft of concerns about the machines' vulnerability to tampering.

Appearing last month before a U.S. Election Assistance Commission field hearing in Orlando, Fla., a CIA cybersecurity expert suggested that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies fixed a 2004 election recount, an assertion that could further roil U.S. relations with the Latin leader.

In a presentation that could provide disturbing lessons for the United States, where electronic voting is becoming universal, Steve Stigall summarized what he described as attempts to use computers to undermine democratic elections in developing nations. His remarks have received no news media attention until now.

Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that Congress created in 2002 to modernize U.S. voting, that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results. . .

Stigall, who's studied electronic systems in about three dozen countries, said that most countries' machines produced paper receipts that voters then dropped into boxes. However, even that doesn't prevent corruption, he said.

LEARNING TWITTER PLACED ABOVE WORLD WAR II IN BRITISH STUDY

BBC - Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, it is claimed. . . The Guardian newspaper says draft copies it has seen shows pupils will no longer have to study the Victorian period or the Second World War. . . The review of the primary school curriculum was commissioned by Schools Secretary Ed Balls last year and is being drawn up by Sir Jim Rose, former chief of England's schools watchdog, Ofsted.

The Guardian said the draft review requires primary school children to be familiar with blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter as sources of information and forms of communication.

They must gain "fluency" in handwriting and keyboard skills, and learn how to use a spellchecker alongside how to spell, the article said.

The government says history will still be studied. Every child would learn two key periods of British history but it would be up to the school to decide which ones. While schools would still be able to opt to teach Victorian history or the Second World War, they would not be required to, the Guardian said.

RECOVERED HISTORY: THE LAW THEY JUST WANT TO FORGET ABOUT, NOT REPEAL


Stephen Labaton, NY Times, 1999 - Congress approved landmark legislation today that opens the door for a new era on Wall Street in which commercial banks, securities houses and insurers will find it easier and cheaper to enter one another's businesses.

The measure, considered by many the most important banking legislation in 66 years, was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 and in the House tonight by 362 to 57. The bill will now be sent to the president, who is expected to sign it, aides said. It would become one of the most significant achievements this year by the White House and the Republicans leading the 106th Congress.

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression. . .

Administration officials and many Republicans and Democrats said the measure would save consumers billions of dollars and was necessary to keep up with trends in both domestic and international banking. Some institutions, like Citigroup, already have banking, insurance and securities arms but could have been forced to divest their insurance underwriting under existing law. Many foreign banks already enjoy the ability to enter the securities and insurance industries. . .

Consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation's biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.

The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.

"I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010," said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. "I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness."

Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had "seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes."

"Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis," Mr. Wellstone said. "Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."

Others said the legislation was essential for the future leadership of the American banking system.

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.". . .

One Republican Senator, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted against the legislation. He was joined by seven Democrats: Barbara Boxer of California, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone.

In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure, while 51 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 independent opposed it. Fifteen members did not vote. . .

UNDAMMING THE MAINSTREAM

Sam Smith

One of the greatest problems with our politics is that the values of the mainstream have been increasingly defined by the elite. And it's not just the right - effective as it has been at convincing people that gay marriage and abortion are the major obstacles to a decent life. Now that the Democrats are in power, we are seeing the flip side of this manipulation of debate and information and what amounts to a damming of the mainstream.

Both parties are primarily beholden to their campaign contributors, the very people who have led us into our current disaster, and while their approaches may vary, both parties share a common obeisance to the most powerful and wealthiest. The question of what would help the bulk of Americans becomes of secondary concern.

You can see this revealed as supposedly liberal columnists worry about populism, almost as though it was a new form of terrorism. You can see it in a stimulus bill badly skewed towards the desires of the top of the heap. You see it in the White House seeking to further institutionalize the private health insurance industry, among the most useless businesses in America.

The list could go on and on, but there's another list that's even more important: that of issues blocked by the establishment's dam from even entering the mainstream downstream (and ignored by the major media) even though many have widespread support.

Test it out. Circulate the list below among friends or at the next meeting of your favorite group. Add ideas to it or delete them. Come up with your own damn list. If you try it as formal poll, include a question about the participant's political leanings, for it is useful to know which issues cut best across ideology. Then post what you've found on the web (a copy to the Review would be much appreciated). The web has been well used by major manipulators of opinion on both left and right, but its potential to help ordinary American communities and groups take back the town meeting approach that the power brokers have co-opted and to find unity with other communities and groups remains largely a dream.

In the best of worlds, every political and civic organization in the country would come up with its own plan and priorities, instead of having it determined by the big players in Washington and Wall Street. It would be an easy but effective first step in a populist revival that the capital - in all its persuasions - fears so much. It would help undam the mainstream.

Here's a starter list. Just add anything you want and cross out anything you or your group doesn't agree with and see what's left:

FISCAL CRISIS

Nationalization of failed financial institutions.

End of secrecy by financial institutions on the use of federal funds

Use of federal revenue sharing to get more recovery funds quickly to the state and local level

A return to the financial controls of the Glass-Steagel Act

Greater use of stimulus funds to help small business.

Use of local bankruptcy judges to reorganize loans threatened with foreclosure.

State banks modeled on the North Dakota example

Changing pro-lender state laws endangering homeowners

Creating cap on credit card interest rates to levels of the 1980s.

HEALTHCARE

Single payer healthcare

FOREIGN POLICY

An end to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

No torture.

MILITARY

End of more than one foreign tour for National Guard troops.

DRUG POLICY

Decriminalization of marijuana.

EDUCATION

Federal support of local public schools but without federal interference

ELECTIONS

Use of only secure and verifiable voting machines.

Public campaign financing

Instant runoff voting

CIVIL LIBERTIES

An end to illegal wiretapping by the government

Respect for the 10th Amendment by leaving states and the individuals those powers not specifically granted the federal government under the Constitution. Government should be conducted at the lowest practical level.

Restoring the right of juries to judge both the law and the fact.

SOCIAL SECURITY

No dismantling of Social Security

If you take a poll or a meeting vote, please let the Review know. Breakdown by political persuasion would be helpful.

HILL PROGRESSIVES BEING DISSED BY OBAMA

Roll Call - Liberal House Democrats are stewing that they have yet to get face time with President Barack Obama, despite his whirlwind charm offensive that has ushered every other major faction of the Caucus into the White House for private meetings.

"Members are either taking it as a slight, or that we're irrelevant in the planning process," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. . .

The group's members have proved to be among the most reliable supporters of mainline Democratic priorities, prompting a view among some party leaders that they require less servicing. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), the group's other co-chairman, warned the White House against drawing that conclusion. "Maybe they think that they can take us for granted, but they can't," she said.

The administration has yet to schedule a get-together with the group, though White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama looks forward to meeting with them "soon."

"The fact that Obama has spent time courting House Republicans, the most legislatively irrelevant group on the Hill, and still hasn't met with Progressives, the center core of his party - it's incredible," said David Sirota, a liberal columnist and former aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who founded the Progressive Caucus in the early 1990s when he served in the House. . .

CONGRESS BANNED RESELLING CHILDREN'S BOOKS PRINTED BEFORE 1985

Washington Post - Legislation passed by Congress last August in response to fears of lead-tainted toys imported from China went into effect last month. Consumer groups and safety advocates have praised it for its far-reaching protections. But libraries and book resellers such as Goodwill are worried about one small part of the law: a ban on distributing children's books printed before 1985.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the act, lead in the books' inks could make its way into the mouths of little kids. Goodwill is calling for a change in the legislation even as it clears its shelves to comply, and libraries are worried they could be the next ones scrubbing their shelves. . .

Scientists are emphatic that lead, which was common in paints before its use was banned in 1978, poses a threat to the neural development of small children. But they disagree about whether there is enough in the ink in children's books to warrant concern. Some even accuse the safety commission of trying to undermine the law by stirring up popular backlash. . .

"On the scale of concerns to have about lead, this is very clearly not a high priority," said Ellen Silbergeld, a MacArthur scholar and professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University who is considered one of the leading experts on lead poisoning.

"It doesn't take a tremendous amount of intelligence to figure out what the highest-risk sources of lead are," Silbergeld said. "This is a way of distracting attention from their failure to protect children from the clear and present dangers of lead. I think this is just absurd, and I think it's disingenuous." She said that toys, poorly made jewelry and other trinkets were cause for much more alarm.

NEARLY ONE THIRD OF AMERICANS UNDER 40 THINK STEWART AND COLBERT ARE TAKING PLACE OF NEWS MEDIA

Rasmussen Reports - Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets. . .

Among all Americans, 24% say programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news venues, but 45% do not think so. . .

Thirty-six percent (36%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show," while 35% have a favorable view of Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Report." Twenty-two percent (22%) regard both Stewart and Colbert unfavorably. . .

The findings are more bad news for one traditional news outlet - daily newspapers. A survey released earlier this month found that most young readers are rejecting daily print papers but are not going to the local paper's website as an alternative.

A MOMENT WITH JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN

Sam Smith, Progressive Review - I only met John Hope Franklin once and then just briefly. But I immediately liked him. My wife and I were at a conference at the former farm of Alex Haley in Tennessee, now owned by the Children's Defense Fund. Franklin spoke and had told the story that historian Andrew McMichael recites in the item below.

Sometime during the weekend, we came across Franklin standing near a cottage fence. My wife, a local historian and author, introduced herself and mentioned some of her experiences as a white woman writing about black history. He was immediately sympathetic. I don't remember the details of the conversation, only his encouraging parting words: "You go, girl."

Having spent my life covering the powerful, it hit home. How seldom do those at the top of the heap treat strangers with such interest and friendliness? I recall a spring training in Florida long ago with my young boys when you could still just wander onto the field after practice. Another fan remarked casually to Willie Stargell, "I'm from Pittsburgh, too." Stargell didn't even look at him, saying only, "That's your problem, mister." Or the time, at Joe Rauh's memorial service, when I went up to John Kenneth Galbraith, and introduced myself as the guy whose band had played at three of his annual spring parties long ago. His sole response: "You have a good memory." I told his wife the same thing, however, and she treated me like a long lost friend, including a big hug.

From such experiences I had learned the same lesson as John Hope Franklin did after meeting W E B DuBois: be nice to people you don't know. As another DuBois - Blanche - put it, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."

Andrew McMichael, Progressive Historians - John Hope was a "larger-than-life" historian. Many will laugh, but in the historical profession, John Hope was a rock star. . . At annual meetings he was always mobbed. There would be throngs of historians coming up to say hello, a sort of "kiss-the ring" moment.

And John Hope always took the time to stop and talk to them. Always. Regardless of what he was doing, this famous person, famous historian, always took some time to give some words of encouragement to the newer generation of historians. . .

Around the time he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom I asked him about this. I said "You know, you can hardly make it across a room without getting mobbed. And yet you always take time to speak to everyone. How do you have the patience?"

Here was what he told me.

Decades ago, he was the second African American ever to enter graduate school at Harvard University. The first was WEB DuBois. One day John Hope was on campus--I believe it was the library--and he saw DuBois at a table, working. So he went over to speak to him. John Hope walked over (nervously, as he described it) to DuBois and said "Um, hello Mr. DuBois. My name is John Hope Franklin. You were the first black grad student at Harvard. I'm the second." He said that DuBois never looked up to acknowledge him, mumbled something, and then ignored him.

John Hope told me that at that moment he decided that he would never ignore anyone, especially grad students, who wanted or needed a moment of his time. .

EMANUEL MADE $320K AS FREDDIE MAC BOARD MEMBER WHILE IGNORING ACCOUNTING SCANDAL

Chicago Tribune - Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel-now chief of staff to President Barack Obama-who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort. . . The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago. . .

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

THE CASE AGAINST GANGSTER STYLE LOANS BY THE BANKS

Senator Bernie Sanders - In the midst of this financial disaster, one of the great frustrations that I hear from my constituents is that while taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions bailing out major financial institutions, and while these big banks are getting near-zero interest rate loans from the Fed, these very same financial institutions are now charging Americans 20 percent or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. In fact, one-third of all credit card holders in this country are now paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent – more than double what they paid in interest in 1990. Recently, some major institutions such as Bank of America have informed responsible cardholders that their interest rates would be doubled to as high as 28 percent, without explaining why the increase was taking place.

At a time when many Americans in the collapsing middle class use credit cards for groceries, gas and college expenses, what Wall Street and credit card companies are doing is not much different from what gangsters and loan sharks do when they make predatory loans. While the bankers wear three-piece suits and don't break the knee caps of those who can't pay back, they are still destroying people's lives.

The Bible has a term for this practice. It's called usury. And in The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri's epic poem, there was a special place reserved in the Seventh Circle of Hell for sinners who charged people usurious interest rates.

Today, we don't need the hellfire and pitch forks, we don't need the rivers of boiling blood, but we do need a national usury law.

We need a national law because state laws no longer work. States used to protect consumers from predatory lenders, but strong state usury laws were obliterated by a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Justices allowed national banks to charge whatever interest rate they wanted if they moved to a state without an interest rate cap like South Dakota or Delaware.

That is why I have introduced legislation to require any lender in this country to cap all interest rates on consumer loans at 15 percent, including credit cards. Why did I select 15 percent as the appropriate rate to deal with the usury which is going on in this country? The reason is that 15 percent is the maximum that Congress imposed on credit union loans almost 30 years ago when it amended the Federal Credit Union Act. And that approach has worked. Under current law, credit unions are allowed to charge higher interest rates only if their regulator, the National Credit Union Administration, determines that it is necessary to maintain the safety and soundness of these institutions. Right now, while most credit unions charge lower rates, the NCUA allows credit unions to charge an interest rate as high as 18 percent.

Unlike their counterparts at the big banks, credit unions are not lining up for hundreds of billions in bailouts. In fact, they're doing quite well. As Chris Collver, legislative and regulatory analyst for the California Credit Union League recently stated; "It hasn't been an issue. Credit unions are still able to thrive." In my view, if these rules have worked well for credit unions for decades they can work for all financial institutions.

In 1991 former Senator Al D'Amato offered an amendment to cap credit card interest rates at 14 percent. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 74-19, but never became law. Now is the time to return to that debate.

WORD


Well, maybe it's like Casey says: A fella ain't got a soul of his own, just a piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody. And then it don't matter, I'll be around. In the dark. I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look. Whenever there's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever there's a cop beaten' up on a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad, and I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know suppers ready. And when people are eaten' stuff they raise, and livin' in the houses they build, I'll be there, too!!!" --- Tom Joad in "The Grapes of Wrath"

ON SPELLING

You can't help respecting someone who can spell Tuesday even if he can't spell it right. -- Winnie the Pooh

The spelling of words is subordinate. Morbidness for nice spelling and tenacity for or against one letter or so means dandyism and impotence in literature - Walt Whitman

I don't see any use in spelling a word right, and never did. I mean I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all our clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. - Mark Twain

I have no respect for a man who doesn't know more than one way to spell a word - Walt Whitman

Economy Got You Down? See the animation!‏

New Fiore Animation!

Click here for the new animation.

Firesign update: Phil Proctor gets Pulped‏

Phil Proctor will be performing this Friday & Saturday
and next (March 27 & 28 and April 3 & 4) in "They
Killed Him Dead" and "Flame City" at the Stories From
the Golden Age Theatre in Holllllywood:

http://www.goldenagestories.com/html/theater.php

(the website just says Saturday, but Phil says on his
Facebook page that it's Friday & Saturday, and the
newer graphic also says F&S).


Are you a machine that only answers no?
-- Firesign Theatre

The Politics of Being Illogical


posted by: Chris F. 2 days ago
The Politics of Being Illogical
17 comments

As I argued in a previous article, it makes no sense whatsoever to continue to criminalize and wage a costly battle against the cannabis drug. In an online forum with the public, where President Obama answered unfiltered questions sent in by millions, he would've been remiss to ignore the popularity of the one topic that kept popping up in different areas of discussion: the legalization of marijuana.

(It is inconclusive whether the popularity of the marijuana-related questions were the result of a voting campaign by particular interest groups, or in fact, the public at large is finding the issue of legalization much easier to digest given the condition of our economy.)

To his credit, President Obama did ultimately address the issue of whether marijuana should be legalized, albeit with a statement the U.S. Supreme Court would be proud of. Although the President did not explicitly state his opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana, he instead relayed his belief that it was not a "good strategy for our economy".

I can fully understand that Mr. Obama's primary concern, as it should be, is to lead our nation out of this deep financial crisis and use all the influence and negotiating acumen he possesses to create and pass the legislation that is probably necessary to keep our economy from falling much further.

It might appear to some, at least given the words from most of their members, that the Republican Party might be somewhat hesitant to give their full approval to all that President Obama seeks from Congress. Given the stress and opposition already in place, had he come right out and announced his support for the legalization of marijuana, his efforts to work with Congress for all of these economic and mortgage packages would've been made that much harder.

That's not to say the savings and revenue realized from such decriminalization and resulting taxation would've been fictional or insignificant in any way. Just the opposite.

But in the world of politics and Washington, D.C., negotiations and conflict are a daily occurrence, and the microscope is so trained on the opposition, by both parties, that everything said or done can be used positively or negatively. Elections for 435 members of Congress are every two years, which essentially means they are constantly running for office. Good or bad, polls in their district will largely dictate what they say and do as Representatives. Even national polls may influence the talking points of national candidates.

For instance, it is definitively Unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriages, yet most politicians, including President Obama, have failed to support such a right, maybe because most polls show a lack of support nationally. Add in the factor of an opponent whose most vocal supporters would be energized by such an issue, and it instantly becomes a topic to largely avoid, regardless of how wrong it is.

This could be tied to the backlash against several Republican legislators in California I noted in another previous article. They decided, on their own, to act in a way they thought was best. Yet, because of their party, and a few vocal constituents, they could face political retribution.

This is politics. Speaking with vagueness; acting with polling support; rarely saying and doing the right thing before everyone else believes it to be the right thing as well.

Read more: politics


South Carolina Unemployment Surges to 11 Percent


Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress at 5:25 AM on March 28, 2009.


Five counties in the state face more than 20 percent unemployment.

Share and save this post:

Share on Facebook

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace in your
mailbox!


Unemployment in South Carolina reached 11 percent in February, a “dramatic increase from January’s 10.3 percent.” Five counties in the state face more than 20 percent unemployment, with the highest, Allendale County, at 23.4 percent. Even as he is being warned about enusing “chaos,” Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) continues his efforts to block $700 million in federal stimulus aid to the state, a move that could result in at least 4,700 teachers and prison guards being laid off.

Digg!

Tagged as: south carolina, unemployment

Ali Frick is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

America's Dumbest Criminal Sticks Up Cop at Police Convention


Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 5:27 AM on March 29, 2009.


Apt description, no?
stupidsigns

Share and save this post:

Share on Facebook

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!


Gosh, this is a rich and hearty serving of stupid:

Retired police chief John Comparetto was attending the meeting of 300 officers when he was allegedly held up at gunpoint in the men's toilets.

He handed over money and a phone but then he and some colleagues gave chase as the suspect tried to flee in a taxi.

They arrested a 19-year-old man over the incident near Harrisburg.

Mr. Comparetto described the suspect as "probably the dumbest criminal in Pennsylvania."

Actually, chief, he may be the dumbest in all of these United States.

The punch-line to this story is just beautiful ... wait for it ...

When a journalist asked the suspect for comment as he was led from court, he said: "I'm smooth."

He's smooth. And you thought George W. was America's dumbest criminal.

Digg!

Tagged as: weird news

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Christian Fundamentalist Group Preaches Patriarchy and Women's Fertility as Weapons for Spiritual Warfare

By Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash. Posted March 30, 2009.


Author Kathryn Joyce explains the bizarre Quiverfull movement dedicated to exploding the birthrate of ultra-conservative Christians.

When Americans think of patriarchal societies, female submission, or extreme gender inequality based on religious teachings, visions of Muslim women in burkas or Hindus in poorly arranged marriages may come to mind. The reality, though, is that a growing number of American Christian fundamentalists also have rejected feminism and egalitarianism, embracing instead male dominance and what they call the "Quiverfull" belief system. Picture the Massachusetts Bay Colonies before Hester Prynne's day. The women in such communities live within a stringently enforced doctrine of wifely submission and male "headship," including a selfless acceptance of possibly constant pregnancies and as many children under foot as God might bring. They reject not only "reproductive rights" of any kind, but also higher education and workforce participation for women.

In her book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, journalist Kathryn Joyce approaches Quiverfull followers with deep curiosity and the restraint of a good journalist. In a recent interview, she discussed the beliefs and lifestyle of inequaity that has taken a foothold in corners of American society.

* * *

Mark Karlin: You wrote the book called Quiverfull, Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. In the beginning of the book, you give an overview of what the Quiverfull movement is. Can you describe it to us?

Kathryn Joyce: Quiverfull itself is a movement and a conviction among deeply conservative, theologically conservative Christians and pro-life purists who believe that you should accept as many children as God will give you based on Psalm 127, which reads: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies at the gate." So it's kind of a dual emphasis on accepting as many children as God will give you, both as a demonstration of radical trust and obedience in God and also a really concerted effort to win the culture wars demographically.

From Psalm 127, a lot of emphasis is placed on militaristic imagery, particularly arrows. So the children become the arrows of the parents, part of their tools of war, in order to go out against the enemy. They put a lot of stress on the fact that Christians need to remember that their way of being in the world is a way of being at war with the world, so having more children than their enemy can help them to effect their changes.

Karlin: I assume it also is tied into a group that is primarily white. It often seems to me that many of the fundamentalist movements coincide with racial identity, and that white culture is under attack. There's more minorities in the world, so the idea to go forth and multiply is to get the white birth rate up, in essence.

Joyce: I agree. I think that that's not the only motivation or not necessarily the motivation of everybody who follows these convictions, but I think there's often a really strong racial undertone when people talk about the "demographic winter" occurring in Europe. There's the idea that Europeans, which we can read easily as white Europeans, are not having enough children, so this is necessitating vast immigration. They talk about the demographic winter in Europe, which is not to say a concern for a lack of enough total babies being born, but a lack of the right babies.

Karlin: Or the white babies.

Joyce: Exactly.

Karlin: When I first saw this title, I looked up Quiverfull and saw that it was associated with the larger Christian fundamentalist movement. But the subtitle said, "the Christian patriarchy movement." My perception of the fundamentalist movement overall is that it is a patriarchal movement. What makes this distinct?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: quiverfull, patriarchy, kathryn jocye, quiverfull: inside the ch

Mark Karlin is the editor of buzzflash.com

The Woman Who Could Nail Bush: Are the Worst of the Torture Memos Still to Come?

By Scott Horton, The Daily Beast. Posted March 30, 2009.


The GOP is threatening an ugly fight over an Obama Justice Department appointee who wants to disclose more Bush-era torture memos.

Until recently, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, often considered the “brains” of the department, has been known mostly to legal experts. But for the past eight years, it was the epicenter of allegations of political manipulation and, worse, the source of infamous memoranda on torture. In tapping Eric Holder as attorney general, President Obama has promised to restore standards of professionalism to the department. For Republicans, this is tantamount to a declaration of partisan war.

On March 19, the nomination of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC was endorsed by the Judiciary Committee with every Republican voting against her and Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) abstaining. The nomination was to have been brought to the Senate floor for a vote on Monday and then again on Wednesday, but it has been held back. Republican leaders, it appears, are playing with the notion of making Johnsen the target of their first filibuster.

The highly credentialed Johnsen is an improbable target, and OLC was long viewed as an obscure post. But Johnsen served as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League. Antiabortion groups have targeted Johnsen over the last three weeks with a massive telephone, email, and letter-writing campaign, demanding that senators oppose her nomination. Johnsen is labeled a “radical, pro-abortion activist,” although her views on the abortion issue line up very closely with the mainstream. While the noise surrounding the Johnsen nomination appears on the surface to be about the abortion issue—over which her position at OLC would have very little influence—discussions with Republican stalwarts reveal that their main concerns lie elsewhere.

The real reason for their vehement opposition is that Johnsen is committed to overturning the Bush administration’s policies on torture and warrantless surveillance, which would clip the wings of the imperial presidency. Even more menacingly (from their perspective), she is committed to shining a light on some of the darkest skeletons of the Bush years. Already, publication of OLC memoranda authorizing torture, approving warrantless surveillance, and pronouncing the First and Fourth Amendments a dead letter in connection with domestic military operations has rocked the public. More memos, potentially even more disturbing, I have learned, are about to be made public soon. Yet these are difficult issues on which to attack Johnsen, other than through vague suggestions that she is “weak on national security.” Hence the steady stream of accusations linked to her largely irrelevant views about abortion rights.

Will the Republicans attempt to filibuster the Johnsen nomination? The threat is sufficiently serious to have provoked the editors of the New York Times to editorialize in support of Johnsen on Thursday. Calling the operation of OLC in the Bush era “lawless,” the editors wrote, “Ms. Johnsen is superbly qualified and has fought for just the sort of change the office needs.”

The controversy surrounding Johnsen provides a flashpoint for President Obama’s nominees for administration legal posts. Unsurprisingly, they look an awful lot like Barack Obama—strong legal credentials, an academic bent, and liberal attitudes balanced by a strong commitment to political pragmatism.

Obama’s top picks start with a couple of well-known Washington names. Eric Holder, the nation’s first black attorney general, was a career Justice Department attorney who spent his formative years as a prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section (much-criticized for abuse under Bush). He spent time as a U.S. attorney, a judge, and ran the Justice Department for a while as deputy attorney general in the Clinton years. Obama’s White House counsel, Greg Craig, is a Washington fixture at the powerhouse Williams & Connolly law firm. The former foreign-policy aide to Sen. Edward Kennedy and State Department official has handled high-profile cases from Clinton’s impeachment defense to representing the father of Elian Gonzales. In the way of Washington, he is also has ties to powerful Republicans, including Karl Rove and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, whom he successfully represented in a sensitive FBI investigation into the leaking of classified data.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, alberto gonzales, warrantless wiretapping, scott horton, cass sunstein, eric holder, office of legal counsel, dawn johnsen, scott horton daily beast, obama lawyers, torture memoirs, dawn johnsen nomination, dawn johnson, arlen spector, laurence tribe, larry tribe, laurence tribe supreme co

Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper's magazine and the American Lawyer, among other publications.

Foreclosure Crisis Hits Warp Speed: 6 Million Families Face Losing Their Homes in the Next Three Years

By Nan Mooney, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2009.


A second wave of very distressed families is going to be desperately in need of a social safety net that doesn't exist.

What would you do if someone foreclosed on your home? If suddenly you and all your possessions were out on the street with a bank account depleted from trying to make mammoth mortgage payments, where would you go?

An estimated 6 million families could be facing this question in the next three years, with nearly 1 in 10 mortgage holders either delinquent or in foreclosure. And although we've heard a lot about trying to help people stay in their homes -- like President Obama's $275 billion foreclosure-prevention package -- it's been far more difficult to follow what happens to these families once they've been forced out.

"We haven't done a good job of tracking those people who were not able to stay in their homes," admits Douglas Robinson of NeighborWorks, an umbrella organization for more than 230 local nonprofits focused on community development. "Over the past four years, we've been heavily focused on foreclosure prevention -- keeping people in their homes. We're just starting to look at the other side of things now."

According to Robinson, those victims of foreclosure who do wind up being pushed out of their homes can be roughly divided into two waves.

The first wave consists of those who lost their homes because they were unable to keep up with payments on poor mortgages, often with cripplingly high interest rates. There's no hard research as yet, but anecdotal evidence indicates that, although these people didn't have the financial resources to keep up with their mortgage payments, most were able to rent apartments or even homes in their same communities.

But for the second wave, the transition hasn't been nearly so seamless. These are the people who are unable to make mortgage payments because they've lost their jobs. They no longer have the incomes to afford rentals.

This second wave is creating a strong demand for social services, including homeless shelters -- a demand that far exceeds supply. Again, as yet there is no hard data, but anecdotal evidence indicates a far higher percentage of these people are winding up in hotel rooms, with friends and relatives, in shelters, or even sleeping in cars or on the street.

The recession has created a new and growing segment of the homeless population --those who until recently were gainfully employed, often living paycheck to paycheck, and now find themselves out of a home through no fault of their own.

A recent report from the National Center on Family Homelessness estimates that 1 in every 50 American children was homeless between 2005 and 2006, about 1.5 million kids. And the numbers are likely to get worse as the economy continues to decline.

"Our main effort has been to keep people in their homes, and that's where the bulk of our money and resources has gone," explains Robinson. "But it is important, from a public policy standpoint, to know just what's happening to those people who can't stay."

There is federal aid pending for foreclosure victims, but for many it will be too little too late. The stimulus package pledges money to help potential renters with rent and security deposits.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: foreclosure, housing crisis

Nan Mooney is the author of (Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

I Married an Illegal Immigrant: A First-Hand Account of How Screwed Up This Country's Rules for Foreigners Are


By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2009.


The one argument in the immigration debate with absolutely no merit is that the system is fine.

Immigration is an issue that always spurs heated debates. There are some decent arguments floating around, some kooky ones and one that reveals that the person making it is utterly clueless about the issue. That argument, in a nutshell, is that the system's fine.

Sure, there are around 11 million people in this country illegally; sure, many toil away in horrific conditions without any legal protections; yes, we detain suspected illegal immigrants (children included) -- meaning some number of legal immigrants and citizens as well -- in obscene conditions that human rights groups say violate international norms and, yes, those citizens who employ undocumented workers do so with something very close to impunity.

But the system's not broken, according to these folks. That's just a liberal talking point bandied about by those with a perverse desire to actually fix it. (This is closely related to the even more ridiculous assertion that the government doesn't do much to enforce the immigration laws. It does -- much more than enough, in fact, given the nature of the offense in question.)

Now, there is a significant group of people who would never, ever suggest that our immigration system is anything less than dysfunctional. That group consists of anyone who has ever had any opportunity to interact with it in any way whatsoever.

Although I am a U.S. citizen -- belonging to a fourth-generation immigrant family -- I count myself among that group. What I learned through the experience is that the difference between a "legal" and "illegal" immigrant often comes down to whether one can afford a decent, well-connected lawyer.

Here's my tale:

When I was very young, I fell in love with a woman. She had the misfortune of being born in another country, but we didn't let that stand in our way, and eventually we married. (And, for the record, it was by no means a sham marriage -- we had lived together for three years before tying the knot.)

We had lived in Germany for a while -- where my application for permanent residency was processed with typical Teutonic efficiency. Then we moved to New York and ran into the U.S. immigration system, a black hole of an agency staffed by incompetent, gray-faced bureaucrats whose performances would have shamed the DMV.

Their sole joy in life seemed to come from making applicants' lives miserable, but we soldiered on, traipsing down to lower Manhattan to file endless pieces of paper and attend about four interviews.

Eventually, my (now ex-) wife was granted a temporary permit to work while her application was being processed. She was, officially, a "legal" immigrant, one of the ones that Lou Dobbs supposedly loves.

Then we made a huge error, at least as it relates to the immigration system: We moved to Florida (I know, how rude of us?).

We paid a fee to have our file transferred and were assured that the application process would continue smoothly in the sure hands of the Miami field office (this was back when CIS was INS, and not part of Homeland Security).

Only the file never arrived. It was transferred, but to Maine. And then somewhere else (I forget where -- I think it landed somewhere in the Pacific Northwest).

Months passed. we were repeatedly told that the file was being tracked and would appear in the Sunshine State any day now. The authorities renewed my sweetie's 'temporary' authorization, and she remained, thankfully, "legal."

Until the day cruise.

If you've ever been to Florida, you've probably seen a lot of ads for these tacky junkets. They jam a bunch of pasty, brightly clothed tourists into a ship -- most of which are packed with E. coli bacteria -- and for 50 bucks they stuff them with cheap booze and fattening foods, toodle around the Atlantic for 10 hours, relieve them of a few more bucks in the casino and then back to port. We got one of these cruises as a gift.

Now, we'd been told that while the application was pending, my wife couldn't leave the country. And we weren't sure whether a day cruise constituted leaving the country or not. So we brought all our paperwork to an INS agent in the cruise terminal and asked him point-blank whether we could take the trip.

Not a problem, he assured us, as long as we didn't disembark in another country, it wouldn't be considered an overseas trip. We thanked him, got on board, and proceeded to get as sick as the other 1,000 or so suckers who took that day's cruise.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: immigration

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq

283 Bases, 170,000 Pieces of Equipment, 140,000 Troops, and an Army of Mercenaries: The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq

283 Bases, 170,000 Pieces of Equipment, 140,000 Troops,

and an Army of Mercenaries: The Logistical Nightmare in Iraq


By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Why you'll be paying for the occupation for years to come,

withdrawal or not. Read more »

Obama Sets New Standard for Managing the News


by: Margaret Talev | Visit article original @ McClatchy Newspapers

photo
US President Barack Obama appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. (Photo: Getty)

Washington - In the past week, President Barack Obama spoke via video to Iranians and, separately, to viewers of a Latin music awards show, appeared on Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" and on "60 Minutes," held a prime-time news conference at which he called on several special-audience publications and wrote an opinion column that ran in newspapers around the world.

He also arranged two events that bypassed the news media, an online "town hall" and a volunteer door-knocking campaign across the nation to rouse support for his budget.

His White House is working to push and control his message through new and old media, and in some innovative ways. In short, Obama has the most multifaceted communications strategy in presidential history.

"They have to have this," said Tom Rosenstiel , the director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. People today consume news as bits of information from mainstream and niche sources and from one another, driving a White House intent on shaping the news to an innovative communication strategy. Blogs, online news sites and ethnic media have grown dramatically in size and influence, even as newspapers disappear.

"We have lived through what amounts to probably two generations of technological revolution," Rosenstiel said.

While the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs , is becoming a familiar figure to many Americans because of his televised briefings, the Obama White House also has directors of new media, online programs, broadcast media, regional media, African-American media, Hispanic media, research and "message events."

The White House's press, communications, speech-writing and new media staffs remain about the size they were under former President George W. Bush - around 50 - said Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Ea Earnest . Obama's team, however, has shifted its focus more toward new media, whether it's keeping the White House Web site updated or communicating with bloggers. There's also a new post - director of citizen participation - that's led by a former Google manager. It's still being defined.

"Our administration is employing a range of technologies to communicate directly to the American people and to demonstrate the president's focus on those issues," Earnest said. "The media industry is different. The way people across the country consume their news is different. It's a lot more segmented; it's fractured. Part of what's required in delivering a clear message is being able to communicate clearly and effectively with different people in different environments."

Rosenstiel said he saw "a meta-message" in the emphasis on new technology:

" 'I'm a new kind of politician because I do new media.' "

At the same time, Rosenstiel said, the administration has continued the old-school White House tradition of being "pretty aggressive about leaking trial balloons and things like that" through establishment news organizations.

Elements of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank rescue plan, the president's budget plan and Obama's vow to cut the federal deficit in half in his first term were leaked to selected outlets before the official rollout. Often such stories fed by leaks recite the administration's assertions and assumptions without critical analysis, because raising such questions might shut off access to more advance leaks. Even so, they influenced stock markets, framed coverage in ways that were favorable to Obama - and achieved the White House's goal of managing the news.

Similarly, during the recent controversy about what and when the administration knew about the American International Group bonuses, The Washington Post and other "old-media" outlets carried "tick-tock" stories recounting events based largely on background information supplied by administration officials who framed the story on the administration's terms.

All White Houses seek to shape or "spin" the coverage, Rosenstiel said. "The question is, is the press doing a good job of filtering that or are they just being used?" He said he saw plenty of media scrutiny in the symbiotic government-media relationship, even though some of the coverage was superficial.

Stephen Hess , a scholar of government-media relations at the Brookings Institution , a center-left research center, who worked for the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, said the Obama White House's expanded outreach to nontraditional outlets came on top, not in place, of standard relations with the shrinking Washington press corps.

"The interaction between the Washington media and the political government hasn't really changed," Hess said.

What Hess finds particularly interesting is Obama's outreach to journalists from nontraditional media in his two prime-time news conferences.

In his first one, the president called on The Huffington Post , a liberal Web site. Of the 13 journalists he called on Tuesday night at his second news conference, five represented English-language network and cable TV outlets, one was a Spanish-language TV journalist and another wrote for an African-American magazine . The only newspapers he called on were The Washington Times , a conservative publication, and Stars and Stripes, the independent military publication. He took a question from Agence France-Presse, knowing that it would focus on foreign affairs. He also called on the print and online hybrid Politico, which political junkies read.

While the TV networks focused on the economic crisis, the nontraditional media questions focused on Mexican border policy, military spending, taxes on charitable giving, the morality of stem-cell research, the plight of homeless children and Middle East peace negotiations.

"They were niche organizations, as a rule," Hess said, "the sorts of organizations that aren't ordinarily called on. They have produced different types of questions. They were interesting."

Ebony magazine senior editor Kevin Chappell said the White House didn't tell him in advance that he'd be called on, but that Obama and his staff recognized the importance of the black vote in his election "and realize we are the largest African-American magazine in the world." Chappell said that day to day, he'd found the Obama press team more responsive to his outlet's requests than Bush team was.

He also said that the Obama press operation had arranged group interviews with the African-American media and several high-ranking administration officials after "we made it clear that we want to be a part of the process and we want to have our questions answered and taken seriously.

"I think they're reaching beyond the Washington crowd. They are reaching Americans who don't read traditional newspapers and get their news and information from other sources. It seems to me it's very effective."

»

Mexico's Drug Gangs Drive Film Crew Out of Town


by: Vittorio Zunno Ceotta | Visit article original @ The Independent UK

photo
Escalating drug cartel violence is having an impact on tourist businesses in Mexico.

Escalating violence is forcing Hollywood and US tourists to stay away. Guy Adams reports.

Mexican drug cartels don't like rivals treading on their territory; they don't like the police poking around; and now, it seems, they don't much care for Hollywood taking an interest in their business.

Producers of a film about the murder of a cocaine smuggler, which would have starred Eva Mendes, Josh Hartnett and Sir Ben Kingsley, have been forced to abandon filming on the Mexican coast after the movie-makers received death threats.

Queen of the South, based on a novel by Arturo Perez-Reverte, was due to be filmed in Sinaloa, on the country's northern coast. But, following a decision by Jonathan Jakubowicz, its Venezuelan director, and two of his producers, the plug has now been pulled on the project. "I've worked really hard to make this beautiful movie, but the safety of my family and my team comes first," Jakubowicz told Variety. "Making this movie [would have] put us all at risk, not only in Mexico but in the US."

The news will heighten fears that Hollywood production, which has become a growing contributor to the Mexican economy, may disappear from the country, amid the surge in violence which has killed nearly 7,000 people in the past year. Jakubowicz and his family apparently received threats while at home in Los Angeles. The shaken film-maker this week warned colleagues to think twice before attempting to take on similar projects. "I beg those involved to be responsible and mindful of the dangerous territory the subject matter inevitably gets them into," he said.

"We wanted to shoot in the city of Culiacan in Sinaloa, northern Mexico, the epicentre of the drug wars, but it just wasn't possible. The world should pray for peace in Mexico."

Many other Hollywood producers, who may be tempted to shoot south of the border because of lower production costs and tax incentives, are also now starting to think twice. Security has been a growing problem since 2005, when Jennifer Lopez and Antonio Banderas's Bordertown was forced to move production to New Mexico after its crew was followed and had their hotel rooms ransacked.

Last year, the makers of a Paramount film called El Traspatio (The Backyard) reported that an actress from Ciudad Juarez, where they were shooting, had found a slaughtered lamb on her doorstep, with a death threat pinned to it. She was replaced, for her own safety. Several other crew members on the film, about local drug murders, reported receiving sinister anonymous phone calls.

The jumpiness in Hollywood is bad news for the Mexican economy, which has been hit by the global downturn together with a precipitous decline in the tourist trade after the US State Department advised citizens against crossing the border. Free-spending foreign visitors are virtually absent from resorts such as Tijuana, which would in the past have been packed with revellers for spring break, when North American schools are closed for the week.

The escalating security problems, which have seen hundreds of gruesome public murders, are the result of a government crackdown on drug cartels which control the cocaine trade into the US, worth $5.5bn (£4bn) a year.

Although several drug cartel bosses have been arrested, rival groups are now battling over their former territories. Thousands of police officers, many with financial ties to cartels, have been killed. Army units are being brought in to patrol some border areas.

The US government is concerned that if the violence continues to spread, Mexico could acquire the label of "failed state". Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who visited the country last week, publicly admitted that the security problems were being fuelled by the failure of the US to stem both the supply of drugs into its border areas, and the flow of weapons in the opposite direction.

»

America Is in Need of a Moral Bailout


by: Chris Hedges | Visit article original @ Truthdig

photo
Trader outside The New York Stock Exchange. (Photo: Reuters)

In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.

We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities, turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous, as our economic collapse.

Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called "Education After Auschwitz." He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible remained "largely unchanged." He wrote that "the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds" must be made visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.

"All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that Auschwitz should never happen again," he wrote. "This would be possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms."

Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But unless we grasp the "societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms" we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.

I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.

"The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most feared," Giroux, who wrote "The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex," told me. "Universities, in general, especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market fundamentalists for allegedly representing the weak link in the war on terrorism. Right-wing students were encouraged to spy on the classes of progressive professors, the corporate grip on the university was tightening as made clear not only in the emergence of business models of governance, but also in the money being pumped into research and programs that blatantly favored corporate interests. And at Penn State, where I was located at the time, the university had joined itself at the hip with corporate and military power. Put differently, corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research projects and increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service of developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened no one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere."

Frank Donoghue, the author of "The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities," details how liberal arts education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not strictly vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools has been abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad, disturbing questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite or an economic system that serves the corporate state. This has led many bright graduates into the arms of corporate entities they do not examine morally or ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate culture because they have never been taught to think.

Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor's degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent). Bachelor's degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major.

The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A university, as John Ralston Saul writes, now "actively seeks students who suffer from the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to exaggerate it. Imagination, creativity, moral balance, knowledge, common sense, a social view - all these things wither. Competitiveness, having an ever-ready answer, a talent for manipulating situations - all these things are encouraged to grow. As a result amorality also grows; as does extreme aggressivity when they are questioned by outsiders; as does a confusion between the nature of good versus having a ready answer to all questions. Above all, what is encouraged is the growth of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in which winning is what counts."

This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like "Survivor") and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of California.

"This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without reflecting about it, is utterly wrong," Adorno wrote. "The idea that virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns itself all too easily with sadism."

Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate culture. It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current through reality television and trash-talk programs and is at the core of the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion for the homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed and the sick.

"The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against humanity - whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts - are always mediated by educational forces," Giroux said. "Resistance to such acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and self-reflection. We have to name these acts and transform moral outrage into concrete attempts to prevent such human violations from taking place in the first place."

The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.

Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on liberal institutions and "leftist" professors, has really set out to destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called "the manipulative character." The manipulative character has superb organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager. He or she exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure, which is why our elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG. "He makes a cult of action, activity, of so-called efficiency as such which reappears in the advertising image of the active person," Adorno wrote of this personality type. These manipulative characters, people like Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, AIG's Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with most of our ruling class, have used corporate money and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted the country.

"It is especially difficult to fight against it," warned Adorno, "because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids."

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

»

Canadians Find Vast Computer Spy Network: Report


by: | Visit article original @ Reuters

photo
Looking through computer. (Artwork: Jared Rodriguez | t r u t h o u t)

Washington - Canadian researchers have uncovered a vast electronic spying operation that infiltrated computers and stole documents from government and private offices around the world, including those of the Dalai Lama, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

In a report provided to the newspaper, a team from the Munk Center for International Studies in Toronto said at least 1,295 computers in 103 countries had been breached in less than two years by the spy system, which it dubbed GhostNet.

Embassies, foreign ministries, government offices and the Dalai Lama's Tibetan exile centers in India, Brussels, London and New York were among those infiltrated, said the researchers, who have detected computer espionage in the past.

They found no evidence U.S. government offices were breached.

The researchers concluded that computers based almost exclusively in China were responsible for the intrusions, although they stopped short of saying the Chinese government was involved in the system, which they described as still active.

"We're a bit more careful about it, knowing the nuance of what happens in the subterranean realms," said Ronald Deibert, a member of the Munk research group, based at the University of Toronto.

"This could well be the CIA or the Russians. It's a murky realm that we're lifting the lid on."

A spokesman for the Chinese Consulate in New York dismissed the idea China was involved. "These are old stories and they are nonsense," the spokesman, Wenqi Gao, told the Times. "The Chinese government is opposed to and strictly forbids any cybercrime."

The Toronto researchers began their sleuthing after a request from the office of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, to examine its computers for signs of malicious software, or malware.

The network they found possessed remarkable "Big Brother-style" capabilities, allowing it, among other things, to turn on the camera and audio-recording functions of infected computers for potential in-room monitoring, the report said.

The system was focused on the governments of South Asian and Southeast Asian nations as well as on the Dalai Lama, the researchers said, adding that computers at the Indian Embassy in Washington were infiltrated and a NATO computer monitored. The report will be published in Information Warfare Monitor, an online publication linked to the Munk Center.

At the same time, two computer researchers at Cambridge University in Britain who worked on the part of the investigation related to the Tibetans are releasing an independent report, the Times said.

They do fault China and warned that other hackers could adopt similar tactics, the Times added.

-------

Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by Peter Cooney.

Tyler E. Boudreau: "The Unmaking of A Marine"


by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Tyler Boudreau's portrait from the 100 Faces of War Experience project. (© Matthew Mitchell 2007)

I often bemoan how the media's policy of sanitizing combat images and its failure to report what the true face of war looks like have caused the public to be detached from the carnage wrought by the occupation of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

For nearly a decade, both wars have largely been reported by the media and explained to the public by lawmakers in statistical terms: thousands of U.S. soldiers killed in combat, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and three-quarters of a million veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress.

Perhaps the media is not entirely at fault for failing to provide deeper insight into the psychological impact the wars have had on more than one million U.S. veterans and their families.

Until recently, the press has been prohibited from photographing veterans returning from combat in flag-draped coffins, and funerals for the fallen were likewise off-limits.

But by relying heavily on numbers and press releases as a way of covering both conflicts, the public has been rendered incapable of experiencing or feeling any dramatic element associated with the devastation. It's a sad truth that the average person is unable to accurately say how many U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded since the wars began (4,257 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, more than 31,000 wounded, 320,000 diagnosed with brain injuries).

That's how far removed from reality our society has become in the eight years since the fighting first began. We know the U.S. is currently engaged in two wars; we just have no idea what impact those wars have had on the soldiers and veterans who have bravely served our country.

These are the conclusions I arrived at after reading Marine Capt. Tyler E. Boudreau's first-person exposé of the time he spent in Iraq and the struggles he and his comrades faced in the aftermath of their deployment.

If Boudreau's brutally honest, devastatingly accurate, hard-hitting memoir, Packing Inferno: The Unmaking of a Marine were read by the powers that be in Washington, D.C. and by the journalists assigned to cover both military conflicts, there is absolutely no way in hell the plight of our nation's veterans would take a backseat to the issues currently dominating the evening news coverage or the topics of conversations at dinner tables throughout the country.

Boudreau's book is so powerful and so superbly written that I found myself reading whole chapters twice just so I could study his writing style and ensure that the graphic imagery he describes is forever seared into my consciousness.

What makes Boudreau's account such a page-turner is the descriptive nature of his prose. Reading it made me feel like I was embedded with the Marine Corps' veteran. There were many instances in which I felt my heart beat faster, my eyes well up with tears, my adrenaline pump through my veins.

Describing an oncoming vehicle that may or may not be a suicide bomber, Boudreau writes:

"Pulses jumped and our voices grew sharp and edgy. I leaned out the window and aimed my rifle at the truck. We struggled to see inside it, to spot some kind of clue that might tell us with any certainty whether or not the driver was a suicide bomber. My heart was racing. I was breathing hard as it drew closer and closer. Fire? Don't fire? It was so difficult to know what to do. Will we live? Will we die? This could be it. And the truck drew closer still. And still we couldn't seem to come up with a decision. There was no one to ask. There was no manual to reference. There was no time to think it over. There was only now, the moment, and we had to decide. In the end we resolved to hold our fire, and I was glad we did. The truck floated quietly past us without exploding into a million bits of fragmentation in our faces. We stared, agog, at the passengers, a family of four or maybe five crammed into the cab staring back at us, all agog as well."

You know that Boudreau was forced to relive his harrowing experience in Iraq in order to write a book as disturbing and heartwrenching as Packing Inferno.

The "story of Packing Inferno was conceived under fire," exactly five years ago this month, Boudreau writes in the preface to his book. He eloquently describes how before he was sent to Iraq he had packed dozens of books into his "sea-bag," one of which was Dante's Inferno, which he said he didn't recall taking, but nonetheless gave him a title for his memoir.

"I began writing it in Iraq with the war raging around me. When I got home, I found the war was still raging, but it was not outside me anymore, not to touch, or to see, or to hear, or to smell. It was within me. I was no longer packing inferno in my sea-bag, but in my head."

"My wife will sometimes catch a shift in my eyes, while we're talking about groceries, or the kids' school, or the weather, and she'll ask me, "What are you thinking about?" She can see I've drifted off. But she doesn't need me to answer, because she knows, and because the answer is always the same."

And therein lies one of the central themes of Boudreau's 222-page book: the images of the war he has heroically fought have been implanted inside of his mind and are on a permanent loop.

"To say I was duped is not sufficient to lighten the load," he writes.

The post-traumatic stress of the war in Iraq will forever be a part of Boudreau's identity and it will be a lifelong battle to keep it in check. For some soldiers, post-traumatic stress is the precursor to suicide, for others it leads to a life of drug abuse, alcoholism, or crime.

Although the word "disorder" usually follows post-traumatic stress, Boudreau objects to the verbiage, calling it an "antiquated" term.

"While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) still uses this term, it is widely rejected by those who work in the field of mental health," Boudreau wrote in an Author's Note to his book. "I reject it too… I do not consider the psychological struggle of returning veterans a 'disorder' and so I will only refer to this injury as 'combat stress' or post-traumatic stress."

Removing the word "disorder" has helped to eliminate the stigma some veterans say persists when they are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress or the ridicule they endure after seeking help for their deteriorating mental state.

When I spoke with Boudreau recently, he told me that part of the stigma has to do with the fact that Marines are supposed to be "tough" and saying that "you feel all broken up because you shot a guy" could make a soldier's situation worse.

Boudreau said "the smallest action or phrase from a commander can influence Marines and other soldiers not to seek help."

"I knew the day I left that I would eventually have to return in nine months and manpower is always a struggle," Boudreau said. "My boss won't say to deny treatment. But his outlook of me will be negative" if most of the unit has been discharged due to post-traumatic stress.

Boudreau expanded upon this notion in a recent op-ed published in the Boston Globe.

"The pressure to prepare ourselves quickly was intense. When the first Marine came to my office and asked to see the psychiatrist about some troubling issues from our time in Iraq, I was sympathetic. I said, "No problem." When another half dozen or so Marines approached me with the same request, I was only somewhat concerned."

"But when all of them and several more returned from their appointments with recommendations for discharge, I'll admit I was alarmed. Suddenly I was not as concerned about their mental health as I was about my company's troop strength."

"As all those Marines in my company began filtering out, some from essential positions, I started to worry about the welfare of those remaining. I worried, quite naturally, that if the exodus continued, we might not have enough to accomplish our mission or to survive on the battlefield. My sympathies for those individuals claiming post-traumatic stress began to wane. A commander cannot serve in earnest both the mission and the psychologically wounded."

This underscores a larger issue, one that the U.S. government was totally unprepared to deal with as it planned for the Iraq war.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, documents released by the Department of Veterans Affairs said it expected a maximum of 8,000 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder.

However, according to a study released last year by the RAND Corporation, there are more than 320,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suffering from major depression, PTSD and/or traumatic brain injury. The report found that the VA has been and continues to be ill-equipped to deal with these cases when soldiers return from combat, especially after multiple tours.

An Army task force last year also found major flaws in the way the VA treated and cared for veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries.

Boudreau said the treatment of post-traumatic stress is antithetical to the mantra of "Mission Accomplished."

"The mission will always supersede treatment," Boudreau said. "And because of that the treatment will always be dubious."

"And all the talk from bureaucrats about putting an end to multiple deployments, which has been blamed on the skyrocketing cases of post-traumatic stress and suicides, is inconceivable," Boudreau said.

"I've heard the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say 'we have to change this ethic,'" Boudreau said. "But it's not going to happen. Why? Because the military cannot afford a 20 percent reduction in its force."

Since writing Packing Inferno, Boudreau has become an outspoken advocate for veterans.

Over the past four months, he has penned op-eds on veterans issues that have been published in The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Progressive.

In a New York Times op-ed, Boudreau argued that the decision not to award Purple Hearts to veterans is wrong and feeds into the cultural stigma the military has for veterans who bear the psychological wounds of war.

"Why, for instance, if a veteran has been given a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress and awarded benefits, should he not also be awarded a Purple Heart?

"Perhaps a new decoration, a new medal, could be established specifically for those suffering from post-traumatic stress. It would be awarded to those whose minds and souls have been sundered by war."

"I suggest we call this medal the Black Heart. Certainly the hearts of these soldiers are black, with the terrible things they saw and did on the battlefield. Certainly the country should see these Black Hearts pinned on their chests."

In addition to his work on behalf of veterans, Boudreau has taken on the Iraqi refugee crisis and recently traveled to Jordan to call attention to the matter. Last year, he and his colleagues formed the nonprofit organization Iraq Veterans' Refugee Aid Association (IVRAA) in response to inadequate measures by the U.S. government to effectively deal with the crisis, he said.

This summer, Boudreau is undertaking a cross-country bicycle tour with other veterans to search for "what's on 'the other side' of the battlefield."

"It is very much about veterans who have found themselves hurled suddenly to the other side of a catastrophic injury, or Post-Traumatic Stress [sic], or an inexplicably dysfunctional life in the aftermath of war. But it is also about the nature of warfare itself. There is a great mythology associated with battle. We seek 'the other side' of that mythology. We seek the other side of ourselves. We travel to 'the other side' of the country to find it," Boudreau explains on his website.

Three years ago, Boudreau, who spent much of his entire adult life in the military, resigned his Marine Corps commission.

"In 2005, after 12 years of active service in the Marine Corps and with growing reservations about the war, I relinquished command of my rifle company and resigned my commission," Boudreau writes in Packing Inferno. "It struck me that, in our headlong pursuit to deliver freedom and democracy and to expel an oppressive regime and combat terrorism, we had inadvertently lost sight of the very people we'd been deployed to help."

Packing Inferno is one of the most important historical documents to come out of the Iraq war if for no other reason than it shows what the true face of the Iraq war looks like. It's a remarkable achievement in war reportage and it deserves to be shelved next to the Great War Books and should be required reading for every lawmaker and students of American history.

»


Jason Leopold is editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

March 28 & March 29:

1973 : U.S. withdraws from Vietnam

Two months after the signing of the Vietnam peace agreement, the last U.S. combat troops leave South Vietnam as Hanoi frees the remaining American prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. America's direct eight-year intervention in the Vietnam War was at an end. In Saigon, some 7,000 U.S. Department of Defense civilian employees remained behind to aid South Vietnam in conducting what looked to be a fierce and ongoing war with communist North Vietnam.

In 1961, after two decades of indirect military aid, U.S. President John F. Kennedy sent the first large force of U.S. military personnel to Vietnam to bolster the ineffectual autocratic regime of South Vietnam against the communist North. Three years later, with the South Vietnamese government crumbling, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered limited bombing raids on North Vietnam, and Congress authorized the use of U.S. troops. By 1965, North Vietnamese offensives left President Johnson with two choices: escalate U.S. involvement or withdraw. Johnson ordered the former, and troop levels soon jumped to more than 300,000 as U.S. air forces commenced the largest bombing campaign in history.

During the next few years, the extended length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes, such as the massacre at My Lai, helped turn many in the United States against the Vietnam War. The communists' Tet Offensive of 1968 crushed U.S. hopes of an imminent end to the conflict and galvanized U.S. opposition to the war. In response, Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection, citing what he perceived to be his responsibility in creating a perilous national division over Vietnam. He also authorized the beginning of peace talks.

In the spring of 1969, as protests against the war escalated in the United States, U.S. troop strength in the war-torn country reached its peak at nearly 550,000 men. Richard Nixon, the new U.S. president, began U.S. troop withdrawal and "Vietnamization" of the war effort that year, but he intensified bombing. Large U.S. troop withdrawals continued in the early 1970s as President Nixon expanded air and ground operations into Cambodia and Laos in attempts to block enemy supply routes along Vietnam's borders. This expansion of the war, which accomplished few positive results, led to new waves of protests in the United States and elsewhere.

Finally, in January 1973, representatives of the United States, North and South Vietnam, and the Vietcong signed a peace agreement in Paris, ending the direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. Its key provisions included a cease-fire throughout Vietnam, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the release of prisoners of war, and the reunification of North and South Vietnam through peaceful means. The South Vietnamese government was to remain in place until new elections were held, and North Vietnamese forces in the South were not to advance further nor be reinforced.

In reality, however, the agreement was little more than a face-saving gesture by the U.S. government. Even before the last American troops departed on March 29, the communists violated the cease-fire, and by early 1974 full-scale war had resumed. At the end of 1974, South Vietnamese authorities reported that 80,000 of their soldiers and civilians had been killed in fighting during the year, making it the most costly of the Vietnam War.

On April 30, 1975, the last few Americans still in South Vietnam were airlifted out of the country as Saigon fell to communist forces. North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, accepting the surrender of South Vietnam later in the day, remarked, "You have nothing to fear; between Vietnamese there are no victors and no vanquished. Only the Americans have been defeated." The Vietnam War was the longest and most unpopular foreign war in U.S. history and cost 58,000 American lives. As many as two million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Interest
1973 : U.S. withdraws from Vietnam
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihVideoCategory&id=6851
1879 : British victory at Kambula
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4871
1974 : Mariner 10 visits Mercury
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4872

American Revolution
1776 : Putnam named commander of New York troops
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=325



1979 : Nuclear accident at Three Mile Island


At 4 a.m. on March 28, 1979, the worst accident in the history of the U.S. nuclear power industry begins when a pressure valve in the Unit-2 reactor at Three Mile Island fails to close. Cooling water, contaminated with radiation, drained from the open valve into adjoining buildings, and the core began to dangerously overheat.

The Three Mile Island nuclear power plant was built in 1974 on a sandbar on Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River, just 10 miles downstream from the state capitol in Harrisburg. In 1978, a second state-of-the-art reactor began operating on Three Mile Island, which was lauded for generating affordable and reliable energy in a time of energy crises.

After the cooling water began to drain out of the broken pressure valve on the morning of March 28, 1979, emergency cooling pumps automatically went into operation. Left alone, these safety devices would have prevented the development of a larger crisis. However, human operators in the control room misread confusing and contradictory readings and shut off the emergency water system. The reactor was also shut down, but residual heat from the fission process was still being released. By early morning, the core had heated to over 4,000 degrees, just 1,000 degrees short of meltdown. In the meltdown scenario, the core melts, and deadly radiation drifts across the countryside, fatally sickening a potentially great number of people.
As the plant operators struggled to understand what had happened, the contaminated water was releasing radioactive gases throughout the plant. The radiation levels, though not immediately life-threatening, were dangerous, and the core cooked further as the contaminated water was contained and precautions were taken to protect the operators. Shortly after 8 a.m., word of the accident leaked to the outside world. The plant's parent company, Metropolitan Edison, downplayed the crisis and claimed that no radiation had been detected off plant grounds, but the same day inspectors detected slightly increased levels of radiation nearby as a result of the contaminated water leak. Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh considered calling an evacuation.

Finally, at about 8 p.m., plant operators realized they needed to get water moving through the core again and restarted the pumps. The temperature began to drop, and pressure in the reactor was reduced. The reactor had come within less than an hour of a complete meltdown. More than half the core was destroyed or molten, but it had not broken its protective shell, and no radiation was escaping. The crisis was apparently over.

Two days later, however, on March 30, a bubble of highly flammable hydrogen gas was discovered within the reactor building. The bubble of gas was created two days before when exposed core materials reacted with super-heated steam. On March 28, some of this gas had exploded, releasing a small amount of radiation into the atmosphere. At that time, plant operators had not registered the explosion, which sounded like a ventilation door closing. After the radiation leak was discovered on March 30, residents were advised to stay indoors. Experts were uncertain if the hydrogen bubble would create further meltdown or possibly a giant explosion, and as a precaution Governor Thornburgh advised "pregnant women and pre-school age children to leave the area within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility until further notice." This led to the panic the governor had hoped to avoid; within days, more than 100,000 people had fled surrounding towns.

On April 1, President Jimmy Carter arrived at Three Mile Island to inspect the plant. Carter, a trained nuclear engineer, had helped dismantle a damaged Canadian nuclear reactor while serving in the U.S. Navy. His visit achieved its aim of calming local residents and the nation. That afternoon, experts agreed that the hydrogen bubble was not in danger of exploding. Slowly, the hydrogen was bled from the system as the reactor cooled.

At the height of the crisis, plant workers were exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation, but no one outside Three Mile Island had their health adversely affected by the accident. Nonetheless, the incident greatly eroded the public's faith in nuclear power. The unharmed Unit-1 reactor at Three Mile Island, which was shut down during the crisis, did not resume operation until 1985. Cleanup continued on Unit-2 until 1990, but it was too damaged to be rendered usable again. In the more than two decades since the accident at Three Mile Island, not a single new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

General Interest
1979 : Nuclear accident at Three Mile Island
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihVideoCategory&id=6850
1939 : Spanish Civil War ends
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4869
1969 : Eisenhower dies
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4870

American Revolution
1774 : British Parliament adopts the Coercive Acts
http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=324

Bachmann Denier Overdrive‏

RAW: Uncooked Truth, Beyond Belief

Issue #279
March 27, 2009
Bachmann Denier Overdrive
Josh Dorner

Minnesota is a state known for its many loons. And perhaps the most famous of all is Representative Michele Bachmann.

(See just a few examples of her inanity, insanity, and inexplicable idiocy here and here)

Bachmann, already something of a national embarrassment, went above and beyond the call of duty this week during an expansive radio interview. Apparently making polluters pay in order to build the clean energy economy is tantamount to tyranny and Bachmann, who refers to herself as a "foreign correspondent on enemy lines" wants her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" in order to fight President Obama's widely-supported plans on energy and global warming. To wit:

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

(Mind you, Bachmann is all for the current "energy tax" we have -- the one that sucks cash from your wallet in order to pad the pockets of Big Oil, Big Coal, and hostile foreign regimes around the world.)

And what are these so-called armaments she seeks to provide her constituents with? Two "boffo" talks by Chris Horner, an overblown blowhard global warming denier from one of the most notorious denialist operations of all time.

Yawn.

Not seen enough? Our friends at TPM have put together a little video of what they call the "Bachmann effect," or the "the face that launches a thousand dumbfounded looks," as Huffington Post called the Congresswoman.



Tell a FriendSubscribe to RAWCarl Pope's Taking the InitiativeSubscribe to CurrentsMailto

Enduring Freedom


by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist

photo
A Pakistani girl from the Bajur tribal region in line for bread. (Photo: AP)

In Afghanistan, this is the problem, because everybody holds a piece of that mirror, and they all look at it and claim that they hold the entire truth.

- Mohsen Makhmalbaf

There was the battle of Mazari Sharif, and the battle of Qala-i-Jangi, and the battle of Tora Bora, and the massacre at Dasht-i-Leili, and the Tamak Farm incident and the slaughter of a wedding party in Uruzgan Province.

There was the Damadola airstrike in Pakistan made by US forces, and there was the Battle of Lashkagar, and the battle of Panjwaii and the Shinwar massacre. There was the battle of Chora, and the Baghlan sugar factory bombing and the battle of Musa Qala.

There was the Kabul Serena Hotel attack, the Kandahar bombing, the Gora Prai airstrike, the Sarposa Prison attack and the bombing of the Indian embassy. There was the battle of Wanat, and the Uzbin Valley ambush, and the Azizabad airstrike and the Angoor Ada raid into Pakistan again.

There was Operation Anaconda and there was Operation Red Wing. There was Operation Mountain Thrust, and Operation Medusa and Operation Mountain Fury. There was Operation Achilles and there was Operation Eagle's Summit.

All of this was, and remains, Operation Enduring Freedom. All of this was, and remains, America's war in Afghanistan.

Our war in Afghanistan began almost 3,000 days ago, on October 7, 2001. Our war in Afghanistan has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, the Civil War, the Korean War, the first Gulf War in Iraq and the second Gulf War in Iraq. If we are still fighting in Afghanistan a year from now, the war will have lasted longer than the American Revolution. Children who were born on the day the war began are now halfway through grammar school.

All the bad economic news and the turmoil in the financial and housing markets have America looking inward these days. We rarely hear anything about Iraq anymore, and even less about Afghanistan. For the record, and to bring everyone up to speed, the following events have taken place in Afghanistan during the last 72 hours.

Taliban fighters killed nine police officers. Three Australian soldiers were wounded. Pakistan's intelligence service was accused of aiding and abetting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Two Afghani farmers were killed by NATO troops. A bomb killed ten civilians in eastern Afghanistan. A Canadian woman held captive by the Taliban was made to plead for her life. Two separate bombings in southern Afghanistan killed 11 people.

All told, it's been a quiet week over there. That is about to change.

President Obama will soon be announcing his administration's plans for the future of our conflict in Afghanistan. Reportedly, this announcement will include the deployment of 17,000 more US soldiers Obama promised during the campaign, and will also reportedly include the deployment of an additional 4,000 troops, as well. "President Obama will deploy as many as 4,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, beyond the 17,000 he authorized last month, as trainers and advisers to the Afghan Army, according to a senior Pentagon official who has seen the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy Obama will unveil Friday," wrote The Washington Post.

"Since the United States invaded Iraq six years ago," reported the Christian Science Monitor on Thursday, "its attention, effort, and military know-how has tilted toward the Gulf. Perhaps as soon as Friday, President Obama is expected to shift that focus, announcing a new strategy for Afghanistan and the neighbor with which it is entwined, Pakistan. Yet the challenges presented by Afghanistan are an order of magnitude greater than they were in Iraq - involving a state with virtually no rule of law, a government rife with opium-fueled corruption, and an insurgency spanning two nations and entrenched in some of the world's most inhospitable terrain."

"President Barack Obama insisted on Sunday that military force alone would not end the war in Afghanistan," reported Reuters on Sunday, "and suggested a U.S. 'exit strategy' could be part of a new comprehensive policy he is expected to unveil soon. Obama, in an interview on CBS's '60 Minutes' program, previewed in broad terms his administration's review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy based on recommendations from senior U.S. officials and consultations with allies."

For the last seven years, the war in Afghanistan has been a collective effort shared among the United States and several other countries by way of NATO. That also appears to be changing soon. "After years of often testy cooperation with NATO and resentment over unequal burden-sharing," reported the Washington Post on Thursday, "the United States is taking unabashed ownership of the Afghan war. Even as the U.S. military expands its control over the battlefield, the number of American civilian officials will also grow by at least 50 percent - to more than 900 - under the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy Obama will announce as early as tomorrow, according to administration officials. American diplomats and development experts plan to spread into relatively peaceful western and northern regions of Afghanistan that until now were left to other NATO governments. New U.S. resources and leadership also will be brought to bear over critical issues such as counter-narcotics efforts and strengthening local government institutions."

"The Americanization of the war is visible in the turbulent south," continued the Post's report, "where the regional NATO command, led by a Dutch general, with Dutch, British, Danish and U.S. troops, faces the primary Taliban threat. Most of the additional U.S. troops will deploy there, and dozens of C-130 transport aircraft land at the Kandahar airfield every day with pallets of supplies. In a dusty parking lot not far from the main runway, more than 200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, await the supplementary U.S. troops. When they arrive, there will be more American personnel at the Kandahar base than at the current largest U.S. facility - at Bagram, north of Kabul, the capital. 'This will become an American headquarters,' one non-U.S. military officer in southern Afghanistan said of Kandahar. 'They're going to have almost three times as many troops as any other NATO member here. And that's going to mean they'll be in charge.'"

Is the Obama administration simply working with the hand it was dealt by George W. Bush, or are the same Bush administration mistakes about to be committed all over again? Norman Solomon, writing for Truthout on Tuesday, noted, "We desperately need a substantive national debate on US military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the Obama administration says that the problems of the region cannot be solved by military means, the basic approach is reliance on heightened military means. And so, with chillingly familiar echoes, goes the perverse logic of escalating the war in Afghanistan. 'Strategic patience' - more and more war - will be necessary so that those who must die will not have died in vain."

However this all shakes out, one thing is certain: Both the United States and Afghanistan are likely going to be Enduring Freedom for a long time to come.

»

Medical Marijuana Raid Raises Questions About Obama's Pot Policy


Posted by Staff, Marijuana Policy Project at 1:40 PM on March 27, 2009.


DEA raids San Francisco collective -- MPP wants answers.

Share and save this post:

Share on Facebook

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!


The DEA raided a San Francisco medical marijuana collective March 24 -- just one week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice's more hands-off policy regarding state medical marijuana laws. Watch MPP's Troy Dayton question the DEA's apparent transgression on San Francisco's local CBS news. Click here to tell the White House medical marijuana patients deserve an explanation.

Digg!

Tagged as: obama, pot, holder

Thanks to Think Progress UPS Will Stop Advertising On Bill O'Reilly's Show


Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress at 3:07 PM on March 27, 2009.


"At this time, we have no plans to continue advertising during this show."

In response to our Stop Supporting The O’Reilly Harassment Machine campaign, UPS told us yesterday that it was investigating whether to continue supporting O’Reilly’s show. “We are sensitive to the type of television programming where our messages and presence are associated and continually review choices to affect future decisions,” spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg told us.

Today UPS announced it will stop advertising on O’Reilly’s show. Here is the statement UPS emailed out just moments ago:

Thank you for sending an e-mail expressing concern about UPS advertising during the Bill O’Reilly show on FOX News. We do consider such comments as we review ad placement decisions which involve a variety of news, entertainment and sports programming. At this time, we have no plans to continue advertising during this show.

Here’s a graphic of the email statement we received:

ups_email.jpg

Thank you UPS! We need more corporate sponsors of O’Reilly to follow UPS’s lead. Let’s keep up the pressure. Please sign onto our campaign and tell your friends to do so as well:

billo.jpg

Update: Some other things you should know about UPS:

-- Brown deeply rooted in going green: Some of the many ways UPS conserves

-- UPS Completes Deployment of 300 New "Green" Trucks

-- UPS "Global Volunteer Month Environmental Challenge" Awards $70,000 to Keep America Beautiful Affiliates

Digg!

Tagged as: bill o'reilly, think progress, ups

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.

Higher Education Gone Wrong: Universities Are Turning into Corporate Drone Factories

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted March 28, 2009.


Unless we take hold of the reigns we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power wielded through naked repression.

In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.

We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities, turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous, as our economic collapse.

Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called "Education After Auschwitz." He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible remained "largely unchanged." He wrote that "the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds" must be made visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.

"All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that Auschwitz should never happen again," he wrote. "This would be possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms."

Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But unless we grasp the "societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms" we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.

I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: education, corporate power, universities

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

Is This Really the End of the Evangelical Movement?

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted March 28, 2009.


Our readers had a lot to say about a recent article predicting the collapse of the evangelical movement.

For decades the evangelical movement has been a powerful force in our politics and culture. And it seems poised to continue to wield influence over American life, as a new spate of rising stars fill the ranks vacated by aging and dead leaders.

But in a recent article published on AlterNet from the Christian Science Monitor, Michael Spencer, a "post-evangelical reformation Christian" argues that evangelicalism -- both as a political movement and an ideology -- is done for.

By blowing all of their political capital on efforts to obstruct the acceptance of gays and reverse reproductive rights, political evangelicals have made themselves irrelevant in our current cultural landscape. By blowing all of their actual capital on youth pastors, publishing and other media, the movement has reared a generation of young evangelicals with no real ties to the evangelical religious tradition and belief system.

So is evangelicalism really over?

AlterNet readers had a lot to say about the article.

pelican beak has his doubts about the collapse of evangelicalism, pointing out that religious movements accustom themselves to their era:

The values of American Xtianity have all the abiding permanence of a day lily. They're always morphing and changing to best fit the changing times.

Gazooks also agrees that evangelicalism is hardly on its way out:

Between the inbreeding of evangelicals with the armed, political right and the steeped, prophetic expectations of apocalypse to strike down the godless Sodomites, these should indeed remain interesting times.

Have no expectation of a substantial residue of believers fading lamblike into deserved obscurity. Christlike pacifism knows no place in the end-time visions of St. John, and the select will prepare the way for the rule o'God.

Annarisse is also unconvinced by the author’s dire predictions about the future of evangelicalism:

Why does he believe this will happen, and why the short timeline? Twenty years is one generation only, and while it will see the end of the current leadership of the movement (most of whom are over 60 and therefore likely to die or at least retire in that time span), I'd like to know why he thinks the bottom will fall out of the middle of the movement.

I think there's an exodus coming, specifically of young professional families, probably in favor of more liberal Protestant and UU-type churches, at least as much as toward the Catholic and Orthodox communions. That may be just wishful thinking, though, because that's my demographic and it's what I've done. So where's the evidence?

lcuzan does not think that more liberal denominations are the answer, writing that it is indeed time to throw out all religion:

I for one say good bloody riddance. I wait in giddy anticipation for the day this and all other forms of bronze-age religious dogma that infantilize the human mind gets a stake driven into it.

It's about time a secular humanity rise above this superstitious rubbish and start dealing with the litany of problems this world faces.

Believe it or not, there is a light at the end of this long, dark tunnel of nonsense. One day, in the not-so-distant future (if we last that long), societies will look back at religion, whatever its perverted stripe, shake its collective head, smile and file it alongside witch burning, ghosts, alien abductions, crystal healing, alchemy, seances, possessions ... pick your absurdity!


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: politics, religion, reproductive rights, gay rights, church, evangelicanism