bbq at full blast!

its cold and rainy in cincy today.

Sorry about your weather Dan!!
Hope you will still be able to whip up some tasty vittals on the BBQ.

Enjoy whatever way you all choose to spend the day one and all.

drinks are all on the house!!

N-kitti

Reality. TV. Two more reasons to read.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

btw if you don't like FISA then you *really* *really* don't like either Viacom or the judge (US District Court Judge Louis Stanton, of the Southern District in NY) who ordered Google to give up the linked list consisting of your IP, login credentials and all YouTube activities you have ever engaged in.

Just wondering when they get around to doing this on YouPorn..

http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_9785519

Oh, but don't worry:

Viacom said it isn't seeking any user's identity. The company said any data provided "will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google (and) will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner."

Happy Independence Day. Bleh.

Declare your independence from traditional media's disinformation campaign.

Turn off Fox News, and don't listen to the lies coming from the Right Wing spin machine. They will infiltrate your email, your mailbox, and your newspaper.

Let Obama play this game by the rules that have been imposed on him by the Greedy Oil Pirates. So much is at stake.

Everything he says, or might say, will be spun to the satisfaction of Bill Krystal, or Karl Rove and their attack trolls.

Obama's a better choice than McCain,
Obama's a better choice than Clinton.
Although he was not my first choice, I will give him my full support.

There are no quick fixes to the mess Chimpy and his turds have wrought in the last 12+ years. Much of the enabling treaties and legislation were done under Clinton's watch. Never forget that. Sweet William is tighter with Poppy Bush than his own sons.

We must aim for a veto proof progressive majority. The corporate Blue Dogs will fight us tooth and nail to retain the status quo and their lobby connections.
Concentrate and support your local progressive candidates.

I see a few trolls have been back around, although not as nasty as some. It is the season to spread disinformation, and create doubt, where there was none before.

Divide and Conquer

Read for yourselves.
Think for yourselves.
Any good teacher will tell you to do the homework, and look it up for yourself.

Work for the good of the planet and it's people. All the people.
No one candidate will ever satisfy everyone.

Go with common sense. Push for ideals.
The Big Show Fireworks fade away fast, and leave a mess to be swept up later.
Chimp turds are hard to sweep up, even the polished ones.

Stay strong.

Diyala

U.S military forces storm the house of Hasen Atiyah al-Iqabi, leader in the Mahdi Army in Mahdi neighbourhood, Muqdadiyah district 38 km to the east of Baquba at 3.30 Friday, and were engaged in an armed fight by his four elder sons. Al-Iqabi's daughter, six years old was killed as was his son of eight years; his four elder sons and wife were injured. The U.S. forces then left the house taking with them the injured people for treatment as their target, al-Iqabi, was not in his home. No comment from the U.S. military was available at time of publication
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/43185.html

I'm working on a half pound of shrimp I'm going to grill.

when they thaw I'll shell them and soak them in lemon juce then stick them on skewers and grill them.

I've got a bottle of thai sweet chilly sauce for grilling and dipping.

and I've got a lot of iced tea and a bottle or 2 or Mexican coke (in glass 12 0z bottle, cane sugar.

Excuse me, I have to go remove Rufus from the counter -- he's very interested in the shrimp preperations.

I don't understand why everyone is getting so upset about Obama's seeming move to the center. He has always been moderate which is why he talks so much about bipartisanship. Edwards was my first choice because he was the only progressive with a real chance. And he was pretty moderate in the Senate too.

About Obama's statement on abortion. Third trimester abortions are troubling to many people. The problem there, I think, is that they are usually used because of problems with the fetus, not medical problems for the mother. That is why, I believe, they had to add "mental" as well as physical problems that endanger the life of the mother. They could not directly address the reason most late term abortions are performed.Personally, I think it is more moral to abort a fetus with medical problems late term then to let it be born and endure a short and expensive (for the parents) life in a hospital neo-natal unit. I know this is a slippery slope but I'm pretty sure no woman would ever have a late term abortion for "convenience".

previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableener...

Glenn Greenwald

Thursday July 3, 2008 10:05 EDT
The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress

(Updated below - Update II -

Update III - analysis of Obama's new FISA statement -

Update IV - Update V)

A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge -- out of three who have ruled on the issue -- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.

[snip]

The Bush administration argued that the plaintiffs could not prove their case because, to do so, they would have to rely on documents and information that the President deemed to be "state secrets" (i.e., the Government's eavesdropping activities) and which are, therefore, unusable in court. That is the argument the court rejected -- holding instead that Congress, when it enacted FISA, established a procedure that allows even classified information to be considered by a court, and the President's Article II powers cannot override the FISA statute. As the Court pointed out, Congress' core purpose in enacting FISA in 1978 was to bar the President from exercising untrammeled, unchallenged power in the area of eavesdropping. Thus, presidential assertions of secrecy do not override the law.

[snip]

... The next time you hear Steny Hoyer, Obama surrogates and their various apologists tell you how important the new FISA bill is because it contains an "exclusivity" provision and thus ensures that the FISA court is brought back into Government eavesdropping, just go read what Judge Walker said about the current FISA framework to realize how misleading that claim is. They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

(5) Here is the most important point of all. The Court reviewed the basic history of FISA: that the Church Committee in the mid-1970s had uncovered decades of spying abuses by our Government that were made possible -- made inevitable -- because the Government could spy without warrant requirements. The Court quoted the Church Committee's findings:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

Ransom claim in Ingrid Betancourt release

Swiss Radio reported that a ransom was paid of around $20m (£10m).

It said that the US, which had three citizens among those freed, was behind the deal and that "the whole operation afterwards was a set-up".

The station reported that the wife of one of the hostages' guards was the go-between, having been arrested by the Colombian army.

If proved true, the allegations would be hugely embarrassing for the Colombian government which was showered with praise for the efficiency of the operation. Many commentators had predicted that it would even spell the end of Farc as a credible force.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/04/betancourt.france

And I never thought he was really any different, and therefore not better than Clinton. I dislike Clinton for many reasons; all related to her stances on issues and her record.

An awful lot of people, always thought Obama was god's gift, and the "answer" [the number 42]. That's what made it sad. The unbridled devotion and delusion. As long as we think like that, we lose. It's one thing to try to be pragmatic and say I'll hold my nose and vote, but to ever think this guy was even close to progressive at all was delusion. What if all those people had put their energy and money into a more progressive candidate? Maybe the 'establishment' would still have been able to quash it, but in their struggle to quash it, they would risk a lot more, and we might have gained more as a people.

Obama did an interview with Relevant Magazine, a Christian publication, in which he said that "mental distress" shouldn't qualify as part of the mother's health exception to late-term abortion bans.

--------------------------

Excerpt:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.

Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

--------------------------

“Mental distress” sounds like “mental health” in this case. Mental illness does qualify as for the health of the mother.

I strongly disagree with Obama.

[Will only pregnant women be exempt from receiving any treatment for mental distress or illness under his health care plan?

I certainly don't think so. I also don't think Obama does either. It would be discriminating against pregnant women and it is illegal.]

I do hope that Obama does not believe that women fake mental illness and/or mental distress in order to get abortions.

Late-term abortions are extremely rare in all cases.

Link:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7591

--------

Earlier, I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when he appeared to question the “morals” of those who received abortions or supported a woman’s right to choose. I thought that it was a gaffe at the time.

-----------------

Obama said:

Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.


Reference:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html

----------------------------

Words to repeat to Obama:

"From the first moment a woman dared to speak that hope - dared to believe that the American Dream was meant for her too - ordinary women have taken on extraordinary odds to give their daughters the chance for something else; for a life more equal, more free, and filled with more opportunity than they ever had.

In so many ways we have succeeded, but in so many areas we have much work left to do.”

“Women have always made the difference in every election, and this year, your voice, your hope will be the deciding factors in forging a new future for America.”

[For the record, these are the words of Obama.]

--------------------------

Link:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

Obama's "Relevant" Interview

Submitted by Star Vox on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 5:58pm.

***

Thanks for the post Star Vox.

***

So.

What can we do about Obama? This is really ridiculous. He's not even hiding that he essentially lied to us all.

Is there any chance we can all decide to abandon the Democratic Party process and collectively decide to do a write-in candidate? Or vote for Cynthia McKinney or someone like that?

I think I am willing to risk the chance that McCain gets in power. It would be worth it. Even if McCain gets in, if we were able to effectively reject Obama, that would send a huge message.

Besides, it is now on a daily basis that we are hearing from Obama that he is technically not very different than McCain. So what are we risking really?

It's a way to take back the power. And our strength, if shown in large enough numbers [even if not even close to 50%], will bear fruit in future elections. It gives courage to those who are still out there on the edge thinking they have no say.

You know the republicans fear a landslide when they have only 1 meme left.

Obama is no longer too white, no longer too black, no longer too too christian, no longer too muslim, no longer too liberal.

Barack Obama is now... just like us!

You know the republicans know they will lose when they are trying to tell the public that Obama is just like them. That's pretty bad.

They can no longer try to get Hillary elected, and they can no longer claim that McCain is better than Obama. All they can really do is jawbone down the size of the landslide.

I don't like it when Mike Malloy plays right into that with his daily whinge about Barack Obama. Save the criticism for December 2008. Malloy was never on board with Obama and now he is whinging about him, which doesn't help anyone or anything.

I don't care which way Barack Obama votes on FISA (althought the same individuals/phonebank who called in to whine about him during the primaries [1) Poor Hillary, Bad Barack; 2) I don't like his wife/minster/church/realestate broker; etc.] seem to be working overtime to get everyone dissatisfied with the FISA bill vote). Or as Stephanie Miller remarked after the second caller - why is the FISA bill about Barack Obama all of a sudden? And for that matter, why is his support for the bill crucial on whether you will vote Democratic or at all?

Remember, they have no candidate who can win and all they can do is talk down the size of the landslide by trying to make people less enthusiastic about Obama and voting.

If you have any trouble deciding, think: supreme court; war; economy.

Anyway, I heard on the Malloy program last night that Sam Seder would be filling in for him in the coming week. I haven't seen anything about it on this website yet.

Cappuccino

Judge Walker's decision link was issued in the case of Al-Haramain v. Bush. That lawsuit was brought against the Bush administration by an Oregon-based Muslim charity and two of its American lawyers, alleging that the Government violated FISA -- i.e., broke the law -- by eavesdropping on their telephone conversations without the warrants required by law. The warrantless eavesdropping occurred as part of Bush's NSA spying program, which entailed spying on Americans' international communications without warrants (the lawyers were in London when they spoke on the telephone to their client in Oregon). What makes this case unique is that the lawyers and charity know for certain that they were spied on as part of the secret NSA program because the DOJ accidentally produced transcripts of those calls.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

this is a test

Very well said Sandy.

Economics do weigh in to family planning.

I could imagine a time where a GOP run 'Whatever' would pay people to have more kids, (oh wait, they call it a tax deduction) we are a commodity, an energy resource.

Come to think about it, what method did Pickles use, she and George only have the one set of twins.

Google: "Lavender Marriage"

Were the rumors from Yale and Andover more fact than fiction?

Things that make you go, Hmmmm.

Happy 4th of July!

Blog looks fine to me.

Yep. Luckily it does look fine.

For procedural reasons, the court yesterday ruled that plaintiffs -- in order to obtain a ruling as to whether the Bush administration broke the law -- must be able to show that they were subject to warrantless surveillance without using the accidentally produced transcripts, something that will be very difficult to do. Congress has refused to pass legislation to fix this Kafkaesque, Catch-22 trap -- whereby the President illegally spies in total secrecy, with no oversight, thus preventing anyone from being able to prove they were subjected to the illegal spying and thus preventing anyone from having "standing" to challenge the legality of the spying in court.

Thus, we have extremely strong indications from multiple courts that the President deliberately broke the law for years -- a law that provides that violations of its provisions are felonies punishable with 5 years in prison for each offense. And yet our political establishment, with Democrats at the helm, are about to ensure that there are never any consequences for that lawbreaking and no accountability whatsoever in a court of law.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

A typical line in Barack Obama's stump speech throughout the primary season was that "the era of Scooter Libby justice . . . will finally be over." But this new FISA bill -- and the immunity it bequeaths -- is the very essence of "Lewis Libby justice": ensuring that our highest political officials and other well-connected elites can break our laws with total impunity. Courts keep ruling that the President and his allies have no excuses for having broken our laws, while our political establishment acts to ensure that they are protected from the consequences.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

I'm on and off the blog. Getting hungry now. Don't know what to eat for dinner!

It's a bad but common habit in NYC.

"dada, i agree that in most cases they are not effective and a waste of time - no big corporation cares about YOUR money, if you don't buy their stuff someone else will, drop in the bucket for them, most of them monopolies anyway and sell necessities that cannot be boycotted"

Submitted by mire on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 1:27pm.

-----

I think that corporations care very much about your money, but they are very happy with you thinking that boycotts are ineffective. A boycott is only as effective as it is organized, which is where we the people are falling short.

Boycotts have the potential to be one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal. Money talks.

(2) Judge Walker is the same Judge who is presiding over all of the telecom lawsuits. He has ruled against telecoms in the past, most notably refusing to dismiss the lawsuits on this ground: "because the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, [telecoms] cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal" [Decision at 68; emphasis added].

This history of the telecoms -- faring no better in court than the President has -- gives the lie to Fred Hiatt's deeply (and typically) dishonest Washington Post Editorial today -- by way of praising Obama's FISA stance -- that telecom immunity is a good idea because "The likelihood of prevailing -- or even getting very far -- with such lawsuits is low." The exact opposite is true: it's precisely because the telecoms know they are in severe danger of losing in court -- because they broke multiple laws -- that they and the White House are so desperate for amnesty.

The excuses offered by our political establishment for this rampant lawbreaking have been systematically rejected by the institution the Founders intended to adjudicate these legal issues -- our courts -- and it's for exactly that reason that our establishment is now conspiring to take away from the courts the responsibility they were assigned to hold lawbreakers accountable.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

!!!!!!!!!!!

Sam will fill in for Malloy..

Tues.thru Fri. of Next week..

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

when people walk (away)

btw, you gotta admire the code pink ladies. its cold enough that we're inside and i had to watch msm news. king george was at monticello congratulating some new citizens and code pink was there reminding him that there's a whole bunch of us that think he should be impeached.

(3) The central excuse from leading Democratic advocates of telecom immunity -- that the poor telecoms are unfairly hamstrung in these lawsuits by the President's assertion of the "State Secrets" privilege from using the evidence that shows they're innocent -- was gutted by yesterday's ruling. That excuse was false all along, since FISA explicitly provides that any party can submit even classified evidence to the court. As I noted back in January in response to Jay Rockefeller's misleading claim that immunity was necessary to save the telecoms from the unfair predicament of being barred by the President from submitting exculpatory evidence in these lawsuits:

Rockefeller added: "If people want to be mad, don't be mad at the telecommunications companies, who are restrained from saying anything at all under the State Secrets Act. And they really are. They can't say whether they were involved, they can't go to court, they can't do anything. They're just helpless. And the president was just having his way."

Rockefeller's claim that telecoms can't submit exculpatory evidence to the court is flat-out false, an absolute lie. There is no other accurate way to describe his statement.

Under FISA (50 USC 1806(f)), telecoms are explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. That section of long-standing law could not be clearer, and leaves no doubt that Rockefeller is simply lying when he says that telecoms are unable to submit secret evidence to the court to defend themselves.

That's exactly what Judge Walker ruled yesterday:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html

!!!

abc's person was a world war two vet. in his interview he talked about how he was proud of the all the soldiers who still protect america.

what i don't understand is why he doesn't understand how bush has betrayed him and all those who serve with his lies and fascist wars.

I wanted to clarify what I was saying about late term abortions. There is a broad spectrum of those who support or oppose abortion rights. Late term abortions are very extreme and we have laws limiting them more than early abortions. Our laws (or are moving that way) say a woman can only have a late term one if the pregnancy endangers her physical or mental health. Right-to-lifers want to take away that allowance for the mother's mental health. I was saying that I think the real reason most women who have them have them is because there is something seriously wrong with the fetus. I think this is unthinkable to most people because it smacks of eugenics. I have some personal history here. I had my son in my mid 30's and some of the prenatal tests indicated a possibility of Down's Syndrome. I went through counseling at the time and learned that one of the options was a late term abortion. I also learned at the time that there is a network of families who want to adopt Downs kids from parents who can't handle it. I also have a niece who had a very premature baby. Even with good health insurace they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. So is it better to give birth when you know your child won't live long or will have a severe disability? This is a hard decision, one I always think should be the woman's. I do not think a woman would ever make this difficult choice because she just felt like it.

National Cattlemen's-renewable fuel policy
Washington, D.C. – (June 12, 2008)
Cattlemen urge Senate committee to re-evaluate renewable fuels policy

Ominous crop reports, price surges drive home reality of feedgrain crisis

[...]
While many factors are contributing the tightening supplies and rising costs of feedgrains, Congressional mandates for production of grain-based fuels are adding to the market pressure. Even with last fall’s strong harvest, more than 1/4 of the 2007 corn crop was required to meet ethanol production mandates. This figure will grow much higher in 2008, as the production mandates have increased, corn plantings have been delayed, and corn crop progress has been extremely slow.

“USDA is now projecting a significant decline in per-acre yield for corn, on top of the reduction in corn acreage,” Doud says. “This puts a tremendous squeeze on all users of corn, but especially those who do not receive any tax credits or other subsidies to generate their end product.”

Today, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a hearing to examine the relationship between renewable fuels mandates and food prices. In written comments submitted to the committee, NCBA President Andy Groseta makes it clear that while consumers are feeling the pinch from the rising cost of many foods, livestock producers are bearing most of the burden when it comes to meat production.

“Many cattle feeders are currently losing about $150 per animal. With 525,000 head of steers and heifers going to market each week, that amounts to an average weekly industry loss of approximately $79 million,” said Groseta, a rancher from Cottonwood, Ariz. “These losses will be passed on to the foundation of our industry, the cow/calf producer. For every $1 per bushel increase in the price of corn, a cattle feeder must pay $22 per hundred-weight less for a 550 lb. feeder steer.”
[...]

exactly. i have always been bothered by the right wingers notion that people treat abortion like removing a hang nail. i really think that is as much of a myth as the raygun welfare queen is.

From Greenwald in same article:

UPDATE: Regarding the distorted claims about the "center," see this superb post from conservative Daniel Larison:

Wouldn’t Be (And Isn’t) Prudent
Posted on July 3rd, 2008 by Daniel Larison

Sullivan:

I don’t see anything more than prudent post-primary adjustment.

One of the most disturbing things about “mainstream” reaction to Obama’s reversals, particularly the reversal regarding the FISA legislation, is the idea that defending the Fourth Amendment against egregious, systematic violation by the government is some far-out extremist position that must be watered down or abandoned in order to appeal to “the middle.” If I were in the political “middle,” I would be deeply offended by the idea that supporting the gutting of core civil liberties is required to win my vote. If it is true that voters in “the middle” will reward assaulting constitutional protections for the illusion of security, some constitutional liberties won’t have much of a chance of surviving another administration like this one. To be clear, this is not just a question of granting telecom immunity, undesirable as that is, but it is a question of resisting warrantless–and therefore illegal–wiretapping.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/03/wouldnt-be-and-isnt-prudent/

I never got on Obama's bandwagon
Submitted by Catharine on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 5:51pm.

It's one thing to try to be pragmatic and say I'll hold my nose and vote, but to ever think this guy was even close to progressive at all was delusion. What if all those people had put their energy and money into a more progressive candidate? Maybe the 'establishment' would still have been able to quash it, but in their struggle to quash it, they would risk a lot more, and we might have gained more as a people.

---------------

What bullshit.

Submitted by Catharine on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 6:04pm.

So.

What can we do about Obama? This is really ridiculous. He's not even hiding that he essentially lied to us all.

Is there any chance we can all decide to abandon the Democratic Party process and collectively decide to do a write-in candidate? Or vote for Cynthia McKinney or someone like that?

______________________

Catharine,

My suggestion is to support more progressive candidates at the local and state levels. I don't think that it is too late at the state level. We can influence Congress.

Better to have progressive Democrats than Blue Dog Democrats.

Additionally, I am supporting Planned Parenthood.

Some state NARAL groups did not endorse Obama (although some have had to deal with the loss of financial support with the national NARAL Obama endorsement during the primary. I suspect that it may get worse for NARAL.)

If Obama selects any anti-choice VP, it could negatively impact some Congressional races.

We need to continue to pressure Obama.

For the record, I know that we agree about Obama and Clinton being centrists.

Generally, I do not support third-party candidates in the presidential general election -- especially if they are not on the ballot in some states.

I will be voting for Obama. McCain is unacceptable (especially with the Republicans and growing number of Blue Dog Democrats possibly winning).

Obama also may be able to help state/local progressives if new registered voters show up at the polls on Election Day.

p.s. Did you hear that Rahm wishes to be a senator in the near future? I am already learning more about progressive candidates to fill Obama's Senate seat.

The Republican Establishment

It's difficult to know precisely how The Villagers decided the rampant presidential lawbreaking was just peachy and started going about defending it in utterly dishonest ways. My only theory is that the Republicans have held the executive for so much of the post 40 years that the Washington Establishment is almost indistinguishable from the Republican Establishment. They're practically one and the same, and its members protect their own. It isn't entirely new, of course, as the Iran-Contra situation was quite similar.

It's difficult to fathom that warrantless wiretapping with no oversight whatsoever is condoned by the leading members of our elite press, and that it's a dirty fucking hippie position to think otherwise, but that's where we are.

-Atrios 12:25

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_06_29_archive.html#1521276553676446184

I think I am willing to risk the chance that McCain gets in power. It would be worth it. Even if McCain gets in, if we were able to effectively reject Obama, that would send a huge message.
---------

Are you nuts?

This is typical of how the left shoots itself in the foot. Throw the baby out with the bath water to make a point. Maybe you want suffer under under another wave of Republicanism, but some of us sure in the hell will. In my mother's neighborhood there are several homes where the occupants and their belongings have been thrown to the streets. Never mind my own mother is in danger of losing her home. I have a friend who hasn't had health care in 5 years. I have another friend who had no choice but to leave her husband. She is not eligible for welfare or subsidized housing. The only thing she can get is food stamps. She has a 9 year old. There library that I go to is a babysitting service. That's right. Librarians are complaining that mothers are leaving their children at the library. Why? They don't have money for daycare.

Have you been to a hospital lately? Makes no difference how good the insurance is. It's about the profit, you know. Maybe in your neck of the woods conservatism hasn't decimated everything. But in states like Ohio and West Virginia, you will find filthy walls, full trash cans and neglected patients. My Aunt's husband spent 40 years in the coal mines. Of course he became ill. The care that he was subjected to was horrible. Two years ago, in the worst of weather, the hospital put him and several other elderly patients out. They lined them up in the corridor likes ducks in a row. Here comes my Aunt and I- following an ambulance in midst of a blinding snow storm. It is something I'll never forget.

As I have said on this blog before, if Obama can move the country one degree to the left, I'll take it. Hell yeah, he's not the perfect progressive. But it'll be better than what we have now. After all, we on the left are just as complacent as those on the right. We talk big shit, but we aren't really going to inconvenience ourselves. Not even for the good of our friends and family, and certainly, not for this country.

I mean no disrespect Cathrine, but a McCain presidency is just too terrifying.

I am on board for all that you mentioned and more.

But, to do nothing in the face of what is turning out to be even more flagrant disregard for the "progressives" who helped him get there is... not acceptable.

We [progressives of all strains] have consistently bemoaned the fact that in other countries the citizenry has been growing cohones and standing up to the powers that be through protest and even more radical moves. 'We' have said, "Well, that is because we have more to lose than they do, and we have become lazy and contented with our creature comforts." 'We' are presented with opportunity after opportunity and still we say "what's the use?"

It is really outrageous what Obama is doing, only days after getting into the slot of likely Democratic nominee. This is not an exageration. We should be outraged. We were betrayed. Really.

So, keep on supporting all the other good candidates in other races, but also take a risk and dare to not vote for Obama.

Hardly radical at all.

I thought so too, until very recently, Edna.

Not so sure anymore that Obama would really be any better.

And if people are pacified into thinking it is, it may even be worse.

All the suffering and human lives that were lost due to the last 7 [8] years of Bush is a terrible thing.

And yet, we still didn't stop it. I am not so sure that Obama will either.

...or a rock...

I will not ever vote for McCain! He scares me! And he's surrounding himself with the Bush people. Rove's minions.

Sorry, but Id rather take the chance with Obama here.

And I mean no disrespect either but I cannot stomach another repub in office. I also am scared of the medical bills and care.

Like edna said, he's not perfect and we'll have to keep after him. But no more neoconservatives. please!

If I'd had my druthers, I would have preferred Edwards but we don't have him.

Should we chance another coservative Supreme?

-The presence of McCain makes the very moderate Obama an appealing alternative and that assures victory for the status quo. It frightens progressive voters away from supporting real progressives like Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney. Barach Obama was the real choice of the established orthodoxy all along. The marketing strategists have used John McCain to funnel the votes toward Obama and away from genuine progressives. That is where the real fight was. You can call it voting in the absence of real choice because that is precisely what it is. The same policies that have been in play for decades will continue on and we will keep getting a similar result.-

is just that: a 'false choice'.

When are we going to learn and strategize how to break this cycle. Remember Kerry? Only 4 years ago and we were all disappointed that he didn't win [or rather the election was stolen again].

I felt that it was the right thing to do, but 4 years later, I am not so sure.

As long as we go along with the "false choice" status quo, i.e. only 2 people to choose from, then we will always be in the same dilemma. And now that Obama is reinforcing the idea that he is really in the same 'party' as McCain, then I realize that it is indeed a 'false' choice.

Is it really too much to risk? In the past I would have said 'yes', but now I think that we are fooling ourselves.

Once he's elected, you'll be afraid of how it looks if there are massive protests against his bad policy decisions. You'll already be thinking about what it means for the next election. And the pressure will never come.

boycotts of no value

Submitted by dada on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 6:58pm.

I think that corporations care very much about your money, but they are very happy with you thinking that boycotts are ineffective. A boycott is only as effective as it is organized, which is where we the people are falling short.

Boycotts have the potential to be one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal. Money talks.

______________________

Indeed, money talks. I agree with you about boycotts, dada.

What are we boycotting, dada?

I'm in.

----------------------

Word History:

Charles C. Boycott seems to have become a household word because of his strong sense of duty to his employer. An Englishman and former British soldier, Boycott was the estate agent of the Earl of Erne in County Mayo, Ireland. The earl was one of the absentee landowners who as a group held most of the land in Ireland.

Boycott was chosen in the fall of 1880 to be the test case for a new policy advocated by Charles Parnell, an Irish politician who wanted land reform. Any landlord who would not charge lower rents or any tenant who took over the farm of an evicted tenant would be given the complete cold shoulder by Parnell's supporters.

Boycott refused to charge lower rents and ejected his tenants. At this point members of Parnell's Irish Land League stepped in, and Boycott and his family found themselves isolated—without servants, farmhands, service in stores, or mail delivery.

Boycott's name was quickly adopted as the term for this treatment, not just in English but in other languages such as French, Dutch, German, and Russian.

[sic - of course, Latin should be listed.]
--------------

Reference:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boycott

To tell the truth, this anti-democratic ruse of lesser evilism has been practiced forever and has never failed to produce disastrous results. In 1908 when a disgruntled “realist” shouted to him that voting socialist was throwing a vote away, Eugene Debs responded hotly: “That’s right. Don’t vote for freedom—you might not get it. Vote for slavery—you have a cinch on that.”

- Michael K. Smith, October 2004

When the majority claims it is always right and the minority does not dare to react, democracy is in danger.

July 2, 2008
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=774

Right now, I am not sure what I will do, but it won't be to vote for McCain.

Frankly, McCain may win despite the support for Obama, and then what?

What are we left with? We got fooled again. And now I am thinking that to vote for Obama is to get fooled as well.

[As an aside, I have seen no evidence that Obama will make any improvements on healthcare whatsoever.]

it's no choice. We haven't had a good choice in 30 years.

I don't like the direction Obama is going either. But let's face it we don't have a choice. none!! But even if he's center, it's better than McCain.

The only chance we have is turning the congress and keeping up the pressure.

I'm angry and sick about this whole thing, but I WILL NOT vote for a republican. Never, ever, never!

Definitely food for thought.

I think it's time you got Back on your Meds ! ;)

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

and this one from Far Leftist extremist-radical Duncan Black:

Submitted by Catharine on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 7:25pm.

_____________________

Did you see my post on yesterday's thread?

We are now the Far Leftist Extremist-Radicals.

These republicans would love to have democrats 'put pressure on Obama', perhaps complete with demonstrations by longhaired hippies, and if they're really lucky, maybe even riots. (Rush Limbaugh's stated desire.)

Get back off message in December. Until November, we have a Democratic president to elect.

And it isn't as if he will be president for life. He will be up for re-election in 2012, after which he can do as he pleases. So that is when to 'put pressure' if pressure need be on Barack Obama.

Until then, real democrats don't follow the republican playbook and start undermining or criticizing the Democratic candidate.

If we the people are serious about real democratic government, we must work for it outside of the electoral process, as well as from within.

We must organize a revolutionary force so powerful that it cannot be ignored or denied.

We must institute effective and prolonged economic boycotts.

We must organize work slow-downs, work stoppages, and general strikes in order to make corrupt government feel our pain.

We must create labor unions that genuinely fight for worker’s rights while simultaneously transitioning the country away from an exploitive and self-destructive capital economy toward a people-oriented economy based upon need, rather than privatized profit subsidized by public funds.

These are the means to creating a democratic workplace and bringing malignant capitalism to a grinding halt.

The electoral process does not provide the tools for revolution; it subverts the process and only delays the inevitable.

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=775

*

YES! WHAT IF?

-What if all those people had put their energy and money into a more progressive candidate? Maybe the 'establishment' would still have been able to quash it, but in their struggle to quash it, they would risk a lot more, and we might have gained more as a people.- -Catharine

Or any other Republican.

But as Duncan Black pointed out [posted above]:

"My only theory is that the Republicans have held the executive for so much of the post 40 years that the Washington Establishment is almost indistinguishable from the Republican Establishment. They're practically one and the same, and its members protect their own. It isn't entirely new, of course, as the Iran-Contra situation was quite similar."

Far Leftist Extremist-Radicals Support Constitution

Submitted by Star Vox on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 8:01pm.

I am sick and tired of Barack Obama being 'the least of two evils' argument.

Barack Obama is a GREAT presidential candidate. Saying otherwise is just trying to erode the enthusiasm people have for his candidature, which might undermine the size of the landslide with which the Democrats will win. The only winner with that argument are the republicans, which is why they are now making it all the time.

The biggest argument that Barack Obama is just like the republicans does not come from 'the left', but from the rightwing pundits (Blankley, Buchanan, etc.).

Think about that one.

Obama 08!

Hi Lucille

I'm not sure what the differences are between this group in the US and
our organisation. I should but I don't. I thought what would be more
useful now is to talk about how differences in general have evolved
amongst the left. That way you will be able to have some tools to
analyse whos's who in the zoo and make up your own mind. A contact of
mine once asked me when she learned of the many left groups in SA, why
the left can't unite?

Its not for want of trying...in fact they do work together in broad
coalitions e.g. Anti-War or Anti-Globalisation etc but the reason why
they are not in one organisation varies. Mostly its political and the
differences stretch far back into history and across international
borders. Although some have split because of personality differences.
But those are not of concern here. Most of the left groups are
affiliated to international bodies and the differences would be
replicated at that level. I'll give just one example but going back
far into history. By the way...if you want to learn politics you have
to start with history...

After the French revolution around 1848, Karl Marx and others formed
the first International Working Mens' Association. But it dissolved
because the revolutions in Europe did not give rise to the victory of
socialism in any of the countries. Those revolutions succeeded in
ridding us of feudalism or the monarchy which still existed in many
countries at that time and was an obstacle to the still developing
capitalist system. Remember the story of Marie Antoinette!

This 2nd International formed in the late 1880s also attempted to
unite all the socialist groups and trade unions around the world. But
when the 1st world war started, real differences emerged between those
who supported the war and those who opposed it. Those who opposed it
argued that it was a war of the bosses of different countries and that
workers should not be used to fight each other to protect the profits
of the bosses from their own countries.

The 2nd International dissolved during the war and afterwards, Lenin
who with the Bolsheviks had successfully implemented the first ever
Worker controlled state in 1917 by ovehtrowing capitalism and the
remnants of feudalism, started the 3rd International also known as the
Comintern or the Communist International. He and his comrades believed
it was a critial step towards supporting socialist revolutions in
other countries thereby consolidating the gains of the Russian
revolution.

Good luck winning hearts and minds with that attitude. Do you guys even want to win? Then you need to try coming up with some coherent arguments as to why anyone should vote for your candidate.

Happy independence day.

They believed that socialism could not exist only in one country and
that it would be isolated and degenerate if it did not prevail as an
economic and political system on a world scale. But the attempt at
revolution in Germany had faild in 1918 with the leaders, Rosa
Luxembourg and Karl Kniebknecht executed. There was a civil war in
the newly formed workers state of Russia with 21 capitalist armies
sent in to crush it.

The capitalst armies were assisted by the local capitalists and
remnants of the Tsarist armies wo had been overthrown but regrouped
with the help of the west. Instead of building the new workers
democracy, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to fight this lot after the
war which had already taken its toll on the country. Soon the young
workers state got caught in the grip of a famine ...imagine...the
state the country must have been in, when it was hardly possbile to
produce daily necessities. This is where the stories of the emergence
of cannibalism originate...probably exaggerated by capitalist
propaganda but at the same time quite possible given the devastation
wrough on the country.

But because the Bolsheviks appealed to workers internationally, many
soldiers went awol refusing to fight their brothers and sisters in
Russia. In the west there were many actions by workers to support the
gains of the revolution. But when Lenin died in 1923 only five years
afte the revolution, Stalin took over and promoted the unsocialist
policy of 'socialism in one country'. Trotsky, Lenin's right hand man
was forced to flee the Soviet Union and Stalin wiped out almost the
entire Central Commitee of the Bolshevik party. Sending many of them
to concentration camps in Siberia. He also started his school of the
falsification of the history of the Russian Revolution completing
airbrushing Trotsky's role as 2nd to Lening in the revolution.

The left split here between those who supported the Communists under
Stalin and those who supported Trotsky who continued his Left
Opposition after leaving Russia. This is how the Trotskyist of today
come on to the scene of history and under whom the group you are
talking to would fall as would we. The Trotskyist differeniate
themselves from the Communists and the Social Democrats. The latter
are those that formed the basis of the left face of the bosses
parties, but had at first been in one group with the socialist and
today's communists. For example, the formation of the Bolshevik party
came out of the split with the Russian Sociald Democratic Labour Party
before the revolution in 1917.

-Far Leftist Extremist-Radicals-
Don't vote for Obama...
IMHO....

To me..the CHOICE is to shun both of the big parties...You know the ones who started wars in our name and the ones who allow that to continue...local or federal...

In other words the social democrats were not socialist but were not
outright crude capitalist parties like the Republicans and the
Democrats in the US and the Conservative parties in Europe. The
Democrats in the US never came even close to the position of the
Social Democrats in Europe in the past although today they are all one
and the same thing after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

So, then there was a split between the Trotskyist and Stalinst or
"Communist" left. There were also further splits within the
Trotskyist and Communists groups but I won't go into the latter's
splits. The Trotskyist left split around the question of the character
of the Soviet Union. Some said it was state capitalist and others
argued that it was a deformed workers state. I'm not talking about
the Anarchist and the Maoist and other variants but this in a nutshell
sums-up where the differences originate.

In other words these groups split as a result of how they
characterised the Soviet Union and their differences widened after the
splits with each current taking a different position on most questions
e.g how to characterise Cuba, what should be our attitude to Chavez or
even Obama! What their position is on the Middle East and in the past
what positon they took to the IRA and so on. These are not simply
intellectual exerxises but can become a matter of life and death in
war and revolution. There are also tactical differences which have
resulted in splits such as with Anrchism and other groups.

But that's more than enough for now. My suggestion is to ask your
friend about their position on the question of Chavez in Venezuela, or
Cuba or even the Middle East. Then we can continue the lessons...but I
can't promise to respond immediately I'm snowed under at the moment.

Tchau for now
Abracos (Hugs)
Sheri

lyric....ever maybe

I kiss you on the brain in the shadow of a train

"kiss you on the brain..." - I just love that... :)

YES! WHAT IF?

-What if all those people had put their energy and money into a more progressive candidate? Maybe the 'establishment' would still have been able to quash it, but in their struggle to quash it, they would risk a lot more, and we might have gained more as a people.- -Catharine

The problem is, to me anyway, that we have a rag tag group of progressives but not enough to make a difference. The brain washing is deep. Even what I consider to be a regular Dem, not progressive will vote against their best interest.

And any ideas from your end will be great as well. Let's start kicking around some possibilities, see what happens.

try it sometime..

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

In your comment earlier you said it might not matter much if McCain wins. That is like Nader's arguement in 2000 that there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore. I don't think anyone can argue that now. I live in Arizona and believe me, we do NOT want McCain. I have been reading alot about him lately and none of it is pretty. He is a carpetbagger in Arizona. He only got in office here because his rich/powerful father-in-law helped him after he dumped his first wife for a young heiress. It wasn't just that his wife stole drugs from her charity. When she started using employees' name to get scrips, one man worked with the cops to save his reputation and keep himself out of trouble. The McCain's used political clout to get her out of trouble and ruined his career. McCain has missed more votes than any other senator in the past 8 year because he has kept running for pres. But what bothers me most about him is that he is an elitist (Marie Antonette-Let them eat cake)who really doesn't care about the people of Arizona. He brags about never taking earmarks but is known for quietly helping bigwig developers get sweet land deals. Think about that; he brags about never working for what the PEOPLE of Arizona while he quietly keeps helping the rich/powerful land grabbers.

Time to go get some chow.

Ciao.

and I believe that we should be on Obama and let him know what we think.

I believe in anything that allows us to voice our opinion. And it should be in large groups. The more voices the better.

I'm not working against anyone here, I want change very badly.

As my father always said, "it's conditions!"

Once again, I will certainly not support McCain or any Republicans.

However, I believe I understand part of Nader's rationale behind what he did. Democrats and Republicans are one and the same for the most part. There are notable exceptions, but far too few. I support them individually now, and I never give money to the DSCC or the DNC or any general party organization. There is a reason for that.

I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face; but I want a real alternative. Even at this late hour. I have not completely ruled out voting for Obama, but I want to effect real change, and he sure as hell is no change.

Later.

And yet, we still didn't stop it. I am not so sure that Obama will either.
--------

Indeed Catherine.

Many times I have suggested that we boycott mainstream media. It is Public Enemy #1. It has been complicit in every disaster this country is now experiencing. But no one is willing to give up the cable or the satellite subscriptions. A few months ago, I suggested that we at the least block CNN and FOX from our televisions. They are the worst offenders. Then, we could sign a petition and inform the networks that we refuse to watch their stations. It was merely a start.

Today, I was back on the media soapbox. Media Matters and F.A.I.R. are not powerful enough to stop the misinformation. It requires something more drastic. But there were no takers.

So you're right Catherine, we won't stop it.

And fear-mongers.

I just can't get with it. Things are too serious, between the economy and our loss of rights, among other things, to waste time with this ongoing two party political masturbation fest.

So now ellwort and I have landed in Vermont after a four hour drive, but first we posted the Freeway Blog! It said "Impeach Before Pardons!" I got caught by the police, who had his light flashing and all. I told him it's ok- I'm just putting up a sign for the holiday. He said, no problem I just wanted to make sure you didn't get hit! So I put up the sign and ran back for the getaway car with ellwort keeping the engine running. And we rode into the sunset...
Mission accomplished!

If there is no one complaining how far right will Obama go? He's not free to go willy nilly on promises made.

Catharine - I agree with you mostly but given a choice between one candidate who would have Mukasey as the Attorney General and another who might have John Edwards, I could easy see a reason to go for the latter.

I understand that my opinion doesn't matter at all but I'm trying to say that there is still a clear albeit watered down difference between the two top candidates.

I'm with you on that one, edna.

I think even a little success on that front would rock the media boat, more than they care to admit.

Alice posted about taking to the streets to bring change. That doesn't seem to work in this country any more. People are focused on paying their bills. One way it does seem to be happening is the "intertubes" and Barak seems to be pretty savy with that. Funny, I spent the Summer of 2004 reading John Kerry's blog and have only looked once at Obama's website. Does he have a blog? Kerry's was very interesting that summer. The day after he lost I tried to log on and it was frozen on the last thread. I had such a feeling of loss that day. I felt like I had gotten to know a community of people; just like I feel when reading this blog.

you are my hero for the day. Did you get a picture?

I agree Edna. It is my pet project as well, but there have not been enough takers. I am sure I have not done as much as I could either. Over the last 4 years there have been a few exciting victories but they were somewhat Pyrrhic in the end.

It really is about money and the media. We have to keep reminding ourselves. I have not changed my opinion on this since the beginning.

Given that we both feel that media is the biggest problem and the biggest agent for change, doesn't it really gall you that Obama is willing to go back on his word and vote as he is on FISA and retroactive immunity? That one just puzzles me. It would have been so easy for him to vote against giving them retroactive immunity. It wouldn't have even cost him a single vote on either side to do the politically correct thing. It really is shocking.

I think we can guess where he'll come down on all the other related issues as well - like corporate media ownership - and what types of people he'll appoint to the FCC.

I mean.... wow. What a son-of-a-bitch.

Now that is an excellent and inspiring 4th of July story, treebu!

Thanks for that.

I certainly won't vote for McCain

Submitted by Catharine on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 7:56pm.
Right now, I am not sure what I will do, but it won't be to vote for McCain.

Frankly, McCain may win despite the support for Obama, and then what?

What are we left with? We got fooled again. And now I am thinking that to vote for Obama is to get fooled as well.

[As an aside, I have seen no evidence that Obama will make any improvements on healthcare whatsoever.]

_______________________

McCain could still win with the support of the corporate media and his "maverick" image. I also am concerned about Obama's continuing emphasis on his biography.

What about issues? The economy, the war/occupation, and healthcare.

The Republican Party has money in the bank and they will use it to help McCain.

I am especially interested in the VP selections for Obama and McCain.

For example, I would much rather have John Edwards as VP (rather than Nunn, Hagel, J. Bush, or Lieberman). The recent polls indicate that Edwards could help Obama the most in the general election.

I think Elizabeth Edwards and Clinton's former policy advisor on healthcare "mandates" now working with or on Obama is a good sign (there are now some internal battles of advisors on Obama's team). Will it be enough to influence Obama?

I do believe that it is important to support independent progressive groups now. It is one of the ways to put pressure on Obama, McCain, and others.

but, but, but the History channel is running UFO's in the Bible and after that Larry King has his whole show dedicated to UFO sitings. I just got my tin foil hat polished too.

Do I really have to turn it off or can I wait till tomorrow? Seems like a shame to not watch it when it beats the news for believability!

submitted by toniD on Fri, 07/04/2008 - 8:12pm.
You must get the people to vote progressive.
-------

You're right, ToniD. We should do everything we can to help Cindy Sheehan kick Nancy Pelosi's ass. It will send a message to the rest of the Blue Dogs. Stinky Hoyer and Harry "Droopy" Reid need to go too.

"who might have John Edwards" as attorney general...

operative word is "might", and