Marines: Why Are They Called JarHeads?

The Marines: "The Few, The Proud."

President Obama gave a speech this morning to the Marines at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. As I watched these tough-guys tear-up as Obama said his administration would end the war, would increase medical care, would increase their pay (biggest applause line), did respect their service, would update the GI Bill to provide real benefits for those who serve, I thought about the Marines. And all the other people who join the military. Military families share much in common with each other: not too much money, lots of transfers from lonely place to lonely place where the other people who are "like" you are also military families. Blankets, towels, sheets all stamped "Property Of U.S. Navy, Army, Marines." Shopping at the Ship Service and the Commissary, and medical care provided at the sick bay.

I thought President Obama's biggest line was when he said (essentially) that the most privileged people in our country have spent the last 8 years stealing, lying, cheating, lining their own pockets while destroying our nation, but these people in the military had done the right thing, signing up to serve the country and put their lives on the line to defend it. Corny, but think about it. Most of the people who have been engaged in massive looting, pillaging, raping of our nation, stealing grandma's retirement, and having no feelings of compassion for the other people in this country whatsoever, are educated, wealthy, privileged, connected people. And that is how they behaved. It's quite a contrast with the very poorly-paid yet much more honorable people in our military services.

The people in the military are neither as noble and honorable as the politicians claim, nor are they as limited as the Wall Street Criminals believe. They are just people. Not as rich as some others, often with a lot more integrity. But some of them are racist, sexist, violent. There's that part too.

The Marines were formed in 1775 to serve as a naval infantry. They are responsible for providing force from the sea. They are a component of the Department of the Navy, and rely on the Navy for training, transportation, and other logistics. So the Navy takes its ships full of Marines to the landing site, and the Marines go onto the beaches to attack the enemy. While the army might travel by land. The Marines, of course, were critical in the U.S. war in the Pacific during World War II. There are today 200,000 U.S. Marines, with 40,000 reservists.

And the language. Like all other special, somewhat isolated groups in our society, military people have their own language, much of it way too crude to be repeated here. Each of the separate branches reserves their greatest scorn for the other branches, and have special derogatory terms for the non-warriors. Some of the terms are now a part of our mainstream language, but the origin is fairly interesting. Here are a few words for those who would like to learn how to speak Marine (I've omitted some of the most offensive from the list):

Jarhead:

An insulting word meaning Marine. Generally spoken behind their backs, and never to their face. Origin of the term is unclear. Some say the Marine haircut makes the men's heads resemble a mason jar. Some say that a Marine's head is empty, just like the jar is. Some say the term came from WWII when the Mason Jar Company went into war production mode and manufactured helmets for the Marines.

Here are some others:

Air Force salute: when someone shrugs their shoulders.
ARMY: Aren't Ready for Marine's Yet; Aren't Really Men Yet
Battle buddy: sarcastic euphemism deriving from orders for Marines to not go on liberty alone when stationed overseas.
BCGs: Birth Control Glasses. Unattractive military issue glasses.
Bird farm: aircraft carrier.
Boondocks: isolated area. From the Tagalog word "bundok," which means the mountain jungles of the Philippines.

Boot camp: recruit training for enlisted Marines. Supposedly it comes from the fact that recruits wears boots every day of their training.
Brain bucket: helmet.
Bus driver: Air Force pilot.
Canoe U.: United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD.
Chair Force: derogatory term for the US Air Force.
Chairborne ranger: someone who works in an office.
Cinderella liberty: liberty expiring at midnight.
Death by PowerPoint: long and boring briefing.
Disneyland East: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps at Arlington, Virginia.
FNG: Fucking New Guy.
FUBAR: Fucked/Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.
FUBIJAR: Fuck yoU Buddy, I'm Just A Reservist.

GI: Government Issue
GI can: garbage can, also known as circular file.
GI house: place where garbage is stored until it is hauled away.
Gung ho: Chinese phrase meaning to "work together."
Hollywood Marine: graduate from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego.
Honcho or head honcho: person in charge, from the Japanese word for "boss."
Irish pennant or IP: loose thread or string on a uniform.
Jesus slippers: government-issue flip-flops for sanitation in showers.

Joe: coffee. Named after United States Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels who eliminated beer and wine from naval ships, declaring nothing stronger than coffee would be allowed.
Lance criminal: derogatory term for Lance Corporal.
Leatherneck: nickname for Marine. The Marine uniform once included stiff leather collars to protect their throats from swords.
Lost Lieutenant Finder: hand-held GPS unit; a joke based on the reputation of new lieutenants for being incompetent in land navigation.

MARINE: Muscles Are Required, Intelligence Non-Essential or My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment.
Meat Gazer: observer who watches the Marine pee into a cup for drug testing.
MRE: Meal, Ready-to-Eat, standard U.S. field ration. Or, sometimes called "Meals Rejected by the Enemy."
NAVY: Never Again Volunteer Yourself
No Such Agency: National Security Agency (highly secret spy agency)
REMF: Rear Echelon Mother Fucker, a derision for someone who serves in a non-combatant role.
Red death: corned beef with cabbage.
Red lead: ketchup/catsup.

Remington raider: typist.
Sandbox: Iraq or other desert area.
Semper Fidelis: Marine Corps motto, meaning "Always Faithful."
Semper I: selfish or self-centered behavior.
SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.
Swab: mop. "Swabby" is an insulting term for a sailor. Supposedly this comes from the practice of sailors in old wooden ships having to swab the decks to keep them from warping.

USMC: United States Marine Corps
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children
U Signed the Motherfucking Contract
U Suckers Miss Christmas
Unlimited Shit and Mass Confusion.

WAG: Wild-Ass Guess, sometimes prefaced with the word "Scientific".
Weekend warrior: reservist.
Wilco: Voice procedure term shortened from "Will Comply".
Zoomie: pilot, usually an Air Force pilot.
Zoomie U: United States Air Force Academy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Marine_Corps_acronyms_and_expressions

President Obama's Not-Quite-State-Of-The-Union Speech

For technical reasons, President Obama's speech wasn't really the state of the union speech (that comes in January and this year was given by what's-his-name, the moron who lived in the white house during the dark days). So President Obama's speech last night, although in most respects a state of the union speech, wasn't really a State Of The Union Speech. But it was pretty darned good anyway. And it was certainly a delight to see a president who was not George W. Bush.

As an aside, I saw John "Stutterer" Roberts of the famed Supremes leering at Obama when he came in. And I have this one question: did Roberts really become semi-illiterate, or develop tourettes, or come down with the problems of a stutterer, at the exact moment when he had to read a few simple lines to swear in President Obama? Or did he twist those words around deliberately and on purpose in order to give fodder to the extreme right-wing groups in this country, and the deaf dumb fat drug-addicted guy on the radio, so they could spend the next four years arguing that Barack Obama "wasn't really" our President?

I'm going to support President Obama and give him every benefit of the doubt as long as he continues to inspire the nation and move in the better direction. Such as his commitment to shut down Guantanamo and to stop torturing people. He didn't really say "we will stop torturing," he said "The U.S. does not torture," which was not a true statement because we've been doing it from the Dark Side, the nether regions of hell in which Dick Cheney dwells. So Obama ducked and bobbed and weaved on that one, and I think he will on other issues as well. I'm willing to let him. I believe he knows that if he can't get this economy stabilized, we're all going down. Dancing on the Titanic indeed. So we need to cut him some slack, give him some leeway.

But not necessarily be stupid about it.

So here are a few areas of my concern from President Obama's speech last night:

Never Say You're Going To End Cancer In Our Life Times.
"Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time."

I thought that was a long-standing tradition, that all Presidents are warned: never say in your state of the union speech that you're going to cure cancer.

But then again, on the other hand, if anybody can do it, I think he can.

No Charter Schools
"And we will expand our commitment to charter schools."

Charter schools are privately-run schools. Sometimes run by profit-seeking morons, sometimes by profit-seeking religious morons, but they're not part of the public school system. Anybody who wants to send their kids to private schools should do so. But not with my money. Public funds should go only to public schools. Period.

Strengthen Social Security, But Do Not Privatize It
"To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

I don't know what he means about strengthening Social Security, but it worries me when he mentions savings accounts apparently as some kind of an alternative. We already have tax-free savings accounts: they're called Roth IRAs. People put money in, and the earnings are tax-free. If they want to increase the amount people are allowed to put in, that's fine. But it should have nothing to do with Social Security. People should not be given the option, for example, of having a savings account instead of participating in Social Security. The banks pay nothing on savings accounts. Most people would end up turning their retirement savings over to the criminals on Wall Street, the money would all be stolen, and pretty soon we'd have a whole bunch of 80 year olds sleeping on the park benches -- not just in the daytime.

If we need more money in Social Security there is a simple way to accomplish that: raise the cap. Right now, only the first (I think it's $90,000) of income is subject to social security taxes. Raise that to $150,000, or $250,000 for that matter. That is a simple way to get more money into the fund. And it's only taking money from rich people who cheat on their taxes anyway, so it's fair for them to pay more.

End The Wars Now
"We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
"And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away. "

I think we need to end both wars now. They never should have been started in the first place, and dragging them on is wasting billions of dollars at a time when our country is broke. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Obama wants to go get bin Laden, then send some Green Berets to do the job, not Halliburton and the steroid-rage-monsters from Blackwater. Send a trained team, find him, kill him. But don't waste billions of my money.

Why Expand The Military If We Are Going To End These Wars?
"To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned. "

I'm all in favor of a pay raise for the military and for fully-funded benefits for the veterans. I think it should be paid for by a special tax on Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, and George W. Bush, because they're the ones who created this new generation of veterans.

But I do not see any reason to increase the number of people in the military. End the wars. That's the way to do it. Bring them all home.

The Free Trade Mantra
"And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe. For the world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world's."

Screw the rest of the world. The federal government represents us, the citizens of the U.S. I really don't want them spending their time worrying about Japan's economy. That's what got us into this mess in the first place: politicians devoting their attention to everybody in the world except the one group they are responsible to represent: the citizens and working people of the U.S. So let's figure out how to make the lives of our citizens the best possible, and let the rest of the world develop without the continued oppression, attacks, occupation, market control by U.S. corporations.

For example, I would prefer eating food grown in the U.S., and I surely do not want food imported from any other country. It is obvious that people in this country are not well-served by allowing the grocery stores to import cheap poisoned crap then sell it to us for a premium. It would be better to eat locally-grown food, and scale back on the whole processed food insanity that is probably responsible for much of the cancer Obama wants to cure, as well as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Eat locally.

And stop flooding other countries with the trade crops grown in this country. We grow corn then sell it to everyone, puffed up, sweetened, nutrients stripped away, filler, feed for the world. We flood other countries with cheap starch, like rice, put local growers out of business by undercutting them, then raise the prices through the roof and let the local people starve. The entire idea of a "global" food production system designed to maximize profits for a few rich Americans must be ended. Let everyone grow locally and feed their own people, and get rid of everything else.

So let's re-think this whole nonsense about "free" trade. It's not free. It's just that the costs have been ignored. Environmental destruction by corporations gone mad. Selling food that is processed and has no nutrition, and sometimes is poisoned. Putting local farmers out of business so that entire countries starve to death. This has gone terribly wrong.

Same for clothing. Let Americans buy 1 locally-made shirt instead of 10 pieces of crap imported from China and made by child labor. Let's buy local bedding instead of fine Egyptian cotton sheets woven so tightly that some poor Egyptian child went blind just making the top sheet for some rich American's pleasure. End the corporate destruction of the world.

Here's the link to the full text of President Obama's speech to Congress, February 24, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/

People Are Weird, Chapter 387: Painted Ceilings and Floors

This is the painted ceiling in a smoker's lounge.

This is a painted floor in the bathroom of an apartment on the 10th floor in an apartment building. Scroll down slowly.

Thanks to Kathy for sending this to me.

We Love Our Handsome And Charming President Obama.

Our handsome, charming, and quite amazing President Barack Obama went to Congress tonight to address those mere politicians, and to speak to the citizens and the world who, I am certain, we will learn turned in by the billions to hear our wonderful President. And he was charming and made terrific points, such as that we will end the war in Iraq, we will close Guantanamo, the U.S. will no longer torture people, that we will reform healthcare and education to help our own citizens, and we will become a better citizen to the world. He even had the Republicans standing up and applauding when they thought that deaf dumb fat guy on the radio might have taken a drug-break from the TV.

The TV stations offered to allow the Republicans to have time to respond to our wonderful President Obama's speech. But there was a problem. You see, the Republicans could not find even one Republican politician in Congress to respond on their behalf. It turns out all the Republican politicians in Congress are either under indictment, or under investigation, or have been involved in public sex scandals, or have been stealing money from the public and funneling it to their rich friends for 8 straight years now, and otherwise were completely covered in dirt.

So they had to go way far away from Washington D.C. to find a Republican who could speak on TV for the Republican Party. They asked the Governor of Lousiana to do it. Apparently nobody looked at the calendar, and realized the speech would come right in the middle of Mardi Gras. But the Governor was a good sport. He didn't mind being seen in his finest duds.

So he came on TV and said a bunch of really stupid things that nobody listened to anyway. I mean he's from Lousiana, the most corrupt state in the nation. He's defending Republicans by saying "Well, look how well we did in Katrina." This guy must have gone to the same school as George W. Bush. Maybe his family was bussed to Texas after some other hurricane drowned his poor neighbors. Lousiana, which I believe is competing with Mississippi for poorest state, worst environmental controls, completely failed schools, cops who are murderers for hire on the side. Lousiana which has sucked millions out of the federal government and the people in this country and taken all that money and put it into the pockets of the rich Republican politicians while their own people sleep in poisoned trailers. Lousiana which hasn't even bothered to pick up all the dead people that drowned during that great Republican triumph known as Katrina. Yeah, good choice. Way to go Bobby.

It's Fat Tuesday ("Mardi Gras")

The term "Mardi Gras" is French for "Fat Tuesday." In Spanish it would be Martes Grande. Mardi Gras has been celebrated for hundreds of years in countries throughout the world. The celebration takes place within a few days before today, Fat Tuesday, which is always the Tuesday right before Ash Wednesday.

Ash Wednesday is a holy day in the Catholic Church (and some other religions), the beginning of Lent, 46 days before Easter Sunday. On Ash Wednesday, members of the church go to mass and palm fronds are burned, with the ashes smeared on the foreheads of the church members. Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent, which is considered a period of repentence. Many Catholics give up something during Lent -- like candy for the children, meat for some adults -- as a sign of repentence for their sins, and sacrifice. Putting ashes on the forehead signifies repentence, a reminder that we will all return to ashes some day.

Remember, O man, that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return. Genesis, 3:19

The days (and sometimes weeks) leading up to Ash Wednesday are celebrated in many countries, and notably in New Orleans, Lousiana, with a city-wide carnival, people dressing up in costumes and partying through the nights, parading through the streets, enjoying their last days of celebration before the 46-day period of Lent.

"Jolie Blon," sometimes called the Cajun National Anthem:

President Obama Commits To A New High-Speed Rail Train System In The U.S.. Hallelujah!!

"All Aboard? Obama's Stimulus Plan Includes $8 Billion For High-Speed Rail...."

By David Rogers - Politico (From TwinCities.com)
Posted: 02/17/2009 12:01:00 AM CST

"Railroads made Chicago, and now a Chicago-rich White House wants to return the favor: remaking rail with a huge new federal investment in high-speed passenger trains.
The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Barack Obama today — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail.... "

"It's a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States - and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years. "

.... "As a candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of "rebuilding America." Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation."

"The time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities," he said. "And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America."

"[C]onservative Republicans ... painted the whole funding as a scheme by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of Las Vegas interests seeking a rail link to Los Angeles. "Sin City to Tomorrow Land" was one description."

"It's amazing. I'm stunned," [HARRY REID] said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. " "I'm glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama's No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I'll take credit but frankly didn't have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted."

"[I]t is a landmark transportation investment with regional effects in almost every corner of the nation. Just last October, former President George W. Bush signed a bill authorizing up to $1.5 billion for high-speed rail through 2013. Obama's commitment in the same period will be eight times that."

What a difference to have a President who does not belong to the corporations, and do their bidding to the disgrace of the nation. Why don't we have public transportation and a decent rail system? Because the automobile industry destroyed public transportation to force Americans to buy cars. It's really just that simple. The profit of the car industry was put in front of the reasonable needs of the citizens. And the results are a disgrace.

In many major metropolitan areas, people are unable to travel to work, or into or out of the city, or out of town, without spending at least an hour sitting on a freeway with thousands of other people, inhaling poisons and wasting their lives. Not to mention all the car-related expenses every individual has to bear in contrast with a decent public transportation system which provides reasonably efficient and affordable transportation.

NPR had a piece on the proposed new light rail system this morning. One person said that the system would include a light rail train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The trip would take 2 hours and 40 minutes, and would cost $55.00. I hope that whoever is in charge of this will put the light rail stations outside of Los Angeles, far from the airport. The problem with air travel from LAX is that you can't get to the airport. It costs over $50 just for a van service to the airport from surrounding communities. The cost of getting to the airport is sometimes more than the cost of the airplane ticket. Yes, that's just how crazy it is. Because of the cars, and because there is no public transportation system for most of the people on the freeways.

I don't know if California is the worst state in the country for traffic, but it must be right up there. Here's a link to a blog about light-speed rails for California. http://cahsr.blogspot.com/

Button Up Your Overcoat, Baby. It's Cold Out There.

It's like the elephant in the living room. Nobody wants to talk about it, stir something up, so they just walk around it, or put a slipcover over it, pretend it's a sofa.

But here's the thing: what if those Wall Street Criminals, the Financial Cartels, have stolen so much money, looted so many businesses and moved the rest off-shore, that all of us plunge into severe poverty. For the rest of our lives? What then?

I don't want to hear about perseverance in the face of troubles. I'm too old to jump onto boxcars. And besides, where can we all go?

What are the new unemployment numbers? I think they said 7 million collecting unemployment compensation. And about 7 million more who have either exhausted their unemployment compensation or only have part-time work, when they want full-time. That means the real unemployment level is around 14%, and it's still early in the year. They've said to expect layoffs to continue through 2009. So if we get 20%, or 25 or 30%, will the Republicans finally shut the F**k up about whether we should help our own citizens?

FDR's Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 1937 (excerpts)

Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope - because the Nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country's interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

India Celebrates Slum Dog

Bollywood Crushes Hollywood could have been the headlines in India. But they weren't. Instead, the nation of India is holding celebrations across the land because "their" movie, Slumdog Millionaire, won 8 Oscars. In Hollywood, self-proclaimed center of the movie world, a small movie about a poor kid from India ended up winning Best Director and Best Picture. And quite a few other awards as well. The top government officials in India were falling all over themselves congratulating everyone associated with the movie. At last, Bollywood has arrived.
It really was just a pretty traditional western story. But maybe it's the same for a story from India. Poor child in the slum with no hope, no opportunity, nonetheless gets a chance to get rich quick and marry the beautiful girl. Another young man chooses the path of crime and sure destruction. It's an old story, but we fall for it every time, and cheer the young poor kid as he takes on the rich folks and emerges victorious.

I don't know if I should be appalled that the India film industry calls itself Bollywood, so self-identified with Hollywood. I'm sure someone could make an argument about the elimination of ethnic identity, eradiction of culture. But it's also possible they just use that name as a sign of pride, like "We're as good as ....." Just using the term "Hollywood" to mean the most successful film-making center, not necessarily the best.

But it's kind of fun to watch the Oscars and see the mixture of nominees and winners. The straight white male Sean Penn who, as Robert DiNiro said, had somehow managed to convince people to give him roles as a straight man for all these years. Sean Penn receiving the Oscar as Best Actor for his title role in "Milk," and also being celebrated by some for his outspoken acts on behalf of other human rights issues. There was another white male, this one a gay mormon, which was really wonderful. I'm sure the mormon church just cringed: "There Are No Gay Mormons." Actually, I used to know a gay mormon. He was an alcoholic. Don't let those mormons fool you. They've got the same things going on that everyone else does. They just like to think they don't.

Then there was the Indian music guy, apparently quite celebrated in his own country but relatively unknown to us. That's one of the problems with U.S. culture: we don't respect other countries' music, film, art. We're very isolated.

The director of the film, Danny Boyle, is an Irish Catholic born in England. You could certainly tell he was not an American since one of his biggest goals for the Oscars was to bring as many of the cast members to the U.S. as possible for the evening. Many of the cast members are relatively poor, and could never have afforded that trip on their own. Seems like a pretty nice guy, and everybody had something nice to say about him.

Then we had the best supporting actress, Penelope Cruz, from Spain. Best Actress, Kate Winslett from England. Who else? Somewhat of an international tone for the evening. Best documentary was a film about a little girl in India.

I won't say it was the best year for movies, but there were some that were worthwhile. I loved Rachel Getting Married, for example. I haven't seen Frozen River, but I love Melissa Leo so look forward to seeing that.

"Slumdog Millionaire team walks the red carpet at Oscars." (from The Times of India)
"British director Danny Boyle shepherded the extended ``Slumdog Millionaire'' family down the red carpet Sunday to the Kodak Theatre for the Academy Awards ceremony. ``Some of the cast are from very poor backgrounds but it's wonderful to have them all here because we treated them all as equals throughout,'' Boyle told an interviewer for the E! cable television network. The nine cast members - who played the three main characters in the rags-to-riches fairy tale - were all on hand for the Oscars ceremony. The two youngest cast members, who still live in Mumbai's slums, were making their first trip outside India. Freida Pinto, the Mumbai-based model who made her screen debut as the hero's love interest in ``Slumdog'' described her experience as ``career-changing.'' ``This is the happiest moment ever because all nine of us are here ... and it's wonderful to have everyone back together in one big `Slumdog' family,'' Pinto told ABC television. The six younger stars of ``Slumdog Millionaire'' - the boys dressed in tuxedos and the girls in formal dresses - were greeted with cheers and blew kisses as they walked the red carpet. ``It's unbelievable,'' said Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala, 15, who plays the hero's brother as a teenager in the film. ``We never thought we'd be here but we are.''

From India Times, reprinted from Economic Times:
"God Save Rahman. That's what Allah Rakha Rahman means. And that's what the country said Monday for the man who became the first Indian music director to win two Oscars for his score in the globally appreciated film "Slumdog Millionaire" and for the film's theme song "Jai Ho".

"Rahman, a household name in India for his contribution to Bollywood, as well as regional cinema from the south, has been the cynosure of all ears since 1992 when he burst on the Indian musical scene with his refreshingly different tunes for the Tamil film "Roja". He has moved on from being a celebrated composer in India to a global music supernova who has entered the record books as the first Indian to get a Golden Globe, the first Indian to get the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) award for music and the first Indian to bag a golden Oscar statuette. With "Slumdog Millionaire", Danny Boyle's rags to riches drama based on a book by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup, the 41-year-old Rahman has stuck gold - and so has India and Indian music. The film had 10 Oscar nominations, including three for Rahman - he was nominated for Best Original Score and two for the Best Original Song for a motion picture with his songs "Jai Ho" and "O Saaya".

"It was another first for an Indian. For India, the "Slumdog" awards story, which some say is as improbable as the film itself about an 18-year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai who goes on to win a staggering Rs.20 million ($410,000) on India's "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" game show, is not just about the BAFTAs and the Oscars. It is also recognition of popular Indian cinema in the West that for long has shunned Indian movies as too long and too full of song-and-dance sequences. Rahman's exuberant score has shattered all those perceptions, and shown that the West likes the sound of India. "It's a moment of pride not just for me. India has done it," Rahman said modestly. "

The Top-Level Insiders From The Financial Cartels Are Habitual Offenders, And Should Be Imprisoned For Life.

We always say that we are a nation of laws. That means that we have a set of laws, and they are applied fairly to all people, to the king and the peasant, to the millionaire and the pauper, to the powerful and the weak.

But that was not true during the Bush years. Many of the insiders in the Bush administration committed international war crimes and caused the deaths of over one million Iraqis. Will they ever be charged, tried, brought before the law? And many of the wealthiest people in this country, along with our political leaders in Washington D.C., have committed financial crimes, robbing the poorest, the weakest, those who have no safety net, yet the criminals have not yet been charged or apprehended. And so far, it looks like they're going to get away with it.

If we are not a nation of laws, if we do not arrest, try, and imprison these people, then we are just a failed police state in which the laws are used to punish poor people while the rich get away with murder.

THREE-STRIKES HABITUAL OFFENDER POOR PEOPLE'S LAWS

Back in the 1990s the right-wingers once again diverted the public from their real problems (frozen wages, foreign trade laws giving other countries rights to dump products in the U.S., the beginning of the massive inequality in wealth in the U.S.) by saturating the airwaves and newspapers with lurid stories of crime, preferably of the type involving dismembering or mutilation and lots of blood. These crimes were the focus of so much media attention that many isolated and fearful suburbanites began telling the tale of the Serial Killer Next-Door. No one could be trusted. Everyone was a suspect. Particularly the kids. And anyone who wasn't white.

Politicians always love to see the public obsessing about street crimes, because it usually means nobody is paying attention to the politicians as they take bribes and spend their days sitting on their corrupt asses and doing nothing for the public. So the politicians fed into the media-crime-wave stories by introducing one new bill, new law after the other, with lots of press conferences, each new law more ridiculous and punitive than the last.

Many states adopted what are commonly referred to as "Three Strikes" laws. Others call them "habitual offender laws" and call the people to whom those laws are applied "prior and persistent offenders." The laws are ridiculous and if our courts weren't packed with right-wing hacks, they would have all been overturned. Here's the idea. Let's say the law provides that if somebody robs a business, takes money or property, they may be sentenced to 1-5 years in prison. The Three-Strikes Laws provide that if somebody has been convicted of a felony at least two times before the current charges, and the defendant is found guilty on the current charge of robbery, then the judge should sentence the defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, even though the law says that for a robbery, he should only get 1-5 years. And there is usually no requirement that the crime involve violence. Just taking money, or products, qualifies for life imprison.
Among the problems with this ridiculous law is that you have kids in this country who get off on the wrong foot, with little education, no family support. And they can easily rob a gas station or pizza parlor, or be with somebody who does, 3 times before they are even 21 years old. That's because they're kind of stupid. But it doesn't really mean they are hopeless. It's just that they are young and stupid, and have no direction. But even if there was no violence associated with these robberies, some kid can get life in prison.

Remember Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon yelling "At-ti-ca, At-ti-ca," while the crowd cheered. He was referencing extreme police brutality in a riot in Attica. Nothing has really changed in the past 40 years except that the building and operations of prisons has become big business. They still are mostly designed to hold and punish poor people. Our society is more unforgiving and punitive when it comes to crimes committed by the poor, but the wealthy and powerful are rarely held accountable for their crimes against society.
Someone should go through the dockets and see how many Wall Street Criminals have been given life imprison for being repeat offenders. Or any rich person, for that matter, any politician, anyone who wears nice shoes or maybe a suit to work, anybody who owns a home, anybody with a college education. I don't think there are any.

Instead of calling them Three Strikes Laws, they should call them Poor People's Laws, because they're only applied to poor people who commit street-level crimes. The public doesn't want to know this, but most murderers are one-time killers only. They do it once, never again. So the Three Strikes Laws are generally used against poor, uneducated, unemployed, usually not too smart low-level non-violent thiefs who, if somebody would just give them a chance, would probably never commit another crime, but they've got nothing else going on. Throw-aways. High-school drop-outs often from alcoholic or violent and abusive homes. Out on the streets, on their own, drifting into petty crimes.

THE PURPOSE OF HAVING CRIMINAL LAWS

What is the purpose of having criminal laws? The government identifies certain conduct which is considered not just harmful to the immediate victim, but harmful to society as a whole because it is a threat to and disruptive of the entire community. If Tom slaps Mary in the face, but Mary really isn't hurt, Mary nonetheless can sue Tom in civil courts and seek to recover damages for battery. If Tom smacks Mary in the head with a steel pipe, and Mary is seriously injured, the government (the District Attorney) may step in and "sue" Tom by charging him with a criminal law violation, and seek to put Tom in prison. So we have two sets of laws: civil laws for individuals to use to recover when they have personally been injured; and criminal laws which the government uses to punish people, or fine or imprison them, for their conduct. Often the same act will give rise to both a civil law claim for the victim and a criminal law claim that can be brought by the district attorney.

But why do we have criminal laws? Theoretically Mary could sue Tom for money damages regardless of how serious her injuries were. So why involve the government? Why have jails and prisons?

There are different theories about why we have criminal laws, prosecutions, fines, and sometimes imprisonment enforced by the state. Here are a few of the reasons:

1. To punish the wrongdoer. Simple and clear.

2. To protect the members of society from the dangerous person. Under this theory, Tom might go around hitting other people in the head with a pipe, so the government will arrest him and, if he is convicted, put him in prison so he cannot hurt other people.

3. Deterrance. If Tom is in prison, he will be personally deterred from doing this to anyone else. By putting him in prison, it also sends a message to other people in society that they should not engage in this type of behavior, or they too will end up in prison.

4. Reinforcing social mores. Societies have general attitudes and beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong. If citizens look around and see that nobody else is following the law, or people like Tom do whatever they want and there are no consequences, it has the corrosive effect of wearing down all of society's written and unwritten understandings and agreements about how we should behave towards each other.

5. Revenge. For the injured individual and for society as a whole. Sometimes people just want to get even, and putting the offender in prison is a form of revenge.

WALL STREET, FINANCIAL CRIMINALS

How does all of this apply to the financial criminals? There is a small group of people who have looted our country. They have defrauded many of our citizens, they have bribed our politicians, they have looted businesses and state and business and private pensions, stolen our savings accounts and the funding to buy desks for our children's schools. If it wasn't nailed down, they stole it. Mostly they hauled it out of the country in their private planes, and they have hidden the money in private banks and private equity funds. The country is broke, but these few people are now the wealthiest people in the world. They took my money and I want it back.

Each one of their transactions can be charged in a separate complaint as a separate felony, and two convictions obtained before bringing the last set. Then go for the three-stikes, and put them in prison for the rest of their lives. And of course take back all the money. If they won't tell us where the money is, then go find it. It won't be that hard to get somebody in their organization to flip and tell us where they put the money.

You can leave your expensive suits at home, boys. You won't need them where you're going.

Just think about it: they're probably all Republicans, probably all love the idea of Three-Strikes Laws being used against 17-year-old high school drop-outs, probably loved all those Republican Law & Order candidates. Payback's a bitch.

Then go after the politicians. Make them pay back every penny they took from the Financial Cartels into a public fund to use for public purposes. For the worst of them, charge them, try them, throw them in prison too.

This is a rather mild suggestion compared to what Bill Maher discussed on his show on Friday night. He mentioned that China executes the corporate heads who harm the public by, for example, mixing poison in their foodstuff to increase their profits. Maher thinks we should just pick two men from Wall Street, kill them, cut their balls off and stuff them in their mouths, hang their bodies outside the New York Stock Exchange for everyone to see. That would serve all of the important reasons we have criminal laws: (1) Punishment; (2) Protect society (they won't be stealing my money ever again); (3) Deterrance; (4) Reinforcing social mores (there would be dancing in the streets); and (5) Revenge. Yes, I think that would be enough revenge.

But I don't believe in the death penalty. So I offer this humble alternative. Indict the top 25 insiders of each Wall Street institution and any part of the Financial Cartel. Take back the money they stole from us. Send them to prison for life.

I'll send them a postcard with a picture of Attica on the front, and this message: Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.

The New York Post Promotes Violence And Murder.

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch or some corporation he owns, is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and is used by him to advocate the maiming and/or murder of certain Americans. The Post promotes hatred and violence, using a member of whichever weaker group happens to be available: women, minorities, people who advocate for justice and decency, they're all fair game. When Murdoch bought the Mets and Mike Piazza wouldn't bow down to kiss his feet, Piazza moved to L.A. and was given a hero's welcome. But Murdoch didn't leave it alone, instead using the Post to attack Piazza in his personal life, pursuing a vendetta worthy of a despot or criminally deranged monster. The New York Post is a disgrace to yellow press journalism everywhere.

So this week they published and circulated a drawing showing a monkey being murdered, shot, by a group of policemen, and a saying that he won't be able to pass anymore stimulus bills. This drawing clearly was intended to, and did convey to the public at large, and to the extreme right-wing in this country, that Obama was dangerous and should be murdered. There is no other way to read that racist communication.

When the public was appalled, and spoke out against this racist drawing and communication being promoted by the Post, the Post originally claimed they were absolutely right to promote this violence, but eventually issued a non-apology form of apology (we did not intend to offend, but if we did, we may kind of regret it in some cases).

New York Post's Official Statement:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit
the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks
Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself
as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Response:

"The New York Post is a clear parody of a current news paper,
to wit pretending to be a daily newspaper, it broadly mocks journalism's efforts
to revive the profession. Again, Rupert Murdoch reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Here's a citizen (above) outside the Post building, letting Rupert Murdoch know that some of the citizens object to the New York Post promoting violence and murder, and will not be silenced any longer by Murdoch's bullying tactics.

Remember this face below. This man, this ugly, wrinkled, red, saggy old man, who wasn't even born here, who came here and has taken advantage of this country to line his own pockets and to promote hatred and violence and racism and sexism, this man who must be quite old, should be considering the fact that he is closer to a coffin than he is to youth or vitality, this man chooses to spend his last days or years on earth promoting hatred and violence, trying to destroy the United States and its people. This man is evil.

Don't Worry About The Dow, Or Real Estate. Worry About Jobs.

Since 1980, the federal government, the richest people in this country, the CEOs, Wall Street, and the Bankers have largely been working together to make themselves richer and make the rest of us poorer. They've been remarkably successful in their quest, by freezing wages, cutting funding for every social program including education and healthcare, packing the courts with right-wing hacks who rule against workers, injured consumers, defrauded investors, in all lawsuits, eliminating job security, passing laws to encourage businesses to send their work overseas to be done by slave, child, or prison labor, and by authorizing businesses to import cheap, shoddy, defective, sometimes poisoned products and food into this country without any restrictions or limitations.

Every single law that is passed is designed to take more rights away from working people, and give more control to a small group of the wealthy elite. If there is a conflict between the working people of this country, and the elite of some other country, our government and our upper classes always side with the rich people from the other country. They are traitors.

For example, when George W. Bush took office, he went to Mexico to his good friend President Vincent Fox, another corporate elite insider. Fox wanted to send millions of the citizens of Mexico to the U.S. to do work, because the rich people in Mexico steal all the money for themselves, and leave their own people with nothing. Bush said fine, and as a result, at least 20 million, possibly as many as 40 million illegal immigrants were brought into the U.S. with the specific approval of the Bush administration, to take jobs from Americans. One of Bush's last big pushes was to try to get a law enacted that would have allowed Mexican truckers to come into the U.S. and take all the trucking work away from the Teamsters, to bust the unions in this country, and to further enrich businesses by allowing them to pay very little money for trucking.

But Bush wasn't alone. They even have a name for it, a model. This is all intentional. The goal has been to crush American workers down to the point that they are the same, same income, same level of poverty, as all other workers throughout the world. In other words, if you think things are bad now, just wait and see what it's going to be like for your kids.

If all workers live on starvation wages, work day to day with absolutely no rights, then the rich people are free to roam the world, set up shop wherever they want with no unions, no environment controls, no worker protection, no goggles or hardhats or protective shoes required. Just rape the people and the resources of any country, and at the first sign of rebellion, move on. If the people are poor and desperate, they will take whatever the corporations are willing to give them. That is what the U.S. corporations are doing to the people of this country. On purpose. With the assistance of much of the federal government.

Bill Clinton got various trade laws passed to let the corporations do just that -- send jobs to third world countries, import crap and dump it here in the U.S. With no rights for workers. Bush extended and expanded what Clinton set up. In the recent stimulus bill, there was a huge ruckus over language saying that we need to use this money to buy materials here in the U.S. In other words, there is no point in spending billions to re-build our infrastructure to try to help our country if the materials (i.e. steel) are all bought from China, and the labor is all brought in from Mexico. That does not help Americans at all.

Yet everyone in the federal government said we can't have "buy American" provisions, because it would anger some foreign country. Screw the foreign country. If our government says we legally can't have provisions requiring buy American and hire American, then we need to rescind those laws. Who will stand up for American working people if our own government won't? Yes Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (and Reagan, and Daddy Bush) have set up a terrible system. But we need to start undoing that. Now would be the right time.

The people who own everything in this country have a very sophisticated PR machine to fool the public while our lives are being destroyed. For awhile we had the tech bubble. Remember, everybody owned tech stock, all we heard about were secretaries becoming millionaires overnight with stock options, everybody was investing in tech. Then it all collapsed, the CEOs and the financial media walked away with all the money the public had invested, and the public lost a bundle.

Then we had real estate. Suddenly the public was told: Don't pay attention to your frozen wages, ignore the fact that you have no job security, that your employer no longer pays for your health insurance or pension, that you have no employment future: buy a home, get rich. And the media started telling us that all you had to do was buy a home, no matter how tough it was to make the payments, no matter how expensive the house was. Get in, survive for a year or two and you can refinance, take out a bunch of money, pay off everything else. It would never stop. And don't worry about the no pension problem, because when you're 55 you can retire, sell the house, and take the money and buy something cheap, live on the rest.

Who was building all these houses? Real estate developers financed by banks, hiring illegal immigrants at $8/hour, and selling homes for two to three times what they had sold for 5 years before. Developers got rich. The entire building trades unionized American workforce was thrown out of work and replaced with poor and desperate illegal immigrants. Banks got rich making huge loans and then selling them to Iceland. And then that bubble burst too.

And now we all spend our days fearful of Dow. Dow is holding its breath and turning blue. Dow is angry that Obama's stimulus package didn't include even more billions for Wall Street. Dow is angry that some suggest hearings to question what in the hell these Wall Street Criminals did with the $350 Billion they stole from us last year. Dow is angry that some suggest every single employee above clerical from Wall Street should be thrown in Attica for life. So Dow is having a fit. I say let them. Because Dow is just another diversion. Unless you're a multi-millionaire, your problem is not Dow. Besides, they've already stolen half our money, what more can they do?

It's all about jobs. All Americans, at least 90% of us, work for a living. We need to work in order to have shelter, food, clothing, medical care. We will likely work our entire lives, from very young until slightly before we die. We need job security. We need to have rights in our jobs, to prevent employers from moving to China to use slave labor. We need a living wage. We need health care, education, and fully-funded pensions. As consumers, we need safety in all products. As investors, we need protection against those who would defraud us, and who do so again and again. And we need an honest government, and we need to stop our politicians from taking bribes.

But mostly we need jobs. All the obsession about Dow is a diversion. It's like saying the Queen is unhappy with her pearl necklace and wants diamonds. Most people have more concrete worries, like how to pay the bills, buy food, get through another day. Jewels are the trivial obsession of the rich, not a proper concern of most working people. The same is true of the Dow. Look over here (while they steal more jobs). Look over there (while they loot Social Security). Look behind you (while they start more wars to allow the oil companies to steal more resources).

My suggestion is that people keep their eye on the ball. We need jobs. If Dow was at 20,000, but we have 20% actual employment, most of our lives will be horrible. A few rich people would be happy, but the rest of us will be desperate. Ignore Dow. We need jobs.

Rupert Murdoch: Right-wing Racist Scum.

Have You Seen This Bigot?

Most of the terrorism in this country comes from our own streets, not from overseas. The most frequent victims of violence are women, beaten or murdered by husbands and boyfriends; blacks or minorities or gays assaulted by bigots; and the unfortunate on-going children's violence fueled by organizations which glorify violence and hatred of others.

As most people know by now, Rupert Murdoch is an extreme right-winger who has used his wealth to gain a monopoly control over television and newspapers in the U.S., to peddle trashy, violent, anti-human hate-promoting programs on television, to support ultra-right organizations including the Bush regime in their destruction of our constitution and democracy, and in the waging of wars against people across the world.

To no one's surprise, Rupert Murdoch is also a bigot, deserving of an honorary membership in the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Aryan Nations.

Yesterday one of his rags, the New York Post, published racist hate-speech intended to incite others to violence, what they called a "cartoon," but what really was pictoral race-hatred similar to that of the southern white racists of long ago, similar to that of the Klan and the Nazis. This drawing showed a monkey being shot to death by the police, and the caption said something to the effect that he wouldn't be able to pass anymore stimulus bills. Of course President Obama had just signed the stimulus bill yesterday morning. So the drawing clearly was intended to, and did, convey to the public the idea that Obama is a monkey, a Klan/Nazi mantra, that he has passed a stimulus bill which is so horrible that he should be murdered by the police or by anyone else who is willing to step up.

That's what this drawing is promoting: murder. Or, in more technical terms, it is a conspiracy by the person who drew the hate-speech picture, the yellow-rag Post, and its bigotted owner Murdoch, to incite violence.

Rupert Murdoch should be charged with conspiracy to incite violence against all black people and more specifically to incite violence to cause great bodily injury or death to the President, and to encourage others to commit hate crimes against a specific minority group in this country.


He should also be sued in civil court by representatives of black people in this country whose lives are endangered by this type of hate speech and violence-promoting propaganda.

His right to own any media in this country should be taken away by law, and if he owns media in other countries, they should be prohibited from selling inside the U.S. Would we allow a pedophile-promoter to circulate newspapers advocating the rape of children? Of course not. And we should not allow this despicable bigot to own newspapers and use them to promote the murder of our elected officials, and violence or murder of all non-whites in this country.

Finally, he should be deported. Send him back to his country of origin, if they'll take him. Revoke his right to live here. He's scum.

A few years ago the Southern Poverty Law Center sued the Aryan Nations in Hayden Lake, Idaho, and got an enormous judgment against them based upon that group's promotion of violence to their members which had contributed to some of the members committing an act of violence against innocent outsiders. The Aryan Nations group promoted the same type of racist hatred being pushed by the bigotted Rupert Murdoch, and had been called a "terrorist threat" by the FBI. (See Wikipedia, Aryan Nations).

The same type of theory could be applied to Rupert Murdoch in a civil proceeding to seek a judgment against him, seize all his ownership of media. Then tell the Justice Department that their 8-year vacation from civil rights enforcement is over, and they need to indict this guy.

Is Rupert Murdoch a terrorist? We've got some fairly insane laws on the books that have been used to imprison people for being stupid. As long as Murdoch has been such a big supporter of the all-encompassing "war on terrorism," maybe those laws could be used against him. He's probably not an international terrorist. But is he guilty of domestic terrorism? See (5) below: term "domestic terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ....

Does the publication of a racist drawing depicting and portraying as proper, maybe necessary, imperative, good, the murder of the president of the United States constitute a violation of any of the criminal laws of any state in this country? Some states have laws prohibiting hate crimes, or crimes targeting a specific group of people who are members of an unpopular minority. How about a conspiracy to violate those laws? Would that be enough?

And if so, maybe we should re-think that whole issue of closing Guantanamo. There would be a certain ironic fun in sending Murdoch there for the rest of his life. Hopefully he could spend his days whining to Bush and Cheney, if we ever get around to war crimes tribunals.

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2331. Definitions
As used in this chapter -

(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2) the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term "person" means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of -
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mas destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

PBS's "Inside The Meltdown" Misses The Point: It's A Crime Story, Not A Human Interest Fluff Piece.

I watched "Inside the Meltdown" on Frontline, on PBS, last night. It was a thriller and nail-biter, going from one nearly-collapsed major financial institution to the next Oh My God Will We Survive moment, Indiana Jones in the Concrete Canyons, but without any rational discussion or analysis of how we got here, and who stole the money. Instead, they mindlessly recited the current cover-up story that nobody knew, nobody saw it coming, everybody was stupid (Oh yeah -- if they're so stupid, how come they got all the money?). The one-hour coverage was exciting but ultimately the equivalent of vaseline on the lens to make the aging movie stars look pretty.

For anyone planning to do more documentaries on this subject, here's a clue: IT'S A CRIME STORY, not a human interest story. They would put more intensity and passion in a one-hour story about some 14-year-old kid who stole $20 from a pizza parlor. But for this, they present the criminals as if they were sympathetic characters who we should all support. Yeah. Poor Guys. I'd like to see every one of them in prison.

What did Bonnie and Clyde say (at least in the movie)? "Hi. We're Bonnie and Clyde. We Rob Banks." That would have been a better title for a story of how Wall Street, the Financial Cartels, and the Bush government, along with too many of the politicians in Congress, looted our country and left most of us broke.
This program presented the whole plundering and looting of our country like it was some sensitive human interest story. Lots of black and white studied photos of Paulson and Bernanke and Wall Street Insiders looking serious. Just like the photos we're used to seeing in historical coverage of things like the Cuban Missile Crisis. So now we're supposed to think the criminal enterprise that has stolen all our money is somehow dignified, worthy of hushed tones, respected people? Give me a break. If these people were good people, they would have stood up on a platform and said: "Go seize the assets of these Wall Street Criminals and throw them in prison. Stop them, quick, before they get away." But they didn't say that. Instead they said "Who knows what happened, or why, we're all stupid."

Instead of showing us carefully-selected black and white or sepia-toned photos of these men who participated in one of the biggest crimes in the history of our country, they should have peppered the tale with photos like this one, of Billy the Kid, which is certainly a better example of these Wall Street Criminals:
Another title for the program could have been: "We're All As Stupid As A-Rod." A-Rod had a press conference yesterday in which he kept trying to convince the public that he was really stupid. He convinced me. But I don't think that means he didn't know he was taking steroids. Come on Alex, fess up. And somebody needs to go back and look at the list of demands when he went to Seattle, which I believe included a private area for his personal use pre-game with his trainer. To do what? Shoot up?

Among the most annoying aspects were the man-crush still photos of people like Paulson and Bernanke. Over and over again, the black-and-white headshot, Hank Paulson from a certain angle almost looking handsome, certainly looking sincere and concerned. A very man-crush photo. Whoever picked it out wanted the viewer to think: Thank God for Hank Paulson. Thank God he was there to save us. Yeah, sure.

They also essentially repeated the story that the Democrats started putting out a few weeks ago to quell the angry mobs forming in the streets -- the unemployed and broke, near homeless angry mobs. The new story is that Congress had no choice but to give the Wall Street Criminals $350 Billion last fall. If they had not done it, the entire world would have come to an end. No. Really. The whole world.

How stupid do they think we are?

Paulson is a Wall Street representative, a Goldman Sachs man who made $800 million for himself on Wall Street. He went to work for Bush. What does that tell us? He signed on to the neocon wet-dream of stealing everything from the U.S., turning it all over to the elite few. Then he goes to Congress with a ransom note from Wall Street that says: "Give Us All The Money Or We'll Blow The Whole Place Up." And shrugs his shoulders, as if to say "What can I do?" And Congress says "OK."
If Congress really believed we were on the edge of a financial meltdown, all the Wall Street and Financial Cartels were almost broke, why did Congress keep taking money from these Wall Street Criminals right through to the end of the year? If Wall Street really was on the eve of destruction, why did they take $18 billion off the top and pay it to the insiders as bonuses. Walking-around money. And again, how stupid do they think we are?

I hope somebody (I know Danny Schechter is trying) does a real film, real coverage of what has happened to our country. Because here's the thing: somebody got the money. It didn't disappear. A few people stole most of the money from the people of the U.S., from our Treasury, and even from many countries in the rest of the world. They have hidden that money in what they call secret "Private Equity Funds." Off-shore. Billions, maybe trillions of dollars. The money didn't disappear. It just ended up in fewer pockets. Our government needs to seize that money, bring it back here for the benefit of our people, and throw the thieves in prison.

How much funding does PBS get from Wall Street? How could anybody make a one-hour program about what has happened to the people of this country and fail to mention that the top 10% have grown amazingly richer under this same system, that the money did not disappear, it was just taken from most of us and stolen by the few. But then again I sometimes think the people who are covering this melt-down just lack a basic understanding of economics. Not so much that they are trying to mislead -- they just don't understand.

For example, one of the companies they discussed was Lehman Brothers. The head guy was someone that Paulson supposedly really really really didn't like. So Paulson let Lehman Brothers go down the tubes. Does that sound like crisis decisions or somebody using his powerful position to get revenge against an old competitor and apparently an enemy? But the thing is, what happened to all the money Lehman Brothers earned? They were selling bundled mortgages, essentially, and got lots of money in the door from doing that. I believe the program said they were also selling insurance, essentially -- insuring or guaranteeing that some other investment would never default. They got money for the insurance they sold. Where did all the money go? The insiders took it.

These are the kind of photos we should have seen in last night's PBS offering about the plundering of our country by the Wall Street Criminals and the politicians they own. Al Capone would have been in awe at this massive theft of the public's money by Wall Street and some corrupt politicians.

At the conclusion of the program, the viewer is left with no understanding whatsoever about what happened. The evil spirits did it, or maybe it was terrorists, or communists, or just bad luck. No explanation that:

(1) Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton, during the end of the Clinton administration, promoted policies to eliminate laws that controlled and regulated the financial institutions. Rubin immediately went over to an extremely grateful Citicorp, got a nice office and a big desk and reportedly over $100 million. And we all know that Bill Clinton left office and has been given hundreds of millions of dollars from, among others, the major financial cartels, presumably grateful for having all the laws changed to let them plunder the country.

(2) The Financial Cartels defrauded the public by making loans knowing full well the borrowers could never repay, would default, and would end up in foreclosure.

(3) The Financial Cartels then took millions of dollars' worth of mortgages (like a surprise box at an auction), bundled them together, hid the really stinky ones inside and put a few good ones on the outside, and sold fractional interests in the bundle to an ignorant public who were told that the loans were 100% secured, a sure thing.

(4) The Financial Cartels charged hundreds of millions of dollars for this activity.

(5) As the hundreds of millions of dollars came into the front door of the Financial Cartels, the insiders shuffeled it out the back door, out of the country, and into secret private equity funds where no one can ever trace it, knowing they were looting the country and their own businesses.

(6) The Financial Cartels paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to Congress to make sure they would look the other way as the entire country entered a period of grossly inflated real estate, grossly obscene interest rates being charged to average Americans for non-secured loans (i.e. credit cards), while the rich paid less and less in taxes, and working people earned less and less.

(7) Congress and the Financial Cartels have worked and are working together to sell the country on a cover-up to hide their own liability for what they have done.

How could they quote Barney Frank chastising Wall Street without reporting that Barney Frank takes a lot of money from Wall Street. Isn't that information really necessary to tell the whole story?

Here's the only truthful statement in the whole hour. Some guy said that when Paulson went to Congress with the ransom note from Wall Street saying give us all the money or we'll blow the whole place up, "It was like Shock and Awe." Yes indeed, it certainly was. And brought to us by the same people, and for the same purpose. Paulson and Wall Street were just carrying out the final act of the Bush-Cheney neocon plundering of our nation. The "crisis" was as legitimate as were the so-called WMDs that Bush-Cheney claimed Iraq had, which allowed Bush-Cheney to steal $800 Billion from the American taxpayers to use to turn control of Iraq over to the U.S. oil companies.

Naomi Klein has written extensively about this in her book "The Shock Doctrine." The premise is that they start with shock and awe -- a truly dramatic, horrifying, threatening act (like telling the people the entire world's financial system will collapse) then quickly, before people have time to examine the claim, they move in and steal everything. That's what happened. When will somebody tell the truth? And more important, when will somebody seize assets and throw these criminals in prison?

Now that I think about it, maybe they should have titled their one-hour program: "The Godfather Part IV."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

Jump! Jump! Jump!

Our country is broke. Our states are now "failed" states. The United Failed States. Employees are being laid off so fast that the stationary big-box stores have run out of pink slip forms. Unemployment compensation offices have months of backlogs just to process the new claimants.

So why doesn't our government go and grab the assets of the people who have done this to us? The Wall Street Criminals, the financial cartels. After all, money doesn't really "disappear." It just gets transferred from one person's wallet to another person's private secret off-shore equity fund.

When George W. Bush took office Dow was at 10,400, we had close to full employment, and a surplus in the federal government. Things was just hummin' along. Good times. Today, after 8 years of looting and pillaging by Bush and his friends, Dow closed at 7,500, about 72% of what it was in 2000. Not to mention the fact that most people have lost half their savings, retirements, pensions, equity in their homes. Many are now unemployed. So what are we waiting for? Breadlines?

Do we need to have millions sleeping outside or in their cars before somebody will go grab those criminals from Wall Street and take back the money they've stolen from us?
These Wall Street criminals built themselves palaces in which to do their terrible deeds. Today many of the rooms are vacant, the employees fired. Or hiding. Or afraid to walk the street past the angry crowds waiting below. Peering up to the highest windows of those very tall buildings. And yelling Jump! Jump! Jump! at every wall street criminal that passes them by.

Angry crowds could gather at any moment on the streets below the big high-rises of the Financial Cartels on Wall Street, screaming: Jump! Jump! Jump!

Can you believe these people have the nerve to hang a flag on the crime scene? It's kind of like the Pedophiles of America waving flags in front of them as they go about their terrible deeds, insisting they are true patriots. I think they should surround this building with yellow police tape saying "Crime Scene. Keep Out."
Jump! Jump! Jump! the crowd might cheer to the people hiding inside the buildings on Wall Street.


I want my money back. If these Wall Street Criminals don't have the decency to jump out of their windows, then we need to go up and arrest them, seize their assets, try them, and send them to prison for the rest of their lives.

Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln and George Washington

O CAPTAIN! MY CAPTAIN!
Walt Whitman (1819––1892).
(First published 1865; about Lincoln’s death)

O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up - for you the flag is flung - for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths - for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head.
It is some dream that on the deck,
You’ve fallen cold and dead.

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;
Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
But I, with mournful tread, Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.



"George Washington Crossing the Delaware," by Emanuel Leutze, depicts a moment in the revolutionary war when Washington led the troops across the Delaware River to surprise the English troops in the Battle of Trenton, the day after Christmas, 1776.

When Washington led the troops to throw out the English and gain independence, the question remained whether Washington would in fact step aside and allow the citizens to choose a civil leader (president) or whether, in command of the military and at the peak of his power, Washington would instead declare himself King. You know, like George W. Bush did after he stole the election. Stole both elections, actually. When Washington stepped down, it was considered an astonishing step forward towards the ideals of freedom and democracy.

John Greenleaf Whittier (1807 - 1892) was one of a group of American poets, in the 1800s, commonly known as the fireside poets. Their poems rhymed and often had a certain cadance that made them easy for memorization by schoolchildren. He was also an abolitionist, opposing the practice of slavery. Below is a part of his poem about George Washington entitled "Washington's Vow."

"Washington's Vow."

The sword was sheathed: In April's sun
Lay green the fields by Freedom won;
And severed sections, weary of debates,
Joined hands at last and were United States.

O City sitting by the Sea!
How proud the day that dawned on thee,
When the new era, long desired, began,
And, in its need, the hour had found the man! ....

How felt the land in every part
The strong throb of a nation's heart,
As its great leader gave, with reverent awe,
His pledge to Union, Liberty, and Law!

That pledge the heavens above him heard,
That vow the sleep of centuries stirred;
In world-wide wonder listening peoples bent
Their gaze on Freedom's great experiment.

Could it succeed? Of honor sold
And hopes deceived all history told.
Above the wrecks that strewed the mournful past,
Was the long dream of ages true at last?

Thank God! The people's choice was just,
The one man equal to his trust,
Wise beyond lore, and without weakness good,
Calm in the strength of flawless rectitude!

His rule of justice, order, peace,
Made possible the world's release;
Taught prince and serf that power is but a trust,
And rule alone, which serves the ruled, is just.

That Freedom generous is, but strong
In hate of fraud and selfish wrong,
Pretence that turns her holy truth to lies,
And lawless license masking in her guise.

Land of his love! With one glad voice
Let thy great sisterhood rejoice;
A century's suns o'er thee have risen and set,
And, God be praised, we are one nation yet.

And still we trust the years to be
Shall prove his hope was destiny,
Leaving our flag, with all its added stars,
Unrent by faction and unstained by wars.
....

George Washington led the colonists to prevail in the war of independence against England, and, in 1789, became the first President of the United States. His policy promoted the goal that the U.S. should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. His farewell address when he left office specifically warned against this nation ever becoming involved in foreign wars. Too bad nobody ever listens.

We Need More Holidays And One Big Union

We need more holidays.

We used to have two February holidays from school and work: February 12 (Abraham Lincoln's birthday) and February 22 (George Washington's birthday). Now those two have been combined into one holiday, called Presidents' Day. A lot of people have to work today despite the holiday. And a lot of people are unemployed. What are we going to do about this?

These are the paid holidays I remember: (1) New Years (2) Lincoln's birthday; (3) Washington's birthday; (4) (in some places) Good Friday; (5) Memorial Day; (6) 4th of July; (7) Labor Day; (8) Veterans Day; (9) Thanksgiving; (10) Christmas. Some places also used to give their employees their birthdays off, paid. Actually, I also recall Admissions Day as a paid holiday (when the state joined the union).

Now many businesses only have five paid holidays: President's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving. They shut down their entire business from December 24 to January 2, without pay, so no paid holidays for Christmas or New Years. If people can't afford to go a full week without pay, they have to use their vacation days to get paid. So actually, people are only getting one weeks' vacation, since the second week is used to cover the one-week when the business closes and nobody gets paid.

Working people in this country used to get at least 10 paid holidays in addition to two weeks paid vacation, two weeks sick leave, employer-paid health insurance, and an employer-paid pension. Every year that an employee worked, the employer would put a certain amount of money into a pension fund for that employee. What the heck happened to workers' rights in this country? In Europe, working people receive much more time off and better benefits than Americans do. But their CEOs also aren't allowed to loot the businesses, rob the country blind. The people are considered to have basic rights like a living wage, affordable housing, healthcare, education, and a pension for when they retire. Why not us? What happened to our rights?

Ronald Reagan, to start. Those of us who bothered to read history knew Reagan was bad news. As President of the Screen Actors Guild, for example, this B-Movie Actor sold out the working people he was supposed to be representing by testifying at Huac and cozying up to the right-wingers in Washington who were intent on destroying the entire movie-making industry.
It isn't like he had no choice. Lots of people in this country, as well as in Hollywood, stood against Huac and its efforts to destroy our constitution. Reagan went over to join the stomping crowd, rabidly right-wing and anti-worker even as a young man. While others took the more courageous stand against the drunken right-wing neo-fascists in Congress who were running these kangaroo courts known as Huac.
After World War II, this country was briefly run in a manner designed to give most Americans (non-whites continued to be excluded) a decent-paying job, the right to join a union, and an income that would allow them to afford housing, food, clothing, and an education for their children. The right-wing was always against the idea that working people, your average schmoe, should have a decent life.

When Ronald Reagan took office, it marked the beginning of this most recent period of destruction and oppression in our country in which any benefit given to working people was considered bad, and only the accumulation of wealth by the elite was considered good.

Needing help was defined as wrong and bad, weak, so Reagan closed all the mental hospitals that provided housing and 24-hour care for the severely mentally ill, and he literally threw those people out onto the streets where, as rugged individuals, he claimed they'd be better off. Go check out any subway grate, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, park in any city of this country, and you will see exactly what happened to those people. And of course Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers and all but destroyed their union, sending the message across the land that the federal government belonged to business and would destroy any working person who stood up for their rights.

During the Reagan era, we also saw the rise of a dogma that continues to plague us today: the work-till-you-die theory of competition. Everybody, no matter where they worked, was told that "real" men work 80 hour weeks, and if the women want to have decent jobs, they have to do the same. For a brief period, you also had to get up at 4 a.m. to go run 5 miles before work, but that began to fade as people's knees gave out. The neocons actually sold the public on the idea, once again, that the strong survive, the rich deserve it, and anyone who is not willing to work themselves to death is not a company man. Or woman. And as that dogma gained popularity, the business owners turned up the heat and began crushing American workers, taking more and more away. No rest for the weary.
This Reagan assault on your average working person was cheered by the right-wing who began setting up privately-funded and sometimes secret organizations to provide the legal, political, and ideological support for the destruction of democracy in this country.

How best to destroy a nation, take away the power or hope of working people? Throw them out of work, take away their income and their ability to support themselves. That is the culmination of what Reagan began and what, unfortunately, Bill Clinton continued and George W. Bush carried out to its logical conclusion. Crush the working people, steal everything from them, berate them, make them miserable, don't pay them enough for their basic needs. Tell them they are stupid and bad, and deserve what they get. Don't treat them with respect or dignity.
We have 7% "official" unemployment today, but if we include people who lost their jobs but exhausted their unemployment compensation, and people who only have part-time work but want full-time, it's 14% unemployment today. Many predict 14% "actual" unemployment (the part the government counts) by the end of this year, which means maybe 21% or more real unemployment if we include those who lost their jobs but also exhausted their unemployment compensation, and those who can only find part-time work. And of course those who still have jobs get less for their labor.

American workers are told that we are stupid and worthless, we don't deserve jobs, we should lick the boots of anyone who would let us work for them for even a day, we don't deserve a living wage, we would not be having money problems if we weren't so wasteful and stupid and lazy. Yet these are the people who will save our lives when we're sick, care for our parents when they are old, teach our children now, keep our communities safe. Should we support a system which makes these people's lives unbearable, does not pay them enough for them to be able to have a home, healthcare for themselves, to retire someday? Isn't this just an abusive relationship writ large?

You know the abused spouse defense? A woman whose husband beats her finally gets a gun and shoots him in his head, but she gets off because -- he deserved it? I wonder how that defense would work on a national level if the working people of this country finally got sick of being stepped on and verbally abused, and decided to take on the abuser. Of course not with violence. By seizing their assets, by taking over the factories and offices, by sitting down at the borders to prevent Mexican truckers from coming in to take Teamsters' jobs, by targeting businesses that have sent their manufacturing overseas, and shutting them down completely inside the U.S., by having sit-ins at companies that use hb1 workers to throw Americans out of work, sitting in at airports and docks to prevent products manufactured in other countries from being brought into the U.S.. Hit them where it counts, in their pocketbooks.

It's cut-backs and take-backs and give-backs for working people. Things that workers struggled for at the turn of the last century, such as minimum wage, and time and a half for overtime work, have been eliminated during the past 30 years. At the same time, the management of the businesses have radically increased the amount of money that they take out of the business. Essentially, the insiders and CEOs (and Wall Street) have looted the American businesses, looted our country, stolen money from the working people. That is why our country is broke and we now live in failed states. The CEOs, Wall Street, and corporate insiders took all the money.

For example, in 2007 the median compensation package (which includes pay, stock options, other benefits) for CEOs in Standard & Poors 500 was $8.4 million. Compared to the average worker's salary of $55,000. And that $55,000 is worth a lot less now that housing costs almost half of people's take-home, they have no pension so are expected to fund their own pensions, and many employers pay only a small part, if any, of people's health insurance costs. The rich get richer and everyone else goes broke. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25106423/
Of course management has always earned salaries grossly in excess of their worth, but the real looting began in 1980 when Reagan came into office, accelerated dramatically under the famed Republican neocon Bill Clinton, and continued to hold that obscene level through recent years.

In 1980, when Reagan took office, CEOs earned 42 times as much as the average worker.

By 1990, CEOs earned 107 times as much as the average worker. So the CEO's share of the earnings of business had increased by 150%.

By 2000, after Bill Clinton's pro-business, pro-nafta, anti-worker years of control, the CEO's earned 525 times as much as the average worker.

So it went from 107 times as much shortly before Clinton took over, to 525 times as much when he left office. That is what Bill Clinton did for this country. As has been said before, Clinton was a true Republican president. He also set up the new trade laws that would lead to millions of manufacturing facilities in the U.S. shutting down their local operations and transferring all their work to third world countries. Thanks again, Bill.

By 2006, apparently having reached fairly obscene levels and retracting just a bit, the CEOs earned 364 times as much as the average worker. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

And you know what they did for all that money? They looted the country, committed fraud on a massive world-wide level, stole retirement accounts and pensions and savings from the entire world, lined their pockets, and bankrupt their own businesses as well as our country.

Who is going to stop these people? If not the working people, then who? Not Congress. Congress takes bribes from the rich people to look the other way and allow them to engage in this plundering of our country, abuse of us as workers. So who else can do it except the working people of this country? Those people who will likely work their entire lives.

The concept of trade unions might need to re-evaluated. Replaced with one big union. The only people with any interest in stopping employers and businesses from doing what they are doing is the working people, who represent about 80% of the people in this country. Probably 10% on top of them think they'll get rich, so they do the bidding of the truly wealthy. And the truly wealthy have already shown us their goals: loot the country, crush the working people, steal it all.

Maybe we need "One Big Union," as Bill Haywood and Joe Hill and the IWW used to say. One Big Union to which any working person can belong. Truck drivers and nurses and teachers and bricklayers and pilots and all sorts of professionals who are quite surprised to be waking up all over this country and finding out that they're not so smart after all, that they are to their bosses simply widgets, that their work too can be sent to India to be done by young people who come to the U.S., graduate from law school, return to India, and will gladly join a sweatshop to do legal research and briefs for very little money.

Same for engineers, computer workers. Same for accountants. And we all know that journalists are being thrown out of work all over the country, replaced by newsreaders and gossipy old men. Nurses have certainly been treated poorly in our country. While doctors routinely earn over $1.0 million/year, nurses are being thrown out of work, or if they keep their job they have to do the work of two or three people, and their wages are being crushed by hospitals bringing in low-paid nurses from other countries.

Maybe we need one big union for all workers. If we don't help ourselves, who will?

More Tax Cuts for the Rich: Alternative Minimum Tax

As discussed in the post on 2/14/09 "Rahm Emanuel: Son of Hamlet," one of the things Emanuel bragged about in the stimulus bill was $70 Billion for the "alternative minimum tax issue." What issue?

Alternative minimum tax is just a provision in the law that says if rich people have enough tax scams that they can basically avoid paying any taxes, then there is an "alternative minimum tax" they will be forced to pay, regardless of their tax con games. The Republicans hate this tax because their wealthy supporters don't pay taxes. The Republicans insisted that alternative minimum tax "relief" be included in the stimulis bill. Who knew that Rahm Emanuel would be working along with the Republicans to get this provision in the stimulis bill.

So instead of helping working people who have lost everything, instead of creating jobs, this provision devotes more than 10% of the entire bill to more tax cuts for the richest people in this country -- the top 20% of earners in this country. And in order to give them even more money, money that would have gone to schools for all our children had to be eliminated. Way to go Rahm.

Oh yeah: the Republicans insisted more tax cuts for the rich be included in this bill. How many Republicans in the Senate voted for this bill: 3. Three Republicans get $70 Billion. No wonder the Democrats are poor -- they're too stupid with money to ever know what's going on.

Or are they? Because remember, the Democrats favor the rich too. Rich people pay them bribes just like they pay the Republicans. So the real losers here are the majority of people in the U.S. who continue to see their government-for-sale to the rich.

http://scdfa.org/alternative-minimum-tax-and-stimulus-package

Happy Valentines Day

Who better to sing of love than the French.

Rahm Emanuel: Son of Macbeth?

Following the lead of the deaf, dumb, fat guy on the radio and Republican Senator Gregg, Rahm Emanuel was out-front yesterday with the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, favorite reading of Emanuel's generous contributors from Wall Street, giving an interview in which he took credit for putting in more Wall Street give-aways in the new Stimulus package, and for taking even more away from the already desperate working people of this country. He also managed to trash President Obama and pretty much everyone else in the new administration. His public disloyalty (to the citizens and to the Obama administration) is shocking, and his ambition rivals that of MacBeth.
I hope Obama only has Emanuel hanging around pursuant to that old doctrine "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Remember, Emanuel was known as Wall Street's favorite politician, biggest recipient in Congress of Wall Street Money. And he reportedly told the Illinois Governor to just appoint a two-year seat warmer for Obama's Senate seat, because Emanuel apparently plans to run for that office. Will he use his position in the white house to make sure that the Financial Cartels know he's working for them, so they'll contribute generously to his imminent Senate campaign? Not so much a friend of the working people of this country, and apparently not a friend of Obama's. His ambition is obvious. The only question is whether he sees himself as King of Wall Street, or future President of the United States.

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other -"
(Shakespeare's MacBeth, Act I, Scene VII).

I don't mind ambition. But I have a big problem with somebody like Emanuel using his position in the White House to boast about himself, trash everyone around him, including the President and the entire White House team, help the Wall Street Criminals, harm the working people, and act in complete disregard to the fact that our country is in serious economic trouble, and we need every Democrat working together to save the country. We cannot afford to have small men with outsized egos using their energies to advance themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens. Let's leave that to the Republicans. And their leader, the deaf, dumb fat guy on the radio.


"Emanuel Says Obama Team Lost Message On Stimulus."
February 12, 2009, Wall Street Journal
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the message for selling their massive stimulus bill last week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were savaging the legislation." (Note he blames the President and the President's team -- not himself).

According to the article, Emanuel says that the original stimulus proposal was drafted by a white house group but without sufficient details. He, luckily, came along to save the day, working all week-end, almost single-handedly: "On Friday night, after Senate Democratic leaders and three Senate Republicans struck a deal ensuring Senate passage, Mr. Emanuel, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag and others went to work on precisely the kind of detailed proposal many had been calling for, laboring through the weekend." Thank God Emanuel was there to save the country.

Emanuel also clearly advises his friends on Wall Street that he added some favorable provisions for their benefit:

[Inferentially, After Emanuel had to work all week-end to fix the screw-ups from the original draft] "On Monday morning, the president met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) to inform them after Senate passage, the White House would deliver a proposal that he hoped would form the bulk of a House-Senate compromise."

"That proposal contained some measures not included in either the House or Senate version, including an infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to help fund construction projects across the country. That measure made it into the final package, Mr. Emanuel said." What exactly is he talking about? Last week-end, in a very short period of time, Rahm Emanuel and maybe a few other people changed the Stimulus Plan by, among other things, including a provision that will create "an infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to help fund constructions projects."

My guess is this: "leverage" means somebody does not have much, if any money in a deal, but they plan to suck a lot of money out of the deal through various financial trickery. You know, like Wall Street always does. So, for example, it could work like this: (1) "private equity" (meaning Wall Street) agrees to fund a $5 million construction project such as another bridge to nowhere; (2) the government guarantees the funding; (3) Wall Street turns around and borrows $5 million from the federal government (meaning borrows taxpayers' money) for 0% interest per year, and (4) gives that money to insider construction companies also owned by Wall Street, who (5) end up grossly over-charging with change-orders so the government has to kick in even more money, and (6) Wall Street gets a 20% return on "their" investment through various fees, charges, interest, even though Wall Street never put a penny into the deal. That is what is called a "leveraged" transaction.

I don't know what it means. But it bothers me when a politician who is so obviously in the pocket of Wall Street takes control of a bill designed to help working people, and skews it so that it instead will help Wall Street. They're the ones who stole all our money, remember? But it gets better.

"To put skin in the game and get negotiators off of their hardened positions, Mr. Emanuel signaled up front that the president would give ground on his Making Work Pay signature tax proposal, a $500-per-worker tax cut to offset payroll taxes. That tax cut was ultimately pared back to $400, with an income eligibility cap lowered from $150,000 to $140,000."

Okay, let's talk about that. "Put skin in the game" is violent sports talk meaning somebody gets their face or body all cut up and blooded. So this wimpy little loafer-wearing Wall-Street loving dandy talks tough, and we know he uses the F word all the time, so he certainly and truly must really be a tough guy. But whose skin is he putting in the game? It turns out that what he meant by that is that he changed the law, over the week-end, to take more money from working people who already have lost everything.

Rahm Emanuel, Tough Guy, Wall Street dandy, does not think the working people in this country deserve a break. So he took $100 away from all of them. Money that might have bought shoes for their kids, or paid the gas bill, with maybe a little left over for a box of chocolates for Valentines Day. It's the skin off the little children of this country that Emanuel is talking about. Rahm Emanuel, tough guy, re-wrote the law to take more money away from the already sinking and desperate working people of this country.

"They also swallowed hard and accepted a $70 billion, temporary fix for the alternative minimum tax, even if it had marginal stimulative effect and would crowd out more beneficial proposals.
It was the price for getting the deal done, he said, conceding that with some of the compromises, there's going to be an impact on certain economic activities."

Who is the "they" that swallowed hard? Who came up with this $70 billion "fix" for the alternative minimum tax, and who benefits from it? And what is the fix? That will apparently be disclosed someday. But just in general, many rich people pay no taxes whatsoever through a variety of tax scams, and the alternative minimum tax provides that regardless of what all tax-avoidance schemes rich people may claim, they must pay a certain amount in taxes. I think the law should have been left as is, and people should be required to pay taxes. These are not poor people. So Rahm Emanuel apparently again used his position to help wealthier people while taking $100 away from the desperate workers.

"Mr. Emanuel owned up to one mistake: message. What he called the outside game slipped away from the White House last week, when the president and others stressed bipartisanship rather than job creation as they moved toward passing the measure."

Notice how clever Emanuel manages to blame President Obama and others for any perceived shortcomings. And again notice the sports analogies from this little tough guy: the "outside game slipped away from the White House" because "the president and others" made some mistakes. But not Rahm Emanuel, Son of Macbeth.

Actually, maybe he isn't the Son of MacBeth. Maybe he's Iago fluffing the pillows.
Hey Rahm. Here's another sports saying: there's no "Eye" in "TEAM."

If he worked for a private business, and he put out a story like this trashing his boss and co-workers, and taking credit for himself, he'd be fired. Which is exactly what Obama should do.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123449249590080699.html

To Pres Obama. Re: Secretary of Commerce.

Dear President Obama:

I see you're having problems filling the spot of Secretary of Commerce.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try a woman for a change.

You should realize by now that men are incapable of making a decision, change their minds as often as they change their hats, can't make a commitment to save their lives, often have smarmy secretive financial dealings in the background that make them inappropriate in any event, and generally are a lot less smart and reliable than are women.

Just ask Michelle, she'll explain.

Women are half the country, so why aren't they half the cabinet positions? If not now, then when? I say now. Let's put a woman in charge of commerce and get some brains in there to try to salvage this sinking ship.

One more thing: no more Republicans. Get over that "bad boy" obsession. They're no good. They're dirty, dishonest, anti-social, they'll deceive you and break your heart. They're just not that into you. Wave good-bye to the bad boy Republicans, and come back home to the loyal Democrats. We still love you even though you "strayed" with that New Hampshire loser Senator Gregg.

Barney And Judy Put On A Show

Remember those old Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movies, when they were just kids hanging out in the neighborhood, and they would decide to get all the kids together to "put on a show" as a fundraiser for something.

Well that's kind of what happened yesterday, with Barney Frank (D) Mass. playing the role of Mickey. Lots of singing from a chorus of multi-millionaires who were there to represent "The Bankers," and "Wall Street." They all looked so serious. VERY CONTRITE. Well, not so contrite that they would give back a penny of the money they have stolen from the public. Not that contrite.

Mr. Mack of Morgan Stanley said they were all sorry about all the financial problems in this country. That's a big help. Mr. Pandit of Citicorp promised he would cut his "salary" to $1.00 per year as an act of contrition. Which was a real slap in the face to the public. Here's the thing: every single politician sitting in that room knows that if Mr. Pandit only takes $1.00 in "income," that only means he is taking all of his probably millions of dollars in compensation in the form of stock options, and when he cashes them in he will pay a maximum of 15% capital gains tax, and will pay no income taxes whatsoever. Every single politician sitting in that room understood that Mr. Pandit was sneering at the public because for the most part they don't know anything about this stock option tax con that the insiders use to avoid paying taxes.

None of the politicians bothered to explain to the public that Mr. Pandit was talking about a special law that the Financial Cartels got put into place so that rich people never pay more than 15% tax on their income. And when a few Democrats tried to change that law, Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York, worked on behalf of his generous friends in the hedge fund industry to make sure their taxes would remain much lower than the taxes paid by your average cab driver or factory worker. The politicians and Wall Street are in bed together, and they cover up for each other.

The bankers and wall street, what I call the "Financial Cartels," more brutal and murderous than the Drug Cartels, have robbed the country blind, stolen many people's pensions and life savings, thrown thousands into foreclosure and out onto the street or to live in their cars, thrown millions out of work, crushed unions, crushed wages, all while drinking champagne and doing lines of coke while their pole-dancing prostitute girlfriends entertained them. Or so it seems to the public. So Barney Frank decided to put on a show for the folks back home.

Remember last fall the Secretary of Goldman Sachs (formerly the Treasury Department), Hank Paulson, went to Congress with a note from Wall Street that said: "Give us all your money or we'll blow the country up." When the citizens heard this they were outraged, and called, and wrote, and e-mailed their representatives and senators with one message: NO BAILOUT. But congress ignored the citizens and gave Wall Street the bailout, $350 Billion dollars of the citizen's money. Why did Congress give Wall Street the money? Because Wall Street owns Congress. They pay bribes and kick-backs to all the politicians in order to get Congress to do exactly what Wall Street wants. And what they want is all the money. And now they've got it.
The public is in a slowly simmering rage over what has happened. And many are demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to work independently of Congress, to report to a citizen's group, to investigate financial crimes, to prosecute and imprison those found guilty, including anyone on Wall Street, in the Financial Cartels, and in Congress. Wall Street could never have gotten away with looting our country and destroying our economy without the willing and devoted assistance of Congress, and we need Senators and Representatives sitting in Attica. And we need to attach assets and put them into a public fund. For example, Mrs. Madoff withdrew $15 million right before the fit hit the shan: why doesn't the government go and take that money back. And if the Mrs. claims she can't remember where she put it, throw her in jail until her memory is restored.

The public is angry. Not just at Wall Street but also at Congress. They are particularly angry over the $350 Billion Bail-Out last fall. So what does Congress do to try to cover up their own complicity? Well first they have some guy come out earlier this week with a Twilight Zone level story claiming that if Congress had not given the money to Wall Street, the entire world would have been destroyed. That is absurd and completely baseless.

Remember, Wall Street took the $350 Billion Bail-Out money and immediately paid themselves Eighteen Billion Dollars in bonuses, but did not put the money back into our economy. They didn't have to, because Congress did not attach any strings to the money. Congress to Wall Street: Here my friend, take the $350 Billion, use it in good health. Why didn't Barney ask the oh-so-contrite boys in the band to pay that money back immediately to the public? Come on Barney. If you really want to put on a show, why not add some drama by demanding these people pay back the Eighteen Billion Dollar Bonuses?

Every penny paid to every politician in the past 8 years from any bank, investment, hedge fund, private equity, wall street, and the lawyers who work for them, should be paid into a public fund. It's all corrupt money and the politicians should be ordered to disgorge. Which Barney Frank himself recently described as a fancy word for meaning "Give the money back."

So Barney and Judy put on a show yesterday, for the folks, to fool us. And all the big boys from the Financial Cartels showed up. And the politicians said mean things and acted shocked, and the Wall Street Boys acted contrite.

Here's the problem. They didn't mean it. It's just a show intended to divert the public. Don't be fooled.

Barney Frank, populist extraordinaire, he's going to take on these crooks, right?

Problem is, Barney Frank takes money from these Financial Cartel people. In fact, they are his biggest fans, they're the ones who give him the most money so he can keep winning elections. Which makes sense because he's in charge of the House Financial Services Committee. He's supposed to be the cop, but he's taking money.

From opensecrets.org, Barney Frank's fundraising 2007-2008, reported December 2008, shows the top 5 industries giving him money are as follows: (1) Securities and Investment $224,000; (2) Real Estate $219,851; (3) Insurance $199,548; (4) Lawyers/Law Firms $185,728; (5) commercial banks $114,700.

The top five donors are Brown Brothers Harriman & Co (a bank); Manulife Financial; Royal Bank of Scotland; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; and Bank of America: aka the Financial Cartels.

So Barney and Judy's show was just that: a circus designed to distract the public from their demand for prosecutions, seizure of assets, and prison for the guilty. All we really want, Barney, is a rear view shot of the financial criminals and the politicians who have taken bribes, looking like this:

No more shows. We need an independent special prosecutor appointed who will report only to a special citizens group, not to anyone in Congress because they are implicated in the actions which have bankrupt many of our states and nearly bankrupt our country. We need indictments, prosecutions, and prison for the guilty. We needs assets seized and turned over to a public fund. And we need public televised hearings to expose the crimes and the criminals.

New York Times article on Barney and Judy's Big Show:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/business/12bank.html?_r=1&sq=Barney%20Frank&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

No Law And Much Disorder

Franz Kafka's The Trial is a book about a man who is arrested on his 30th birthday, but never told what crime he has committed. His life then becomes a series of confusing, surreal and bizarre incidents. At the end, two men arrive to take him away to be executed, no trial. Presumably this was required reading in the Bush White House: a book premised on such fundamental injustice became the format for the new system of injustice in the United States.

In fact, the founders of this country did everything in their power to enshrine in our constitution the clear mandate that the government could not, should not, and never would kidnap people, falsely imprison them, hold them without charges or with false charges, deny them counsel and trial, torture them into signing worthless confessions, torment them until they went mad.

Yet these are exactly the practices used by the Bush administration and their corporate mercenaries all around the world, the private police state which could be turned on the citizens in a heartbeat, often used against completely innocent people, children, sometimes ending in their murder in dungeons far away from their own homes. These atrocities must be exposed and brought to the full light of day, and the people who committed these acts of barbarism must be held accountable. We need justice for the victims and truth for the world. And we need to protect ourselves against these monsters.

"So I remember every face
Of every man who put me here.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released

... Standing next to me in this lonely crowd
Is a man who swears he's not to blame
All day long I hear him shout so loud
Crying out that he was framed.

They say every man needs protection
They say every man must fall
So I swear I see my reflection
Someplace so high above this wall.

I see my light come shining
from the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released."

("I Shall Be Released," Bob Dylan).
I wonder if there are any Dylan fans at Guantanamo. I wonder why nobody ever listens.

It is now widely known that the Bush regime sent private corporate mercenaries into other countries and kidnapped people, took them in ropes and chains and hoods, in the dark of night, to a series of secret black-hole prisons maintained by the most despicable dictators in the world, in cooperation with the CIA and the U.S. government, where these victims were tortured and sometimes killed. After awhile, some of them were removed to Guantanamo, hooded, put into orange jump suits, and left to die. The U.S. government invented wild and bizarre claims against these men, but over time most of those claims have been shown to be lies. When courts finally got the opportunity to review the situation, and demanded the government provide some information to support the claims, the government often simply dismissed the charges, but refused to release the prisoners.

My guess is they don't want the victims telling the world what has been done to them. Can anyone spell "International War Crimes Tribunals?" So they can either keep the innocent victims in isolation in prison for life, or kill them, or come up with some strange "legal" doctrine to prevent the victims from ever telling the world what really happened. Kind of like Michael Jackson paying millions to his victims to keep them from ever testifying at a criminal trial against him. Except worse.

Some of the people who were kidnapped and tortured by the Bush regime have filed lawsuits inside the U.S. against corporations who participated in the kidnapping and false imprisonment, seeking compensation for their damages. The Plaintiffs in one such suit are represented by the ACLU.

The case is entitled Binyam Mohamed vs. Jeppesen (9th Cir.) Case No. 5:07-CV-02798-JW, and extensive information about it is available at the ACLU website, link here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/rendition/index.html

The suit was filed against one of the private corporations that was involved in the kidnapping of people around the world. The U.S. government is not named as a defendant, but the Bush regime intervened in those lawsuits to try to shut them down. The Bush regime claimed first that every single fact or piece of evidence that would be presented by the Plaintiffs was a state secret, and could not be publicly disclosed. If the victims tell their story, what happened to them, they will be violating claimed "State Secrets," and probably that is a felony which will land them in Guantanamo again -- if they weren't still there. Neat trick to silence the victims.

Next the federal government also claimed at the trial court level that the entire lawsuit must be dismissed, because the only way the private corporations could "defend" against the charges would require that the government disclose state secrets. The trial court in one case unfortunately went along with this doublespeak, and the case is now up on appeal.

The lead Plaintiff, Binyam Mohamed, is a British citizen, originally from Ethiopia. He was kidnapped by the U.S. while he was in Pakistan, taken against his will in Jeppesen private planes to other countries where he was imprisoned and tortured on a daily basis, including being cut and having bones broken, and he finally was dumped by the U.S. government at Guantanamo. The U.S. Government came up with a scary list of charges against the guy, claiming he planned to detonate a "dirty bomb" (which would have been the "smoking gun" that created the "mushroom cloud"), and various other nebulous charges of being a terrorist.

When he finally got an attorney and got his case before a court, the judge was sufficiently concerned about evidence that he was tortured into confessing, that the judge demanded the government provide some evidence to support its claim. In order to avoid having it publicly shown that the government had no evidence against this man, the government instead simply dismissed all charges and claims against this man. But they still refuse to release him from prison in Guantanamo.

The conditions under which these men are held in Guantanamo are designed to break them down and drive them insane. And in many cases they have succeeded. No charges, no trials, no evidence, no witness, no defenses, no hope, no law, no justice. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/26/america/gitmo.php

If that's not the definition of a police state dictatorship, I don't know what is. We kidnapped this guy while he was in Pakistan, drug him from country to country, threw him into prisons to be tortured, dumped him in Guantanamo (presumably with an orange jump suit on his body and a hood over his head), made up a bunch of apparently baseless claims, and when the case got into a court the government dismissed everything when the judge asked "Where's the Beef," but the government still refuses to let him leave.

And now they want a court to say this guy can never publicly testify in a court of law about what our government has done to him. Kafka, where are you?

There was a hearing in the appeal, 9th Circuit, this week. Unfortunately the Obama administration did not change the Bush government position, and continued to argue that state secrets would be implicated. In other words, the federal government's position is that even if a private corporation did participate in kidnapping and false imprisonment, the victim should not be allowed to sue those private corporations because official government secrets might be disclosed in the trial.

That's a ridiculous argument on so many levels. I hope the attorneys for the Plaintiffs brought that to the attention of the court, but in case they didn't, here are a couple of reasons why that argument by the federal government should be rejected.

First, the victims of these crimes by the Bush regime (who apparently were innocent, since the government dismissed the charges against them), should be free to tell the entire world what happened to them, when it happened, who was present, who said what. To argue otherwise is to sanction and coverup criminal conduct and extreme injustice. Just think, the government is arguing that (1) they can kidnap, falsely imprison, and torture a completely innocent person; (2) the government dismisses all charges to avoid having to go to trial, but refuses to release the person; but (3) the innocent person apparently can be held in a foreign prison forever, and can never tell anyone what happened to them.

The government has no authority to prohibit speech. In particular, since these people were kidnapped in foreign countries, the U.S. government has no authority to prohibit a citizen of another country from telling the world what was done to them. So the story will come out, and the government has no legal ability to stop it. This is not really about state secrets. It is about using the law to guarantee the private contractors and paid mercenaries will never be held accountable for the injuries they have inflicted.

Even if there is a legitimate purpose for a state secret, the concept should never be used to cover up criminal activity by the government. Let's say Bush wiretapped every Democrat without warrants or court oversight; but when somebody sues him, he claims wiretapping is a state secret. If the conduct was illegal, it is not a legitimate state secret. The desire to keep it a secret is simply the desire to cover up illegal conduct by the government and to avoid liability for that conduct. It's like saying Bush can go hit someone in the face but prevent the person from ever going to court and telling what happened. "State secrets" is a doctrine that may allow protection for information but should not be used to cover up criminal conduct by the government.

Additionally, there is no defense to a charge of kidnapping, false imprisonment, or torture. the government argues that the corporation might have a "defense" to the claims, but cannot present the evidence to support the "defense" because the evidence includes state secrets. The only "defense" to these claims is really just the negation of one of the elements that the plaintiff must prove, that the action was done without the consent of plaintiff. Plaintiff must testify that these things were done against his will. After that, there is no defense if a jury finds that the Plaintiff's testimony was truthful.

What is the defense that the government suggests is available? It's a secret. They won't tell. So what theoretically is the defense? Mistake? That's no defense. If the government intended to kidnap, falsely imprison, and torture someone else, but got the wrong guy, that's no defense to a claim for damages by the guy they harmed.
The court should tell the government to either identify in general terms what defense they claim might be available, or should reject the absurd position in its entirety. These victims are entitled to compensation. It is shameful to see the continuing degregation of our legal system by the police state imposed by Bush, one in which there are no laws which apply to the federal government, no accountability to the innocent victims, no compensation to those injured or even murdered by the government. And certainly no truth and no justice.

The plaintiffs should be allowed to present their claim including their damage evidence, and go to a jury. If the corporate defendant claims there is some secret that would exonerate it, the court must ask whether that is likely. Or just generally require the defendant to hypothetically put forward examples of what possibly could be a "defense" to claims of kidnapping and torture.

I understand the Obama administration needs time to examine the countless claims that may be brought against the rogue regime of Bush & Co., and cannot simply waive in advance all claims of top secret or classified information. But they should start here with this case, and make a decision that favors disclosure and favors compensation for the victims. That's called justice, although the term has not been often used in recent years in this country.

And finally, the real interested parties here are the private mercenary, paid assassins, and contractors who have been brutalizing the rest of the world as Bush's goon squads. If the victims are free to sue in the U.S. for violence committed against them, and let a jury decide whether they should receive compensation, then the whole private war industry can be shut down. That is precisely why this ACLU lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. So we can put these private mercenary and war contractors out of business.

An extreme right-wing organization known as the Washington Legal Foundation (the "WLF") filed an amicus curiae brief in the lawsuit urging the court to uphold the dismissal of the case. Who is the Washington Legal Foundation, and what business is it of theirs? They are a pro-corporate legal group set up in 1977 to use the law to promote the development of the corporate state which we unfortunately have seen take over under Bush. http://www.wlf.org/ They don't want corporations to be held liable for anything, anytime, anywhere. The WLF also filed a brief in the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld case, arguing on behalf of the federal government that these prisoners in Guantanamo should never have access to any court or judge inside the U.S. Just let them sit in orange jump suits and hoods and rot in Cuba, no trial, no rights. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12017-2004Jun28.html Who's interests are they really protecting? Private corporations, of course.

(New York Times):
February 10, 2009
Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
SAN FRANCISCO — "In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration. "

"In the case, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging flights for the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program, in which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries, where they say they were tortured. The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations. ...."

“The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” he said. “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security.”

"The court papers describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, “he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.”

"Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U., told the judges that many of the facts that the government is trying to keep secret are scarcely secret at all, since the administration’s rendition program and the particulars of many of the cases have been revealed in news reports and in the work of government investigations from around the world. “The only place in the world where these claims can’t be discussed,” Mr. Wizner said, “is in this courtroom.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=print

Guantanamo prisoner photos from: http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

I see my light come shining
from the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released.

A-Rod: the Million Dollar [Steroid] Man.

A-Rod tested positive for steroids in 2003. He now admits he used them between 2001-2003 because he felt pressure to perform. Poor Baby.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/09/arod.admits/index.html

He decided to come clean, confess all, beg for forgiveness -- because he was outed by a Sports Illustrated report. No attack of conscience involved in this story. He was exposed.

There are a variety of health problems associated with steroid use, including cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart problems including enlargement and thickening of the left ventricle, cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure. Among the possible side effects of steroid use is that men can grow breasts, experience a loss of sexual function and infeterility, and testicular atrophy.

As for the effect on personality, studies have reported that significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, sometimes psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse. (Remember the wrestler murder/suicide?)

I don't care if A-Rod used steroids or not, that's his problem. He's a real jerk in my book. And I would say in somebody else's too. I don't think it's just a coincidence that this was released right now, when Rupert Murdoch is waging an "A-Rod For Saint, Joe Torre For Devil" war in that trashy rag called the New York Post.

Let's review for a moment, shall we?

1. Joe Torre, the best manager in all of baseball, is dissed by the Yankee morons, the Steinbrenner dementia gang, who decide to humiliate and demean Torre by slashing his salary, trying to force him to beg for the job.

2. Joe Torre said "So Long George." And was immediately snapped up by the Dodgers. Because they realize Joe Torre is the best manager in all of baseball.

3. The Dodgers do pretty darned good. L.A. Fans get excited, Manny comes over, people begin wearing their Dodger Blue, and dreams turn once again to World Series and Pennants.

4. Joe Torre writes a book and gets a lot of press. And politely says that A-Rod is a whining under-achiever.

5. Rupert Murdoch's whorehouse in New York begins a major assault on Joe Torre, just as they did so many years ago on Mike Piazza who also left New York for the left Coast, did so with dignity, and was greeted with great affection. The trashy rag the New York Post can't think of enough bad things to say about Joe Torre. How mean he is, how wrong he is to say anything bad about K-Rod the Saint.

6. Sports Illustrated reports A-Rod tested positive for steroids in 2003. There goes the sainthood.

A-Rod's a jerk. I hope he never gets into the hall of fame. Not because he used steroids. Because he's such a jerk.

And I hope he grows breasts, too.

We Spend More On Wars Than We Spend On Education, Environment, Justice, Veterans, Housing Assistance, Transportation, Job Training, Agriculture...

That's why we're broke. We have allowed the military industrial complex, and the financial cartels that own them, to steal most of the money from this country and spend it on wasteful weapons and illegal wars of aggression. Kidnapping, torture, murder, stealing other people's resources, occupying other countries: turns out it's enough to bankrupt a country.

$922 Billion in war spending since 2001. And how broken is our economy? Obama doesn't know if $800 Billion will solve the problems, but it's in the ballpark. Why have the Republicans been so enthusiastic in supporting this waste of our money on needless wars? Because they get so many bribes and kick-backs from the military industrial complex?

Are you better off today than you were before Bush stole $900 Billion to start wars against other countries so his oil corporation friends could steal the oil?

Remember that scene in Gone with the Wind, when Scarlett O'Hara kills a Yankee who had come into their home? And she says "Now I've done murder." As if she was wondering aloud what more she would be willing to do, what more she was capable of doing. Of course she was killing someone who was trying to hurt her, which was the right response. But I sometimes think of Congress, and our politicians, as they take money daily from the worst lobbyists in the country, from the sleaziest Wall Street coked-up whore-loving thieves, I wonder if our politicians ever say to themselves "Now I've done murder," when they take the money that will ruin other people's lives, when they vote for wars of aggression. I doubt it. They're too busy counting their loot.

"In October 2008, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lawmakers have appropriated $864 billion for the Iraq war and occupation, ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and other activities associated with the global war on terror since 2001. The Pentagon says that it will need another $170 billion for fiscal 2009 (which begins in October 2008), which would push war spending since 2001 to $922 billion – close to one trillion dollars.
To help the imagination absorb this inconceivable figure, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a useful comparison: He begins with a stack of one-thousand dollar bills roughly six inches high. That six-inch stack is worth one million dollars. Then, a $1 billion stack would be as tall as the Washington Monument, and a $1 trillion stack would be 95 miles high. $922 billion over seven years is about $2.5 billion per week to fight war."

"And that is not the total amount of the money that we spend on the military. This $922 billion in war spending since 2001 is not part of the U.S. annual military budget. In fact, the spending comes in the form of emergency supplementals the Bush administration has been submitting to Congress a few times a year, and is on top of the Pentagon’s regular budget. For fiscal year 2009, military spending will total roughly $541 billion – including the Pentagon’s budget, plus work on nuclear warheads and naval-reactors at the Department of Energy. The Bush administration has presided over one of the largest military buildups in the history of the United States. In 2001, military spending totaled just over $300 billion."

"Military spending dwarfs all other aspects of the U.S. federal budget. Military spending represents 58 cents out of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on discretionary programs (those that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis). This means that military spending is more than the combined totals of spending on education, environmental protection, justice administration, veteran’s benefits, housing assistance, transportation, job training, agriculture, energy, and economic development. The military budget is more than 30 times higher than all State Department operations and non-military foreign aid combined, and almost 110 times more than the roughly $5 billion per year the U.S. government spends on combating global warming."


From Then, This Is the Year: Imagining Our Way to the Peace Economy
By Frida Berrigan http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/fall08/berrigan.html

Why Congress Stole The Citizens Money And Gave It To Wall Street: They Were Bribed.

There is a group named the Center for Responsive Politics. They track money in politics. Bribes and kick-backs paid to our politicians. It's a good place to spend time if you're curious, a bad place to spend time if you don't have a strong stomach.

Remember last Fall when Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Goldman Sachs (formerly the Treasury Department) went to Congress with a ransom note from Wall Street that said: "Give Us All Your Money Or We'll Blow The Whole Place Up." And all the Senators and Representatives started scurrying around, giving dire warnings to the public that they had no choice.

But the public, we the people, the citizens, did not agree. And all across the land, in each of the states, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, Buddhists and Baptists and Jews, old and young, urban and rural, educated and not so much, the citizens of this country who might not agree on one other thing did agree on this. The citizens were outraged, and they called and wrote and e-mailed their Senators and Representatives and local newspapers with one unified message: NO BAILOUT. The public told Congress as clearly as it could be said that the Criminals on Wall Street, those who had looted our country, paid themselves hundreds of millions, bribed our politicians, set up off-shore accounts to hide their money, the coke heads, the whore-lovers, the thousand-dollar-shoe-wearing Wall Street Criminals, should not get one dime of our tax money.

And guess what happened next?

Congress gave them the money. Congress: Democrats and Republicans, Bush and Pelosi and Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer standing proudly in front of their wheelbarrows full of cash they were dragging over to their generous friends on Wall Street. Congress took money that belongs to the people of the U.S., the citizens, the taxpayers, the few dollars we send in to the government for taxes, and they gave all that money to the richest people in the country on Wall Street, the same group of people who pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to Congress. The money that was supposed to be used to pay for schools, for police, for fire protection, it was all given to the Criminals on Wall Street.

The people had spoken. And Congress could care less. The people do not have a voice in a government in which every Senator takes bribes, and every Representatives hustles money from the rich and powerful every single day of their term.

Then of course, the Wall Street Boys grabbed the $350 Billion, said "Thanks a lot Suckers," and nothing more was heard. Not a whisper. Until finally someone asked, months later, "Whatever happened to that $350 Billion?" And Wall Street told the Federal Government of the United States that they would not tell them, it was nobody's business. And Congress said "OK."


What is the point of having the Marines and the Green Berets but letting a bunch of coked-up thieves in expensive suits take down the country with a whine and a bribe?

Then the public again roared. And suddenly Congress put on their "concerned" masks. Barney Frank said he would have hearings. Way to go: question them sternly. Too late Barney. Way too late.

Why didn't Congress attach conditions? Why didn't they ask what would be done with the money? Now Congress says "Well, we didn't think they'd pay themselves bonuses," and I say "Then you're all too stupid to be employed. Step down." I knew they'd steal the money.

I figured (1) the insiders would take a big chunk for themselves, (2) they'd pay kick-backs and bribes to Congress which, after all, stole the money from the public in the first place, so they should get a percentage, and (3) the rest of the money would probably be sent to India or China along with millions of American jobs. And it appears that's what happened. Our nation has been looted by the financial cartels, the Wall Street workers, with the willing assistance of Congress. Not a penny of that money was spent inside the U.S. Instead of helping our economy, they just accelerated the bankruptcy of our nation. What fools we are.

And now it has been confirmed: The biggiest recipients of the Bail Out Money were also the biggest donors to Congress: they paid bribes, Congress gave them our money. Public gets screwed again.

The companies that got the $350 Billion Bailout from Congress spent $144 million last year on lobbyists and on "contributions" to the politicians. Of course all the lobbyists do is promise money to politicians if the politicians will do something that the clients want, which in this case was give $350 Billion to Wall Street, no questions asked, no strings attached. That's why Congress disregarded the public's opposition: Congress was bribed.

161 companies approved for TARP money gave $37.5 million to federal candidates, parties and committees in the 2007-2008 election cycle, with 57 percent of that going to Democrats (post-election data is not yet available).

Some of the companies to give the most in contributions, including Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley, are also among the biggest donors of all time to U.S. politics. This also includes General Motors which spent $15 million between campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures and got $10.4 billion (more than all other companies), Bank of America (and the investment company it bought last year, Merrill Lynch), which spent $14.5 million to play politics and received $45 billion from the bailout bill; and American International Group (AIG), which spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion. Citigroup was also one of the largest spenders to see a big result: between lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, the company spent $12.5 million and got $50 billion.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/tarp-recipients-paid-out-114-m.html

Women Rock

It is so sad to look at all the women today and historically who have been rendered invisible by a male-dominated society in which women are considered second class citizens, slaves, unintelligent, not very competent or capable, child-like, and therefore not really worthy of note.

Who gets to decide which of the candidates for a professional job is the "right" one? Usually the white males who are at the top in the profession. Same in hospitals, doctors groups, universities, law firms, engineering, scientific endeavors. Men get to decide which people are worthy, which work is valuable. Who matters. Men usually choose other men, probably because they look alike, so the choosing men feel like it reflects well on them. And if they chose a woman, the other men might laugh at them, or ridicule them. Like in the schoolyard.

This is also true in the arts. Funny how some fields, like fine arts, rock and roll, are associated with the "to hell with society" attitude of free-thinkers and free-livers, yet they mirror precisely the sexist exclusion or devaluation of women's works that is predominant in mainstream society.

How tragic it is that when people choose the 100 greatest novels, for example, they always go for the men because men's work is lauded and women's work is considered inferior. That's why so many women took men's names, or ambiguous names, or just used initials, when they tried to get published, or even just interviewed for a job.

I wondered if that radical society-be-damned let's take drugs and screw around world of rock and roll mirrored the sexist exclusion or devaluation of women that is predominant in mainstream society. I'd never really thought about it, being a fan of rock and roll, I just love the music.

So I went to "the" official arbiter of all things of value in the world of rock and roll, Rolling Stone Magazine, and got their list of the top albums. It was the top 500 but I stopped at 100. The list was compiled in 2003, so an update might change some of these. But I found mostly men, and very few women and women's groups made it onto the list.
This of course in part reflects the fact that women were not included as rock and roll performers, for the most part, during the heady days of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, but instead were relegated to the roll of groupie or pretty-girl-with-tamborine-and-no-bra who stood on stage but contributed little to the music. Girls did not play rock guitar or drums. Why's that? They played country guitar. But rock guitar was considered macho, manly, studly, a male thing. After all, rock guitarists are expressing anguish and rage, and women are such delicate sensitive little creatures.

All that changed with the emergence of women performers just as full of anguish and rage as any man, as good or better guitar players and singers, who got tired of being excluded and clawed their way into their own careers. But when it comes to the "official" decision of which performers matter, women are largely excluded. Which is a real shame.

Rolling Stone’s Top 500 Albums Of All Time (2003 List) [Top 100 Only Listed]

1 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band The Beatles 1967
2 Pet Sounds Beach Boys 1966
3 Revolver The Beatles 1966
4 Highway 61 Revisited Bob Dylan 1965
5 Rubber Soul The Beatles 1965
6 What’s Going On Marvin Gaye 1971
7 Exile On Main St. Rolling Stones 1972
8 London Calling The Clash 1979
9 Blonde On Blonde Bob Dylan 1966
10 The White Album The Beatles 1968
11 The Sun Sessions Elvis Presley 1976
12 Kind of Blue Miles Davis 1959
13 Velvet Underground & Nico Velvet Underground1967
14 Abbey Road The Beatles 1969
15 Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix Exp. 1967
16 Blood On The Tracks Bob Dylan 1975
17 Nevermind Nirvana 1991
18 Born To Run Bruce Springsteen 1975
19 Astral Weeks Van Morrison 1968
20 Thriller Michael Jackson 1982
21 The Great Twenty-Eight Chuck Berry 1982
22 Plastic Ono Band John Lennon 1970
23 Innervisions Stevie Wonder 1973
24 Live At The Apollo James Brown 1963
25 Rumours Fleetwood Mac 1977
26 The Joshua Tree U2 1987
27 King of the Delta Blues Singers Vol. 1 Robert Johnson 1961
28 Who’s Next The Who 1971
29 Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin 1969
30 Blue Joni Mitchell 1971
31 Bringing It All Back Home Bob Dylan 1965
32 Let It Bleed Rolling Stones 1969
33 Ramones Ramones 1976
34 Music From Big Pink The Band 1968
35 Rise/Fall of Ziggy Stardust David Bowie 1972
36 Tapestry Carole King 1971
37 Hotel California The Eagles 1976
38 The Anthology, 1947-1972 Muddy Waters 2001
39 Please Please Me The Beatles 1963
40 Forever Changes Love 1968
41 Never Mind The Bollocks/Sex Pistols The Sex Pistols 1977
42 The Door The Doors 1967
43 Dark Side Of The Moon Pink Floyd 1973
44 Horses Patti Smith 1975
45 The Band The Band 1969
46 Legend Bob Marley/Wailers 1984
47 A Love Supreme John Coltrane 1964
48 It Takes A Nation of Millions Public Enemy 1988
49 At Fillmore East Allman Brothers 1971
50 Here’s Little Richard Little Richard 1957
51 Bridge Over Troubled Water Simon & Garfunkl 1970
52 Greatest Hits Al Green 1975
53 The Birth of Soul/1952-1959 Ray Charles 1991
54 Electric Ladyland Jimi Hendrix Exp. 1968
55 Elvis Presley Elvis Presley 1956
56 Sons in the Key of Life Stevie Wonder 1976
57 Beggars Banquet Rolling Stones 1968
58 Trout Mask Replica Capt. Beefheart 1969
59 Meet the Beatles! The Beatles 1964
60 Greatest Hits Sly & The Fam. St. 1970
61 Appetite for Destruction Guns N Roses 1987
62 Achtung Baby U2 1991
63 Sticky Fingers Rolling Stones 1971
64 Phil Spector, Back to Mono (58-69) Various 1991
65 Moondance Van Morrison 1970
66 Led Zeppelin IV Led Zeppelin 1971
67 The Stranger Billy Joel 1977
68 Off The Wall Michael Jackson 1979
69 Superfly Curtis Mayfield 1972
70 Physical Graffiti Led Zeppelin 1975
71 After The Gold Rush Neil Young 1970
72 Purple Rain Prince 1984
73 Back in Black AC/DC 1980
74 Otis Blue: Otis Redding Singles Soul Otis Redding 1965
75 Led Zeppelin II Led Zeppelin 1969
76 Imagine John Lennon 1971
77 The Clash The Clash 1977
78 Harvest Neil Young 1972
79 Star Time James Brown 1991
80 Odessey & Oracle The Zombies 1968
81 Graceland Paul Simon 1986
82 Axis: Gold As Love Jimi Hendrix Exp. 1968
83 I Never Loved A Man The Way ... Aretha Franklin 1967
84 Lady Soul Aretha Franklin 1968
85 Born in the U.S.A. Bruce Springsteen 1984
86 Let It Be The Beatles 1970
87 The Wall Pink Floyd 1979
88 Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison Johnny Cash 1968
89 Dusty in Memphis Dusty Springfield 1968
90 Talking Book Stevie Wonder 1972
91 Goodbye Yellow Brick Road Elton John 1973
92 20 Golden Greats Buddy Holly 1978
93 Sign O The Times Prince 1987
94 Bitches Brew Miles Davis 1970
95 Green River Creedence C.R. 1969
96 Tommy The Who 1969
97 The Freewheelin Bob Dylan Bob Dylan 1963
98 This Year’s Model Elvis Costello 1978
99 There’s A Riot Goin’ On Sly & Fam. St. 1972
100 In The Wee Small Hours Frank Sinatra 1954

This isn’t a debate about which albums should have gone on the list, and which ones are perhaps undeserving, because taste can be different. And obviously, Rolling Stone is a rock magazine, so the list clearly does not include classical, jazz, or opera, for the most part. But what strikes me is how far and wide the creators of the list went to avoid adding some obvious women. Like Janis Joplin, for example.
In a mostly rock & roll list, they add Frank Sinatra at #100, clearly a terrific performer but not a rocker. Then we’ve got a little male jazz thrown in (#12 and #94, Miles Davis), a little very old blues (#27 Robert Johnson), but so very very few women included. The Supremes were one of the top groups in the country for years, but they didn't make the list. Girl-group. Excluded.

If it really is just top albums, wouldn’t we expect to see Barbra Streisand, Judy Garland, Ella Fitzgerald? But even if it’s just rock albums, why so few women? Because the people making the list are men? Or because they value the work of men, and devalue and disregard that of women? Like a man’s painting is valued at millions of dollars, but the hand-crafts and quilting done by generations of women are disregarded.

How many women, or groups with women, made the top 100? Six only. #25 Fleetwood Mac; #30 Joni Mitchell; #36 Carole King; #44 Patti Smith; #83 and 84 both Aretha Franklin; #89 Dusty Springfield. Apparently none of the other women in rock were worthy of note. They should be disregarded, forgotten, because apparently they just weren’t that good. Like Janis Joplin, not good enough. Janis Ian, Carly Simon, Joan Baez. Tina Turner.
Billie Holiday just didn't make the cut, huh? Blondie, Annie Lennox: Not Good Enough. That's what women are always told.
In case anyone at Rolling Stone Magazine or elsewhere wants to reconsider the male-only lists for rock and roll, here are a few names that should make anyone’s top 100 list, in no particular order:

Tina Turner
Janis Joplin
Billie Holiday
Barbra Streisand
Bonnie Raitt
Madonna
Annie Lennox
The Supremes
Gladys Knight
Grace Slick
Linda Ronstadt
Emmylou Harris
Mamas & Papas
Bette Midler
Laura Nyro
Alanis Morissette
Tracy Chapman
Blondie
Abba
Leslie Gore
Peter Paul & Mary
Martha & the Vandellas
Cyndi Lauper
Joan Armatrading
Ruth Brown
Whitney Houston
The Shirelles
The Ronettes
Hole
Petula Clark
Ani DiFranco
Cher
Sheryl Crow
Melissa Etheridge
Dionne Warwick
Patti LaBelle
Heart
Pat Benatar
Donna Summer
Joan Jett
Janis Ian
Rickie Lee Jones
Carly Simon
Joan Baez
Marianne Faithful
Chrissie Hynde

Walker Evans' Postcards

Walker Evans was an American photographer best known for his photographs of rural farm families during the Great Depression, working both for the Resettlement Administration and for the Farm Security Administration. During the 1930s, he went with writer James Agee to Hale County, Alabama on assignment from Fortune Magazine to do a story about some of the poor rural families in that area, and the effects of the depression on them. The magazine ended up not running the story, but it was published in book form as Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.
In the 1930s, he published a book titled Many Are Called which consisted of his snapshots of subway riders in New York City. The book was republished in recent years.
Evans also worked at Time and at Fortune Magazine, and eventually became a professor at Yale. He died in 1975.

Walker Evans used to collect post cards from the five and dime stores. His postcard collection went on display on February 2, 2009 at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Below are photos of two postcards from his collection, one from 1929, one from 1935, both showing Front Street in Morgan City, Lousiana.

1929:
1935:

Is Marijuana the Breakfast of Champions?

Michael Phelps smokes dope. So what? The International Olympics Committee was so shocked to find out that a young American male smokes dope that they forced him to publicly apologize. Will they do the same if they find out that he drinks beer? (If he does). Would the IOC demand that Phelps issue a public apology if someone took his photo while he was eating a cheeseburger and fries? More people die from fast food and junk food including cheeseburgers and fries than marijuana. (See below: 365,000 Americans die every year from poor diet and lack of exercise).

What if someone sees the young athlete taking an aspirin? Public flogging, or strip him of his medals? (See footnote 7 at bottom of this post:(1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)

What if Michael Phelps smoked marijuana in Amsterdam, or some place where it's legal, or if it's just a misdemeanor? Would the IOC demand a public apology from some young athlete who drove too fast and got a speeding ticket? What if the fine for the ticket was more than the fine for smoking dope? How does the IOC decide that this "offense" is so horrendous that a public flogging is necessary, but other offenses (like getting drunk out of their minds) are absolutely fine.

But let's look at the record of this loady, slacker, druggy, Michael Fred Phelps. At the age of 23, he has won 14 Olympic gold medals, the most of any Olympian. He has won seven world records in swimming. I think Phelps should have worn a roach clip around his neck when he got the gold. Phelps has won 16 Olympic medals in all,when including the ones from Athens in 2004. Not too shabby for a dope-smoker.

Come to think of it, I don't think I ever heard of even one person dying from smoking a joint. Or even doing so over some period of time.

Lots of people die from alcohol. So why isn't that illegal? Is it because the liquor companies pay so many bribes to our politicians? In fact, is it the alcohol industry, and their lobbyists, giving enormous bribes to our politicians, that keeps marijuana illegal?

Some of the benefits of marijuana include that one magical quality that so many football fans are whining about this morning: why doesn't someone invent a cure for the hangover? Well marijuana does not really "cure" the hangover that is caused by alcohol. But it also doesn't cause hangovers like alcohol does. Which is likely doing more harm to people? If somebody drinks too much alcohol, their body reacts as if they have been poisoned, or infected with some terrible stomach flu. They wake up with a headache, nausea, sometimes they will vomit, their whole body aches, they can't think straight, it's like there's a film between them and the rest of the world, they're grouchy, irritable (their body is telling them to drink more alcohol to "cure" the hangover). But guess what? A person could smoke marijuana during a football game, go to bed, wake up the next morning with no hangover at all. Instead of nausea, marijuana often is a spur to a person's appetite, which is one of the reasons people who are undergoing chemotherapy may benefit from smoking dope.

In contrast, of course, with alcohol. How many people die of alcoholism and related illnesses every year? How many car wrecks, divorces, shootings, how many incidents of domestic violence are caused by excessive use of alcohol?

The U.S. Center for Disease Control did a study in 2001 to determine the number of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S., and years of lost potential life, that resulted from excessive alcohol use. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm (What about after 2001? No studies. Was 2001 the last year that the CDC was actually run by scientists and doctors, because Bush fired everyone in any federal agency of the government with a brain and replaced them with "Faith-Based" stenographers?) 2001 was the most recent study I could find. In 2001, the CDC reported that excessive alcohol use is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. and was associated with "multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence." Not to mention the potential public humiliation of having someone tape your drunken sex with a hamburger and sell it to national TV.

The CDC found approximately 76,000 alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. in 2001, and 2.3 million years of potential life lost (because so many of the people who died of alcohol-related deaths were relatively young people). In fairness, the CDC also found that 11 lives were saved because of excessive alcohol use because it reduces the risk of death from cholelithiasis (i.e., gall bladder disease). Maybe Bush actually put some liquor industry people in charge of this study: one reason to live your life as a drunk, is if you have a particular high risk of gall bladder disease.

Of course alcohol-related deaths from traffic accidents are a big part of the deaths from alcohol in this country. See http://www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/AlcoholRelatedTrafficDeaths.pdf (alcohol is involved in 40% of traffic deaths).

I won't even talk about cigarettes and the number of people who die from them every year. How much money has the tobacco industry paid to lobbyists and PR firms to try to convince the public that smoking doesn't really hurt you?
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/osh.htm

According to the CDC, about 440,000 Americans die every year from smoking or exposure to smoking, and an almost 9 million people very year develop a serious illness relating to smoking. 43 million Americans still smoke cigarettes. The medical costs from tobacco smoking-related illnesses in the U.S. is approximately $96 billion per year.
I looked for National Institute of Health or CDC studies and reports on the number of Americans who die from smoking marijuana every year. Couldn't find anything on that topic. Is it possible that nobody ever died from smoking dope? Maybe we need a national institute of health/CDC joint study and report on that: Nation's Scientific and Medical Experts Prove: Marijuana Never Hurt Anybody. Wouldn't that be funny. Most of the references I found reported that smoking Marijuana caused Zero, None, No deaths per year in the United States.

So why is the IOC so absurd about a young American athlete smoking dope? (Psssst: I'll bet he's not the only one). Do the televised Olympics get lots of liquor sponsorship? Lots of TV commercials purchased by the beer sellers, the scotch and wine and vodka companies that want to convince people that drinking alcohol will make them good athletes? Just like they used to claim that smoking cigarettes would make you sexy? Is the IOC just doing this public hysteria about one lousy joint because they're afraid that the legal drug pushers represented by the alcohol industry might withdraw their sponsorship if the athletes admitted that they don't really like to drink alcohol -- they'd rather smoke dope?

This doesn't mean I think people should use drugs or alcohol. I don't. I think it's a bad idea all around. But I just think that if someone had the choice between drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana, the marijuana seems to have fewer negative health effects. And it's too bad that our politicians (and even the Olympics) are so corrupted by the bribes (sponsorship) paid by the alcohol industry that they refuse to tell the public the truth, change the laws to reflect the fact that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and cheeseburgers, and let the public make their own decisions.

And consider this: maybe smoking dope makes Phelps a better athlete. Is it possible that smoking dope clears his mind, helps him to relax and focus, is a secret performance enhancer? Don't ever tell the liquor industry.

This is from a website called DrugWarFacts. Here's the link. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Tobacco
435,000 Footnote 1
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
365,000 Footnote 1
Alcohol
85,000 Footnote 1
Microbial Agents
75,000 Footnote 1
Toxic Agents
55,000 Footnote 1
Motor Vehicle Crashes
26,347 Footnote 1
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs
32,000 Footnote 2
Suicide
30,622 Footnote 3
Incidents Involving Firearms
29,000 Footnote 1
Homicide
20,308 Footnote 4
Sexual Behaviors
20,000 Footnote 1
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect
17,000 Footnote 1, 5
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin
7,600 Footnote 6
Marijuana
0 Footnote 9

1. (2000)"The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."(Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, "On page 1240, in Table 2, '400,000 (16.6)' deaths for 'poor diet and physical inactivity' in 2000 should be '365,000 (15.2).' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories." Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)
Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pp. 1238, 1241.

2. (2000) "Illicit drug use is associated with suicide, homicide, motor-vehicle injury, HIV infection, pneumonia, violence, mental illness, and hepatitis. An estimated 3 million individuals in the United States have serious drug problems. Several studies have reported an undercount of the number of deaths attributed to drugs by vital statistics; however, improved medical treatments have reduced mortality from many diseases associated with illicit drug use. In keeping with the report by McGinnis and Foege, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category. We used attributable fractions to compute the number of deaths due to illicit drug use. Overall, we estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17000 deaths in 2000, a reduction of 3000 deaths from the 1990 report."
Source: Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000," Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, p. 1242.

3. (2003) The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 31,484 deaths from suicide in the US.
Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.

4. (2003)The US Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2003, there were a total of 17,732 deaths from homicide in the US.
Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 5, Table C.

5. (2003)"In 2003, a total of 28,723 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). The category 'drug-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are newborn deaths due to mother's drug use."
Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.

6. (2003)"In 2003, a total of 20,687 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category 'alcohol-induced causes' includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome."
Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.

7. (1996): "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.)
Source: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD; Laeora Berkson, MD, MHPE, FRCPC; W. Dale Jauphinee, MD, FRCPC; David Gayton, MD, PhD, FRCPC; Roland Grad, MD, MSc; Allen Huang, MD, FRCPC; Lisa Isaac, PhD; Peter McLeod, MD, FRCPC; and Linda Snell, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, "Unnecessary Prescribing of NSAIDs and the Management of NSAID-Related Gastropathy in Medical Practice," Annals of Internal Medicine (Washington, DC: American College of Physicians, 1997), September 15, 1997, 127:429-438, from the web at http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm, last accessed Feb. 14, 2001, citing Fries, JF, "Assessing and understanding patient risk," Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Supplement, 1992;92:21-4.

8. (Average 1982-1998): According to Canadian researchers, approximately 32,000 hospitalized patients (and possibly as many as 106,000) in the USA die each year because of adverse reactions to their prescribed medications.
Source: AMA, 1998), Nov. 25, 1998, Vol. 280, No. 20, from the web at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n20/ffull/jlt1125-1.html, last accessed Feb. 12, 2001.

9. An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.
Source: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.

10. The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 2003, HIV disease was the 22nd leading cause of death in the US for whites, the 9th leading cause of death for blacks, and the 13th leading cause of death for Hispanics.
Source: Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Smith, Betty L., BsED, Division of Vital Statistics, "Deaths: Leading Causes for 2003," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55, No. 10 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, March 15, 2007), p. 10, Table E, and p. 12, Table F.