Sunday, May 31, 2009
While She's At It, Can She Change Her First Name To Carol?
The National Review, one of the right-wing propaganda organs, ran an article last week saying that the nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is an inappropriate nominee because of the way she pronounces her last name, with the emphasis on the last syllable: (actually it's the first and last): SO to may OR. This white male clown thinks she should change the pronunciation so that it sounds more like Oscar Mayer. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI0ODZhY2NkNDU2MjE5YTFkMmM2OGU1NWRjZmRjZTI=
Okay.
Maybe she could just shorten her last name to Mayor. That would get rid of that whole ethnic pronunciation issue.
While she's at it, can she change her first name to Carol, or Susan, or something more -- American?
Then if she can just grow a penis, she'll be good to go.
Breaking News: Sonia Sotomayor Is Not A White Male.
As of the most recent estimates (2008) there are around 305 million people in the U.S., of which only about 100 million are non-Hispanic white men, and 154 million are women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008/NC-EST2008-03.xls
That means that only about 33% of the population of the U.S. are non-Hispanic white men. Despite that, white men have 99% of the good jobs with the big paychecks, the golden parachutes, the titles and pensions and healthcare for life, the positions that dictate not only who will live and die, but who will eat or starve, who will see a doctor and who will not, whose suffering will be caused and whose will be relieved, who will have shelter, who will have food, who will be comforted. They not only are the majority of the faces on our TV news at night, but they own the TV News, along with the newspapers, radio stations, and magazines.
White men also have a disproportionate number of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. We have had exactly Zero female Presidents of the United States, although we certainly had a good deal of hoopla about how radical and amazing and wonderful our democracy is because we allowed one female to actually run for President this last go-round. We've had Zero female Vice Presidents. We have had zero female candidates for the Presidency on either of the two major political parties, and one female Vice President candidate on the ticket for either of the two major political parties. Ever.
Which is really just another way of saying that women are excluded from equal opportunity or participation in our society. That is throughout society, in every arena, every institution.
Once in awhile, perhaps because of a lull in the news, as a thoroughly inadequate token, a woman gets nominated or suggested or considered for one of the better jobs in our society, and then all hell breaks loose. The media, the boys who work at Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse as well as the starched shirts at the prestigious high-brow media institutions such as the New York Times, all gang up together to pummel the woman.
We immediately hear, almost in the same breath as the announcement of her name, that she is not qualified. She never is -- women are just too stupid. (Given that George W. Bush, a white male, a moron, was President, I think white men might want to stay away from that whole "inherent intelligence" argument). We hear from the media that the female candidate is lacking in the necessary experience or background. She's not tough enough. If things get stressful, or confrontational, or there's too much pressure, she'll just break down weeping. She may have a nervous breakdown if she got the job because women are so sensitive. It's really not ladylike anyway. She doesn't have the mental acuity for the position. She wouldn't like it.
Then we hear the other side. She's a bitch. She's too overtly sexual, comes on to men, shows her cleavage during the day and her skirts are too tight and too short. Or she's ugly, doesn't bother to wear mascara or make herself up, dresses too matronly, isn't stylish, isn't pretty enough for the job, she's kind of a dog. She's a lesbian, or, if she's not, then she slept with all her (male) bosses to get the job. She's nasty, she's too tough, she's a ball-buster and a man-hater. Of she loves men and she's a slut. She's biased -- against somebody, and in favor of somebody else. She can't be trusted. She's not honest and, besides, her nanny is a little suspicious. What kind of a daughter/mother/wife is she with that level of ambition. It's unseemly for a mother to want a job with this much pressure outside the home, which means she'll neglect her children, and we don't want to do anything to break up the "family values" of our nation.
Here's what we know about Sonia Sotomayor. She's not a white male. That's it.
We know very little about her career, her personal beliefs to the extent they are mirrored in her judicial decisions. We know very little about her judicial record.
But we probably know enough to make some general statements. She's from the Bronx, she went to an Ivy League college and law school, and got good grades. She was a prosecutor in New York City, which is a job for somebody with political ambitions. It is also traditionally a conservative job, for people who want to put criminals into prison. Remember the prisons, the growth industry in our country, the new "affordable housing units" for our black and Hispanic male population, the "economic opportunity zones," for those unemployed males that our society does not want out on our streets. She worked to prosecute people, undoubtedly mostly non-white males, and put them in prison. So much for Solidary Forever or El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido.
Next she went to work for a private law firm in New York. I doubt they were representing indigent third world people fighting for their rights against corporate America. More likely she worked for corporations, representing their interests. Which are almost always against the interests of the majority.
Then she became a judge. The key criteria for becoming a judge is to be exceedingly political, almost more so than for somebody who wants to be a politician. To get a judge position, you have to suck up with great enthusiasm to the party leaders in your area, fund-raise and then fund-raise some more for the party, show you are loyal to party above all else, prove you are a conservative, party-line hack willing to support whatever the party says, support whatever politicians they run. Not a lot of anarchists end up getting the party's support to become a judge, but without the party's support, there is no chance of becoming a judge. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. Only party-loyalists and fundraisers get the positions.
Once on the bench, her record is described as somewhat mixed -- possibly more liberal on some issues, possibly more conservative on others, generally middle-of-the-road.
So we know nothing about this woman beyond a biographical sketch that establishes one thing: she is pretty much like most of the other appellate-court level judges in the country, not right-wing and not left-wing, just somewhat in the middle.
Because her record and biography is not that exciting (if it was, she wouldn't be a judge) the media has to invent things to attack. And what the media has come up with is the old tried and true "she's female and therefore unqualified," with the bonus that "she's Hispanic and a racist." Because she has publicly stated before that her background as a Hispanic (Puerto Rican) female gives her a certain perspective on life that a white male does not have, the media calls her a racist.
God, I'm already so sick of this debate. She's not exciting, she is qualified. I'm not excited nor horrified about her nomination. Let's wait and see if anything more comes out that would justify either supporting her enthusiastically or opposing her. Until and unless that happens, let's move on. We need three more women on the court after her, and that assumes Ruth Bader Ginsburg continues in her position. We should have 5 female Supreme Court Justices because our country is over 50% female. So far in our history, we've had exactly two females ever sit on the Supreme Court. So let's get on with it. Confirm Sonia Sotomayor, stop participating in this nonsensical debate about her gender and ethnicity even deserving mention -- because it's irrelevant. Let's get back to ending the war and creating jobs and prosecuting the Wall Street Criminals who are destroying our economy.
That means that only about 33% of the population of the U.S. are non-Hispanic white men. Despite that, white men have 99% of the good jobs with the big paychecks, the golden parachutes, the titles and pensions and healthcare for life, the positions that dictate not only who will live and die, but who will eat or starve, who will see a doctor and who will not, whose suffering will be caused and whose will be relieved, who will have shelter, who will have food, who will be comforted. They not only are the majority of the faces on our TV news at night, but they own the TV News, along with the newspapers, radio stations, and magazines.
White men also have a disproportionate number of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. We have had exactly Zero female Presidents of the United States, although we certainly had a good deal of hoopla about how radical and amazing and wonderful our democracy is because we allowed one female to actually run for President this last go-round. We've had Zero female Vice Presidents. We have had zero female candidates for the Presidency on either of the two major political parties, and one female Vice President candidate on the ticket for either of the two major political parties. Ever.
Which is really just another way of saying that women are excluded from equal opportunity or participation in our society. That is throughout society, in every arena, every institution.
Once in awhile, perhaps because of a lull in the news, as a thoroughly inadequate token, a woman gets nominated or suggested or considered for one of the better jobs in our society, and then all hell breaks loose. The media, the boys who work at Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse as well as the starched shirts at the prestigious high-brow media institutions such as the New York Times, all gang up together to pummel the woman.
We immediately hear, almost in the same breath as the announcement of her name, that she is not qualified. She never is -- women are just too stupid. (Given that George W. Bush, a white male, a moron, was President, I think white men might want to stay away from that whole "inherent intelligence" argument). We hear from the media that the female candidate is lacking in the necessary experience or background. She's not tough enough. If things get stressful, or confrontational, or there's too much pressure, she'll just break down weeping. She may have a nervous breakdown if she got the job because women are so sensitive. It's really not ladylike anyway. She doesn't have the mental acuity for the position. She wouldn't like it.
Then we hear the other side. She's a bitch. She's too overtly sexual, comes on to men, shows her cleavage during the day and her skirts are too tight and too short. Or she's ugly, doesn't bother to wear mascara or make herself up, dresses too matronly, isn't stylish, isn't pretty enough for the job, she's kind of a dog. She's a lesbian, or, if she's not, then she slept with all her (male) bosses to get the job. She's nasty, she's too tough, she's a ball-buster and a man-hater. Of she loves men and she's a slut. She's biased -- against somebody, and in favor of somebody else. She can't be trusted. She's not honest and, besides, her nanny is a little suspicious. What kind of a daughter/mother/wife is she with that level of ambition. It's unseemly for a mother to want a job with this much pressure outside the home, which means she'll neglect her children, and we don't want to do anything to break up the "family values" of our nation.
Here's what we know about Sonia Sotomayor. She's not a white male. That's it.
We know very little about her career, her personal beliefs to the extent they are mirrored in her judicial decisions. We know very little about her judicial record.
But we probably know enough to make some general statements. She's from the Bronx, she went to an Ivy League college and law school, and got good grades. She was a prosecutor in New York City, which is a job for somebody with political ambitions. It is also traditionally a conservative job, for people who want to put criminals into prison. Remember the prisons, the growth industry in our country, the new "affordable housing units" for our black and Hispanic male population, the "economic opportunity zones," for those unemployed males that our society does not want out on our streets. She worked to prosecute people, undoubtedly mostly non-white males, and put them in prison. So much for Solidary Forever or El Pueblo Unido Jamas Sera Vencido.
Next she went to work for a private law firm in New York. I doubt they were representing indigent third world people fighting for their rights against corporate America. More likely she worked for corporations, representing their interests. Which are almost always against the interests of the majority.
Then she became a judge. The key criteria for becoming a judge is to be exceedingly political, almost more so than for somebody who wants to be a politician. To get a judge position, you have to suck up with great enthusiasm to the party leaders in your area, fund-raise and then fund-raise some more for the party, show you are loyal to party above all else, prove you are a conservative, party-line hack willing to support whatever the party says, support whatever politicians they run. Not a lot of anarchists end up getting the party's support to become a judge, but without the party's support, there is no chance of becoming a judge. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. Only party-loyalists and fundraisers get the positions.
Once on the bench, her record is described as somewhat mixed -- possibly more liberal on some issues, possibly more conservative on others, generally middle-of-the-road.
So we know nothing about this woman beyond a biographical sketch that establishes one thing: she is pretty much like most of the other appellate-court level judges in the country, not right-wing and not left-wing, just somewhat in the middle.
Because her record and biography is not that exciting (if it was, she wouldn't be a judge) the media has to invent things to attack. And what the media has come up with is the old tried and true "she's female and therefore unqualified," with the bonus that "she's Hispanic and a racist." Because she has publicly stated before that her background as a Hispanic (Puerto Rican) female gives her a certain perspective on life that a white male does not have, the media calls her a racist.
God, I'm already so sick of this debate. She's not exciting, she is qualified. I'm not excited nor horrified about her nomination. Let's wait and see if anything more comes out that would justify either supporting her enthusiastically or opposing her. Until and unless that happens, let's move on. We need three more women on the court after her, and that assumes Ruth Bader Ginsburg continues in her position. We should have 5 female Supreme Court Justices because our country is over 50% female. So far in our history, we've had exactly two females ever sit on the Supreme Court. So let's get on with it. Confirm Sonia Sotomayor, stop participating in this nonsensical debate about her gender and ethnicity even deserving mention -- because it's irrelevant. Let's get back to ending the war and creating jobs and prosecuting the Wall Street Criminals who are destroying our economy.
Friday, May 29, 2009
It's "International Slap-Women-In-The-Face-Then-Spit-On-Them" Week. Go Susan Boyle!
It's been a big week of men, mostly in the media, attacking women. Must be a lull in the other wars, so they can always turn to stomping on women for a good laugh. When I say the men did it, I mean they led the attack, and the self-loathing well-paid female hookers who are temporarily supported by these men join in the gang attack, cheering on the men, telling them they are such studs.
(Taliban men beating women in public)
(Women in burkas being beaten with a stick.)
We started with the Republicans calling Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, a Pussy, a Bitch, and a Hag. I don't see any difference between calling her a Pussy and calling her a Cunt, except that these cowardly men are just too clever by half, and they want to pretend that they weren't calling those names at all. Christian Right to a man. White privileged powerful men, and the way they deal with a powerful successful woman is to call her a Cunt. And a Bitch. And a Hag. The last name is of course supposed to be a criticism of her appearance. I don't know, but she's in her late 60s, and I think she looks really good. She certainly looks better than that decrepit drug addict on the radio, or any of the men who work at Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/22882/print
Next up, the boys went after Kate Gosselin. For those not in the know, Jon and Kate Gosselin are a young married couple who needed medical assistance to get pregnant. On their first pregnancy, they had two children. They decided to go for one more, but somehow ended up with 6 more. All of the kids are adorable. And there is a reality show about this family called Jon and Kate Plus 8. Jon and Kate are having marital problems, and he's moved out. The media is all over this.
It is being reported that Kate is the one who set up the reality TV show, got a book deal for herself, and is the one who thinks this entire arrangement is a terrific deal because, with 8 kids, the two of them would have a very hard time supporting the kids. So because of this show, they now have a big new home, and hopefully the kids will have money for college. But here's the thing: reportedly Jon and Kate have received $10 Million for this reality TV show, plus the book deal. Ten Million Dollars. Holy Cow. And she's the money-earner in the family.
So the media is going after this woman like she's a mass murderer, calling her terrible things, saying how mean she is to her husband, what a terrible mother to the kids. They want to bury her up to her head in the ground and stone her to death. [No, I just made that part up]. And the reason she is such a terrible person? Nobody has explained. Her husband has been (allegedly) screwing around with a 23-year-old, but Kate, who is earning the money and doing the primary caretaking of the kids, is the bad one. For reasons never really explained.
I figure any woman who gave birth 8 times can be just as grouchy as she wants. And if her husband wants to leave, bye. She's cute, and she'll find someone new. And she's a money-machine!
But here's the really sickening part of this: the media is now printing stories saying that the government should take the 8 children away from Kate Gosselin. Actually take away her children from her. Because she's made a lot of money. Because her husband screwed around on her. Because ... she's female, she's successful, and the pack wants to see her punished.
Finally, we have the saga of Susan Boyle, a 47-year-old singer from Scotland who is the unlikely pin-up girl from an English TV show called "Britain's Got Talent." In case you missed it, Susan Boyle had an audition that blew the roof off the auditorium, singing "I Dreamed A Dream" from Les Miserables. Link below.
The TV show has performances every week, with people getting eliminated, then they have the semi-finals, and the finals are this week-end. In the semi-finals, Susan Boyle sang Memory from "Cats," and her voice broke in several places. It sounded to me like she hadn't warmed up. But the media turned on her immediately, attacking her, saying she was all washed up, it's over.
In the midst of the media frenzy, Susan Boyle watched the semi-finals in a bar, and when somebody said something positive about her competitor, she said "F-Off" and walked out. Then the frenzy really began. The newspapers have been covered with stories about Susan Boyle using the F word, and telling the obnoxious media to F-Off. Because women are not supposed to use the F word, or to tell anyone to F-off. And women are not supposed to be successful at 47, particularly if they look like a typical 47-year-old Scottish office worker, not so glamorous.
I say this:
(1) To the Media: F-Off.
(2) To Susan Boyle: You Go Girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk
You know what these men really want from women? Obedience. They just want women to know "their place," as meaningless and unimportant as a rodent, silent servants and sex workers that any man can and might rape or kill at any time for any reason with no legal consequences. Like stepping on cockroaches or swatting flies. If the women don't know, or they keep refusing to learn, then the men will beat it into them. With hands, fists, laws, media, banishment, kicks, hits, slaps, or switches. What is wrong with men?
(Taliban men beating women in public)
(Women in burkas being beaten with a stick.)
Aaron Copland (1900 - 1990)
Aaron Copland was an American composer of the 20th century. His early work can be described as traditional European-influenced classical music. But while still a young man, Aaron Copland began composing a uniquely "American" style of music, incorporating jazz, Mexican-American, and other influences unique to the United States. He composed for symphonies but also for ballets and movies.
Aaron Copland was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1900. He studied in Paris for several years, and later got a Guggenheim grant that provided him with financial assistance that allowed him to devote himself to composition. He produced traditional classical forms of composition until he was in his mid-30s, at which time he decided that he wanted to create a new style of music which would appeal to a broader audience. His first popular work was "El Salon Mexico" (1936).
In 1942, Copland was requested by the conductor of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra to write a "Fanfare" (a short piece for brass and percussion) to be used at the opening of their performances. During World War I, some composers had written "fanfares," and this orchestra wanted to bring back the custom. Copland wrote "Fanfare for the Common Man," which remains one of his most popular works.
(Aaron Copland [right] with Leonard Bernstein [left]).
In 1942, Copland also composed "A Lincoln Portrait" and composed the "Rodeo Suite" for a ballet.
In the late 1930s and into the 1940s, Copland began composing music for the film industry. Among the soundtracks he composed were "Of Mice and Men" (1939) (for which he received an academy award nomination), "Our Town" (1940), "The North Star" (1943), and "The Heiress" (1949) (for which Copland won the Academy Award for Best Music).
Although working for the film industry brought Copland some popularity and financial support, it also got him drug into the red-scares of the late 1940s and the 1950s. Basically, some right-wingers in Congress launched an inquisition in this country claiming that communists had taken over everything, including the movie industry. Secret lists were prepared which supposedly identified hundreds of people who were communists, and who were using the movie industry to sell Americans on communist ideas.
Some of the people who were hauled in front of the Congressional inquisition committee (House Unamerican Activities Committee, or HUAC) refused to testify on the grounds that their associations with others and political beIliefs were not the proper subject of government inquiry under the First Amendment Freedom of Association. Ten of those people (the "Hollywood Ten") were convicted of contempt of court and sent to prison. After that, others who were called in front of the committee relied on the fifth amendment (refusal to testify on the grounds it might tend to incriminate) and could not be held in contempt. But many, those who refused to testify and some who did testify, some who were never even called, were put onto a Blacklist and nobody in Hollywood would give them work after that.
Copland's name was included on a famous list of alleged "Reds," and was called before Congress in 1953. The list was called "Red Channels," and was put together by a few of J. Edgar Hoover's Boys in Taffetta and an extremely right-wing television producer. Copland had spoken in favor of the Communist Party in the 1930s, which was enough to condemn him. He denied that he had ever belonged to the Communist Party, and there was no evidence that he had, although membership was perfectly legal.
Despite the fact that Aaron Copland had never been a Communist, the mere fact that he had ever said anything good about the Communists was enough to have him banned from many forums. For example, his composition "The Lincoln Portrait" had been included in the list of music to be played for Eisenhower's inauguration concert, but when Copland was called a Red by Congress, the piece was removed. The "Red Channels," with its allegations against hundreds of people, unsubstantiated and without evidence, was sent to every person in the movie industry who was in a position to hire talent. Copland, along with many others, could not thereafter find work in the movie industry. http://www.aaroncopland.info/
The Fanfare For The Common Man
"Fanfare for the Common Man" (1942) is one of Copland's most famous works. It was recreated by Emerson, Lake & Palmer in 1977, a rock group which had also done a version of Copland's Hoedown in 1972. Fanfare was used as the opening to a Rolling Stones album entitled "Love You Live," and used by the Stones again as the opening of one of their concert tours. Bob Dylan has used Copland's Fanfare to open some of his shows.
Fanfare has been used by many television sports shows as their opening theme. It has been used in U.S. Navy recruitment commercials, and was featured in the movie "Saving Private Ryan." It has been chosen by space shuttle crews as their wake-up music, and used by sports teams as their theme for home games. It was played at the beginning of the "We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial," as well as being played in a concert prior to the inauguration of Bill Clinton.
"Fanfare for the Common Man" (1942). (London Philharmonic). Picture: Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland.
In 1944 , Martha Graham asked Aaron Copland to compose music for a ballet that she was going to create, although she did not yet know what would be the theme or subject matter of the ballet. Copland was simply asked to compose music for "an American Ballet." His working title was "Music for Martha." Copland composed the piece "Appalachian Spring," which is also one of his most famous pieces. Once the music was completed, Graham choreographed and composed her ballet using a story from a Hart Carne poem called "Applachian Spring," which is how the music was named. Copland was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in composition for "Applachian Spring."
From Appalachian Spring:
(Aaron Copland in his later years)Another one of Copland's popular pieces was the "Rodeo Suite," also composed in 1944. Hoedown, from Rodeo Suite:
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Men In The United States Military Are Raping Men and Women Prisoners in Iraq. President Obama Is Covering It Up.
Barack Obama, the new President of the United States, the man who campaigned on a platform of having opposed the U.S. War Against Iraq from the get-go, the man who campaigned on a promise to end the U.S. War Against Iraq, the man who proclaimed to the world that he was different, he would not support or cover up or participate in or sponsor or allow the continuation of kidnapping, torture, and murder, that same President Obama is today continuing the policies of the Bush-Cheney regime, directing and authorizing the kidnapping, torture, and murder of people from other countries, has just authorized the military to release a statement to the public that the U.S. will continue to occupy Iraq as our colony for at least 10 more years, has already authorized a secret war against Pakistan, has refused to honor the law and release the prisoners against whom there is insufficient evidence to try them, has announced an entirely new adoption of the tool of dictators everywhere stating that the government may simply engage in preventative detention, imprison people forever without charges, without counsel, without rights, without a trial.
And President Obama is also directly and personally covering up the men in the United States military who have been raping men and women in Iraq as a weapon of torture. That's right: Rape. I've read that some of the children who were kidnapped and imprisoned at Guantanamo were raped, but cannot find a link right now. Who's next? Grandma? Do we have some big strong marine with steroid-biceps and tatoos of Mom all over his pec-implants who wants to rape Grandma? Is there any exemption for children under 6? No?
One of the retired generals who conducted an investigation into Abu Ghraib (like having Wall Street investigate itself) said he doesn't see any purpose to be served by releasing pictures of the rape other than a legal one. Well, yes. The purpose would be to enforce the law. Exactly. The purpose would be to enforce the law of our nation against rape, and bring to account the rapists in our military and the people who directed them. We should also allow the victims to receive monetary compensation, assuming the military didn't kill them after they were done with the gang rape.
I'll bet anything the rapists were "Christians," probably screaming out scripture as they pounded some little boy's butt until it bled to the cheers of his fellow Marines, all of whom apparently stood by and allowed it to happen, but made sure to get photos on their i-phones to send back home to their girlfriends. Are they all insane? Are we feeding them all amphetamines to ensure they will be psychotic, and commit acts of barbarism on command? Do you think Sean Hannity would say rape is not torture, and would he offer to allow himself to be raped -- for charity?
These rape photos, which include pictures of both women and men prisoners being raped by members of the United States Military (was it the few, are they proud, or was it the guys from the army of one?), were obtained in connection with an investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib as well as 6 other prisons, specifically including 400 identified instances of abuse. This was systematic and institutional, not a case of a few bad apples. The systematic, institutional torture of prisoners was ordered and directed by people at the top of the Bush Administration. They need to be tried and imprisoned. If people in the Obama administration try to cover it up, they should be prosecuted and imprisoned for obstruction of justice and for ratifying and adopting the barbaric conduct.
This is how it works: if it is okay for the government to torture, rape and murder prisoners from some other country, it's okay for them to do it here too. That's what this is. It's just the beginning. It's going to get worse unless we stop it now. And Barack Obama not only refuses to do anything about it, he wants to just cover the whole thing up, let the bad guys go free, and send the signal out to the military: Keep On Raping, Boys. Have Fun. The Few, The Proud, The Rapists? An Army Of Fun? Is it any wonder we have such a high level of violence and suicide among vets, when their own government is teaching them to be murderers and rapists?
It's beginning to seem like the United States Empire and the institutions that own and control the world -- Wall Street, the Banks, the politicians they own, the corporations, and the U.S. military -- are really in charge of everything, and the President and Congress are just a circus for the peasants, a diversion to keep us distracted. And to waste our money making campaign contributions, as if that will make any difference at all.
What change? Exactly what has changed?
"LONDON (AP) -- A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Obama's administration does not want released. Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, told Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article published Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
"The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004. According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported.
"The Telegraph said the photos relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-28-iraq-abuse-photos_N.htm?csp=34
Remember this one? A group of U.S. military men murdered an entire family so they could take turns raping a 14-year-old girl, then murdered her? Reportedly four U.S. soldiers decided they wanted to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza. So they went to her home, took her mother, father, and her 5 year old sister into a bedroom and killed them, then took turns raping the 14 year old girl. When they were done repeatedly raping her, they shot her in the head and killed her, then set fire to her body.
The perpetrators of this rape and these murders were prosecuted and found guilty. But if we had never invaded Iraq, or if the top leadership in our country had not directed the military to use torture and rape on the occupied territory, none of this would have happened.
I suppose if anyone wants to prosecute the people who ordered and directed the rape, the top leaders of our country during the Bush regime, the Obama Administration will say that what they did is a top secret, classified, so the trial cannot go forward. Or, maybe President Obama will announce another new policy, like the preventative detention one. He could just issue an Executive Order saying that anyone who is rich and powerful, from Wall Street to government to private board rooms, is exempt from any liability for anything they do. They'll call it the Obama Doctrine.
And President Obama is also directly and personally covering up the men in the United States military who have been raping men and women in Iraq as a weapon of torture. That's right: Rape. I've read that some of the children who were kidnapped and imprisoned at Guantanamo were raped, but cannot find a link right now. Who's next? Grandma? Do we have some big strong marine with steroid-biceps and tatoos of Mom all over his pec-implants who wants to rape Grandma? Is there any exemption for children under 6? No?
One of the retired generals who conducted an investigation into Abu Ghraib (like having Wall Street investigate itself) said he doesn't see any purpose to be served by releasing pictures of the rape other than a legal one. Well, yes. The purpose would be to enforce the law. Exactly. The purpose would be to enforce the law of our nation against rape, and bring to account the rapists in our military and the people who directed them. We should also allow the victims to receive monetary compensation, assuming the military didn't kill them after they were done with the gang rape.
I'll bet anything the rapists were "Christians," probably screaming out scripture as they pounded some little boy's butt until it bled to the cheers of his fellow Marines, all of whom apparently stood by and allowed it to happen, but made sure to get photos on their i-phones to send back home to their girlfriends. Are they all insane? Are we feeding them all amphetamines to ensure they will be psychotic, and commit acts of barbarism on command? Do you think Sean Hannity would say rape is not torture, and would he offer to allow himself to be raped -- for charity?
These rape photos, which include pictures of both women and men prisoners being raped by members of the United States Military (was it the few, are they proud, or was it the guys from the army of one?), were obtained in connection with an investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib as well as 6 other prisons, specifically including 400 identified instances of abuse. This was systematic and institutional, not a case of a few bad apples. The systematic, institutional torture of prisoners was ordered and directed by people at the top of the Bush Administration. They need to be tried and imprisoned. If people in the Obama administration try to cover it up, they should be prosecuted and imprisoned for obstruction of justice and for ratifying and adopting the barbaric conduct.
This is how it works: if it is okay for the government to torture, rape and murder prisoners from some other country, it's okay for them to do it here too. That's what this is. It's just the beginning. It's going to get worse unless we stop it now. And Barack Obama not only refuses to do anything about it, he wants to just cover the whole thing up, let the bad guys go free, and send the signal out to the military: Keep On Raping, Boys. Have Fun. The Few, The Proud, The Rapists? An Army Of Fun? Is it any wonder we have such a high level of violence and suicide among vets, when their own government is teaching them to be murderers and rapists?
It's beginning to seem like the United States Empire and the institutions that own and control the world -- Wall Street, the Banks, the politicians they own, the corporations, and the U.S. military -- are really in charge of everything, and the President and Congress are just a circus for the peasants, a diversion to keep us distracted. And to waste our money making campaign contributions, as if that will make any difference at all.
What change? Exactly what has changed?
"LONDON (AP) -- A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Obama's administration does not want released. Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, told Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article published Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
"The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004. According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported.
"The Telegraph said the photos relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-28-iraq-abuse-photos_N.htm?csp=34
Remember this one? A group of U.S. military men murdered an entire family so they could take turns raping a 14-year-old girl, then murdered her? Reportedly four U.S. soldiers decided they wanted to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza. So they went to her home, took her mother, father, and her 5 year old sister into a bedroom and killed them, then took turns raping the 14 year old girl. When they were done repeatedly raping her, they shot her in the head and killed her, then set fire to her body.
The perpetrators of this rape and these murders were prosecuted and found guilty. But if we had never invaded Iraq, or if the top leadership in our country had not directed the military to use torture and rape on the occupied territory, none of this would have happened.
I suppose if anyone wants to prosecute the people who ordered and directed the rape, the top leaders of our country during the Bush regime, the Obama Administration will say that what they did is a top secret, classified, so the trial cannot go forward. Or, maybe President Obama will announce another new policy, like the preventative detention one. He could just issue an Executive Order saying that anyone who is rich and powerful, from Wall Street to government to private board rooms, is exempt from any liability for anything they do. They'll call it the Obama Doctrine.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Alzheimer's: The Drug Industry's Disease Of The Month
Are we suddenly having an Alzheimer's epidemic in this country? I hear more about Alzheimers than I do about almost any other disease. I see it on the news. Major celebrities out fundraising, trying to get money for research: Find A Cure. Those local news "human interest" stories showing some old guy or lady, maybe a little confused now, talking about the tragedy of 90-year-olds who can't remember their kids. HBO with a multi-part special.
I'm listening to the radio right now, and they are advertising a clinical trial for victims of Alzheimers. And, perhaps not coincidentally, I see major Drug Dealers (aka pharmaceuticals) advertising on television that we can help dad, or grandma, by giving them some (probably very expensive) drugs to "fight" Alzheimers. These commercials always have the cute little kids, the grandkids: Help Charlie's grandkids have a little more time with him. So emotional, so manipulative. I would bet good money that these Drug Dealers will soon be convincing the Medical Industry in this country that every person should start taking their miracle drug at age 50, and take it forever, to "help fight" against Alzheimers. I see and smell money in this sudden nationwide panic about the plague of Alzheimers.
So I decided to look it up. And was very surprised to find that this is not nearly the epidemic that we are being sold. Maybe the Drug Dealers are just pushing drugs, like Social Anxiety Disorder drugs for people who have ever felt shy or uncomfortable. Maybe this particular problem is receiving so much attention because the people getting it are older, white, relatively privileged people with paid medical care.
Here's how it breaks down. There are about 40 million Americans over the age of 65 (out of a total national population of 305 million). That means 13% of the total population of this country is over the age of 65. Of those 40 million Americans over the age of 65, 5 million have Alzheimers (12% of the over-65 crowd). That means about 1.6% of the total population of the United States has Alzheimers: a pretty small percentage. Even for all Americans over the age of 65, only 12% of them have Alzheimers.
Now, what do these people over the age of 65 have, that the rest of us don't have? Paid national healthcare. Which means that however small a percentage of the population they are, the drug companies, doctors, and hospitals make lots of money "treating" older Americans. And these Medical Industries have an incentive to get the rest of the country to contribute money for research to find new drugs which the drug companies can sell to older Americans. Or to create national scares, using fear tactics, to get the country to invest in research to create new drugs to treat older Americans.
But let's go further. 6 million of the 40 million people over 65 are actually over 85 years old. Of the people over 85, it is estimated that half of them have Ahzheimers. So it appears to be concentrated in not just seniors, but in very old people. That means that only 2 million people between the ages of 65 and 85 have Alzheimers, which is about 6% of the people in that age group.
So here's the question: why the sudden obsession with Alzheimers? I don't question that it is a terrible disease. I've known people who had relatives with Alzheimers, and it is an awful thing to watch the deterioration. But the same is true of cancer. So why the focus on Alzheimers?
Let's look at colon cancer. The risk begins much younger than for Alzheimers, and doctors recommend screening begin at 40. 150,000 new colon cancer cases are found every year. It is a disease with a high cure rate if found early. The best means of detection is a colonoscopy, a procedure which involves sticking a tube and camera up into a patient's colon and having a look-see to find evidence of early cancer.
The colon cancer screening test costs over $1,000.00. For people with any kind of deductible on their health insurance, that means the test is not covered. For people without insurance, obviously there is no coverage. We could save thousands, possibly even millions of lives simply by having a government-sponsored healthcare system which would allow Americans to take advantage of this life-saving test that is already here, already available, doesn't require any further "research." All you need is money. But a big percentage of Americans will not get this test because they can't afford it. And that means they will die, needlessly, for lack of money to pay for this simple, available test.
I can't see fund-raising to get more money so the drug industry can develop more drugs to treat a disease that mostly affects very old people (who happen to have national healthcare) when our country does not provide the funding for the rest of us to take advantage of already existing, common, simple testing methods that could save our lives.
So I guess I won't be kicking in any money so "little Chuckie and Susie, the grandkids, can have a more time with grandpa." I'd suggest that Chuckie and Susie, and their parents, start demanding healthcare for themselves, because without a national single-payer healthcare system, it's unlikely they'll make it past 50, nevermind past 85 like old grandpa.
I'm listening to the radio right now, and they are advertising a clinical trial for victims of Alzheimers. And, perhaps not coincidentally, I see major Drug Dealers (aka pharmaceuticals) advertising on television that we can help dad, or grandma, by giving them some (probably very expensive) drugs to "fight" Alzheimers. These commercials always have the cute little kids, the grandkids: Help Charlie's grandkids have a little more time with him. So emotional, so manipulative. I would bet good money that these Drug Dealers will soon be convincing the Medical Industry in this country that every person should start taking their miracle drug at age 50, and take it forever, to "help fight" against Alzheimers. I see and smell money in this sudden nationwide panic about the plague of Alzheimers.
So I decided to look it up. And was very surprised to find that this is not nearly the epidemic that we are being sold. Maybe the Drug Dealers are just pushing drugs, like Social Anxiety Disorder drugs for people who have ever felt shy or uncomfortable. Maybe this particular problem is receiving so much attention because the people getting it are older, white, relatively privileged people with paid medical care.
Here's how it breaks down. There are about 40 million Americans over the age of 65 (out of a total national population of 305 million). That means 13% of the total population of this country is over the age of 65. Of those 40 million Americans over the age of 65, 5 million have Alzheimers (12% of the over-65 crowd). That means about 1.6% of the total population of the United States has Alzheimers: a pretty small percentage. Even for all Americans over the age of 65, only 12% of them have Alzheimers.
Now, what do these people over the age of 65 have, that the rest of us don't have? Paid national healthcare. Which means that however small a percentage of the population they are, the drug companies, doctors, and hospitals make lots of money "treating" older Americans. And these Medical Industries have an incentive to get the rest of the country to contribute money for research to find new drugs which the drug companies can sell to older Americans. Or to create national scares, using fear tactics, to get the country to invest in research to create new drugs to treat older Americans.
But let's go further. 6 million of the 40 million people over 65 are actually over 85 years old. Of the people over 85, it is estimated that half of them have Ahzheimers. So it appears to be concentrated in not just seniors, but in very old people. That means that only 2 million people between the ages of 65 and 85 have Alzheimers, which is about 6% of the people in that age group.
So here's the question: why the sudden obsession with Alzheimers? I don't question that it is a terrible disease. I've known people who had relatives with Alzheimers, and it is an awful thing to watch the deterioration. But the same is true of cancer. So why the focus on Alzheimers?
Let's look at colon cancer. The risk begins much younger than for Alzheimers, and doctors recommend screening begin at 40. 150,000 new colon cancer cases are found every year. It is a disease with a high cure rate if found early. The best means of detection is a colonoscopy, a procedure which involves sticking a tube and camera up into a patient's colon and having a look-see to find evidence of early cancer.
The colon cancer screening test costs over $1,000.00. For people with any kind of deductible on their health insurance, that means the test is not covered. For people without insurance, obviously there is no coverage. We could save thousands, possibly even millions of lives simply by having a government-sponsored healthcare system which would allow Americans to take advantage of this life-saving test that is already here, already available, doesn't require any further "research." All you need is money. But a big percentage of Americans will not get this test because they can't afford it. And that means they will die, needlessly, for lack of money to pay for this simple, available test.
I can't see fund-raising to get more money so the drug industry can develop more drugs to treat a disease that mostly affects very old people (who happen to have national healthcare) when our country does not provide the funding for the rest of us to take advantage of already existing, common, simple testing methods that could save our lives.
So I guess I won't be kicking in any money so "little Chuckie and Susie, the grandkids, can have a more time with grandpa." I'd suggest that Chuckie and Susie, and their parents, start demanding healthcare for themselves, because without a national single-payer healthcare system, it's unlikely they'll make it past 50, nevermind past 85 like old grandpa.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
We Are A War Mongering Nation.
We are a war mongering nation.
If we stayed out of war, and let other nations work out their own problems (with the exception of the obvious need to intervene to prevent genocide), everybody would be much better off. Certainly the U.S. would be because we would have enough money to pay for everyone to go to college, work a 35-hour week, retire at 50, have complete medical and dental coverage provided by the government. And we could live like the Europeans do, taking long vacations and holidays. Actually live our lives instead of just working from cradle to grave to make the criminals on Wall Street rich and pay for endless wars.
The world would be better off, too. We could have a world tax on wealth, and use that to help people in third world countries to improve their own communities, build housing and schools and hospitals, develop local sustainable agriculture, preserve their own culture, and protect against their exploitation by corporations and puppet dictatorships who serve them. Instead of using our tax money to murder our neighbors, we could use it to help them.
The politicians and media tell us that we can determine the cost of war by adding up numbers: number of U.S. dead and wounded; number of dollars spent. But this is silly. We need to add up the number of people we kill in other countries when we attack them, then multiply that by 50 because that's how many family members, co-workers, friends, neighbors knew that person we killed, and will hate the U.S. forever for having done so.
Nobody has ever included in the domestic cost of war the mental deterioration and damage caused to the people that we send to war. Now there is some small effort to quantify something that the medical community has created, a disease-model name, called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The military wants to convince the publid that only a small percentage, a few of those we send to slaughter, have mental problems when they return. But the truth is that they all have mental problems when they return. If they witnessed or participated in slaughter, they will have mental problems for the rest of their lives, and their family, neighbors, and community will pay a terrible cost.
What the military is labeling Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is just the preliminary evidence of the natural and inevitable response to having witnessed or participated in slaughter. For some, it will not surface for years after the return, but everyone is damaged. People who we send to war are changed, forever changed. When they come back to this country they bring their trauma with them. It significantly adds to our national level of alcoholism and drug addiction, spousal and child abuse, suicide, homicide, and early death. But nobody includes those numbers when determining the "cost" of war. Those are the hidden costs borne by the shamed women hiding inside their homes with black eyes and broken bones. They are the hidden costs borne by the children who are terrorized by their own father's neverending rage. Which generation gets to skip this, which generation is allowed to grow and heal, war-free in this country? None. The war never ends.
Below is a partial list of U.S. wars against other nations, involvement in wars, and interventions. I did not include everything from the list, just for about the last 100 years. It's simply too much war.
(From PBS Website: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions From Vietnam To The Balkans) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/cron.html
And from Z Magazine: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html">http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
1898-1910
China Boxer Rebellion
Philippines Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
Cuba Seized from Spain
Puerto Rico Seized from Spain
Guam Seized from Spain
Nicaragua Marines land at Port San Juan del Sur.
Samoa
Nicaragua Marines land at port of Bluefields
Panama Annexed Canal Zone 1914
Honduras Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republican U.S. troops sent in
Korea Marines land, Russo-Japanese war
Cuba Marines land
Nicaragua Protectorate set up
Honduras Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908 Marines intervene in election
Nicaragua 1910 Marines land in Corinto
1911-1920
Honduras U.S. military intervenes in civil war
China Continuous occupation 1911-1941
Cuba U.S. troops intervene
Panama 1912 U.S. troops intervene
Honduras 1912 U.S. troops intervene
Nicaragua 1912-33 U.S. troops, 10-year occupation
Dominican Republican, 1914
Mexico 1914-1918, series of interventions
Haiti 1914-34, 19-year occupation by U.S. military forces
1920-1950
Cuba 1917-1933: U.S. military occupationeconomic control.
World War I
1918-1922 Numerous interventions in Soviet Union.
Panama 1918-1920 Military control.
Honduras 1919 U.S. Marines land.
Guatemala 1920 U.S. troops intervene in labor dispute.
China 1922-1927 Naval troops deployed to China.
Honduras 1924-1925 Military landed twice during unrest.
Panama 1925 Marines used to suppress striking workers.
China 1927-34 Marines stationed throughout the country.
El Salvador 1932 Warships sent during Marti revolt.
World War II 1941-1945
1950-1970
Puerto Rico 1950 U.S. assisted in crushing rebellion.
Korea 1951-1953 U.S. War Against Korea.
Iran 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, Shah installed.
Vietnam 1954-1975 U.S. War Against Vietnam
Lebanon 1958 Marines occupy against rebel group.
Cuba 1961 U.S./CIA directed invasion by exiles.
Iraq 1963 U.S. coup kills leader, brings Saddam Hussein back to run the Secret Service.
Indonesia 1965 CIA-assisted army coups kills 1.0 million.
Dominican Republican 1965-66, Marines land during election dispute.
Guatemala 1966 U.S. Green Berets intervene, work against rebels
1970-2000
Cambodia 1969-75 U.S. illegal war
Laos 1971-73 U.S. directs South Vietnamese puppet government invasion, carpet-bombs the country.
Chile 1973 CIA/Henry Kissinger-backed coup ousts democratically elected president Allende and installs military dictator Pinochet, leading to the torture and murder of thousands.
Angola 1976-92 CIA assists rebels backed by South Africa.
El Salvador 1981-1992 U.S. military "advisers," pilots, soldiers assist military dictatorship in war against citizens.
Nicaragua 1981-1990 CIA-directed and secretly funded war against citizens on behalf of dictatorship.
Lebanon 1982-1984 U.S. Marines support Phalangists; U.S. military bombs and shells Muslim population.
Grenada 1983-1984 U.S. invades country.
Honduras 1983-1989 U.S. troops engage in various activities in support of dictatorship.
Libya 1986 U.S. sends pilots, drops bombs to assist in overthrowing the government.
Bolivia 1986 U.S. troops conduct raids in various parts of the country, purportedly in "war on drugs."
Iran 1987-1988 U.S. sides in Iraq in war against Iran, delivers to Iraq various weaponry including chemical warfare for Iraq to use against Iran.
Panama 1989 U.S. sends in troops, overthrows government.
Saudi Arabia 1990-1991 U.S. stations troops and jets in Saudi Arabia, plus over one-half million other troops in Oman, Qatar, Behrain, UAE, Israel.
Iraq 1990- U.S. conducts air strikes, invades Iraq and Kuwait, creates no-fly zone, blockades.
Somalia 1992-1994 U.S. leads United Nations occupation.
Bosnia 1993 U.S. involvement in war between Bosnia, Serbia, former Yugoslavia.
Haiti 1994 U.S. troops intervene against sitting government, restore Aristide to office.
Sudan 1998 U.S. missile strike on apparent pharmaceutical plant alleged to be a weapons plant.
Afghanistan 1998 U.S. missiles strike inside Afghanistan allegedly attacking Islamic fundamentalist groups.
Yugoslavia 1999 U.S. and Nato air strikes re Serbia, Kosovo; occupation of Kosovo through NATO.
2000 - present
Macedonia 2001 U.S./NATO forces intervene against Albanian rebels.
Afghanistan 2001- U.S. bombs, invades, occupies after 9/11 attacks on U.S.
Columbia 2003 - U.S. military engage in warfare on behalf of dictatorship and against rebels, either as "war on drugs," or as security mercenaries for oil corporations protecting their oil pipelines, used to take oil from the country.
Iraq 2003 - U.S. invasion, bombing, occupation.
Haiti 2004-2005 U.S. marines land after Aristide is ousted by local rebel group.
Pakistan 2005 - CIA missile, air strikes, special forces raid alleged al Queda and Taliban villages.
Somalia 2006 U.S. Special Forces assist Ethiopian invasion to topple government of Somalia; air strikes and missile attacks, plus naval blockade.
Why should the United States be invading and attacking all these other countries? China, Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Yugoslavia. Is there any place on earth that people are safe from us? Why do we keep invading Haiti? Why don't we help them instead of killing them? The U.S. has military troops all over the world. We, the citizens, pay for that. Who benefits from it? The corporations who use the presence and threat of the U.S. military to force countries to turn over their resources to the corporations.
Our military is used as private security, mercenaries, hit-men for the corporate CEOs. Much like the state-sponsored Explorers of Europe from hundreds of years ago would go out in big ships, well-armed, "discover" some country, claim to own it, then kill all the people and steal all the resources. We are doing the same thing, just with a modern twist. Instead of the King, or Queen getting all the gold and jewels, now we have the CEOs who have the military come back and lay this wealth at their feet. It's so ludicrous that people claim we are a religious nation, when the truth is that we spend most of our money, time, effort, and resources in murdering other people around the world and turning our backs on the misery and suffering that we cause.
The citizens pay for this. Our treasury goes to paying for more and more wars and military invasions and occupations. This does not make us safer. It makes everybody in the world hate us. And the government tells us that there is no money left for us. No money for roads, no money for schools, no money for healthcare. We are taught to expect nothing for ourselves, as if we are the lowest of the low: no job security, no education, no healthcare, no homes, no public transportation, no vacations, no sick leave, no holidays. We get nothing. In contrast with people in every other developed country in the world, who have relatively comfortable lives compared to the misery and exploitation of working people in this country.
We need to stop these wars, and we need to tell our government that from now on, we are out of the war business, and we are in the nation-building business, starting with our own nation. Instead of sending bombs to blow up other countries, let's use the money to re-build our own nation. Instead of sending the navy to provide protection for the shipping industry that is carrying resources away from third world countries, we should let those people keep their own resources, and use our money to protect our own people from illness by creating a national healthcare system.
Masters Of War (Bob Dylan)
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desk
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
If we stayed out of war, and let other nations work out their own problems (with the exception of the obvious need to intervene to prevent genocide), everybody would be much better off. Certainly the U.S. would be because we would have enough money to pay for everyone to go to college, work a 35-hour week, retire at 50, have complete medical and dental coverage provided by the government. And we could live like the Europeans do, taking long vacations and holidays. Actually live our lives instead of just working from cradle to grave to make the criminals on Wall Street rich and pay for endless wars.
The world would be better off, too. We could have a world tax on wealth, and use that to help people in third world countries to improve their own communities, build housing and schools and hospitals, develop local sustainable agriculture, preserve their own culture, and protect against their exploitation by corporations and puppet dictatorships who serve them. Instead of using our tax money to murder our neighbors, we could use it to help them.
The politicians and media tell us that we can determine the cost of war by adding up numbers: number of U.S. dead and wounded; number of dollars spent. But this is silly. We need to add up the number of people we kill in other countries when we attack them, then multiply that by 50 because that's how many family members, co-workers, friends, neighbors knew that person we killed, and will hate the U.S. forever for having done so.
Nobody has ever included in the domestic cost of war the mental deterioration and damage caused to the people that we send to war. Now there is some small effort to quantify something that the medical community has created, a disease-model name, called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The military wants to convince the publid that only a small percentage, a few of those we send to slaughter, have mental problems when they return. But the truth is that they all have mental problems when they return. If they witnessed or participated in slaughter, they will have mental problems for the rest of their lives, and their family, neighbors, and community will pay a terrible cost.
What the military is labeling Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is just the preliminary evidence of the natural and inevitable response to having witnessed or participated in slaughter. For some, it will not surface for years after the return, but everyone is damaged. People who we send to war are changed, forever changed. When they come back to this country they bring their trauma with them. It significantly adds to our national level of alcoholism and drug addiction, spousal and child abuse, suicide, homicide, and early death. But nobody includes those numbers when determining the "cost" of war. Those are the hidden costs borne by the shamed women hiding inside their homes with black eyes and broken bones. They are the hidden costs borne by the children who are terrorized by their own father's neverending rage. Which generation gets to skip this, which generation is allowed to grow and heal, war-free in this country? None. The war never ends.
Below is a partial list of U.S. wars against other nations, involvement in wars, and interventions. I did not include everything from the list, just for about the last 100 years. It's simply too much war.
(From PBS Website: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions From Vietnam To The Balkans) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/cron.html
And from Z Magazine: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html">http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
1898-1910
China Boxer Rebellion
Philippines Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
Cuba Seized from Spain
Puerto Rico Seized from Spain
Guam Seized from Spain
Nicaragua Marines land at Port San Juan del Sur.
Samoa
Nicaragua Marines land at port of Bluefields
Panama Annexed Canal Zone 1914
Honduras Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republican U.S. troops sent in
Korea Marines land, Russo-Japanese war
Cuba Marines land
Nicaragua Protectorate set up
Honduras Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama 1908 Marines intervene in election
Nicaragua 1910 Marines land in Corinto
1911-1920
Honduras U.S. military intervenes in civil war
China Continuous occupation 1911-1941
Cuba U.S. troops intervene
Panama 1912 U.S. troops intervene
Honduras 1912 U.S. troops intervene
Nicaragua 1912-33 U.S. troops, 10-year occupation
Dominican Republican, 1914
Mexico 1914-1918, series of interventions
Haiti 1914-34, 19-year occupation by U.S. military forces
1920-1950
Cuba 1917-1933: U.S. military occupationeconomic control.
World War I
1918-1922 Numerous interventions in Soviet Union.
Panama 1918-1920 Military control.
Honduras 1919 U.S. Marines land.
Guatemala 1920 U.S. troops intervene in labor dispute.
China 1922-1927 Naval troops deployed to China.
Honduras 1924-1925 Military landed twice during unrest.
Panama 1925 Marines used to suppress striking workers.
China 1927-34 Marines stationed throughout the country.
El Salvador 1932 Warships sent during Marti revolt.
World War II 1941-1945
1950-1970
Puerto Rico 1950 U.S. assisted in crushing rebellion.
Korea 1951-1953 U.S. War Against Korea.
Iran 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, Shah installed.
Vietnam 1954-1975 U.S. War Against Vietnam
Lebanon 1958 Marines occupy against rebel group.
Cuba 1961 U.S./CIA directed invasion by exiles.
Iraq 1963 U.S. coup kills leader, brings Saddam Hussein back to run the Secret Service.
Indonesia 1965 CIA-assisted army coups kills 1.0 million.
Dominican Republican 1965-66, Marines land during election dispute.
Guatemala 1966 U.S. Green Berets intervene, work against rebels
1970-2000
Cambodia 1969-75 U.S. illegal war
Laos 1971-73 U.S. directs South Vietnamese puppet government invasion, carpet-bombs the country.
Chile 1973 CIA/Henry Kissinger-backed coup ousts democratically elected president Allende and installs military dictator Pinochet, leading to the torture and murder of thousands.
Angola 1976-92 CIA assists rebels backed by South Africa.
El Salvador 1981-1992 U.S. military "advisers," pilots, soldiers assist military dictatorship in war against citizens.
Nicaragua 1981-1990 CIA-directed and secretly funded war against citizens on behalf of dictatorship.
Lebanon 1982-1984 U.S. Marines support Phalangists; U.S. military bombs and shells Muslim population.
Grenada 1983-1984 U.S. invades country.
Honduras 1983-1989 U.S. troops engage in various activities in support of dictatorship.
Libya 1986 U.S. sends pilots, drops bombs to assist in overthrowing the government.
Bolivia 1986 U.S. troops conduct raids in various parts of the country, purportedly in "war on drugs."
Iran 1987-1988 U.S. sides in Iraq in war against Iran, delivers to Iraq various weaponry including chemical warfare for Iraq to use against Iran.
Panama 1989 U.S. sends in troops, overthrows government.
Saudi Arabia 1990-1991 U.S. stations troops and jets in Saudi Arabia, plus over one-half million other troops in Oman, Qatar, Behrain, UAE, Israel.
Iraq 1990- U.S. conducts air strikes, invades Iraq and Kuwait, creates no-fly zone, blockades.
Somalia 1992-1994 U.S. leads United Nations occupation.
Bosnia 1993 U.S. involvement in war between Bosnia, Serbia, former Yugoslavia.
Haiti 1994 U.S. troops intervene against sitting government, restore Aristide to office.
Sudan 1998 U.S. missile strike on apparent pharmaceutical plant alleged to be a weapons plant.
Afghanistan 1998 U.S. missiles strike inside Afghanistan allegedly attacking Islamic fundamentalist groups.
Yugoslavia 1999 U.S. and Nato air strikes re Serbia, Kosovo; occupation of Kosovo through NATO.
2000 - present
Macedonia 2001 U.S./NATO forces intervene against Albanian rebels.
Afghanistan 2001- U.S. bombs, invades, occupies after 9/11 attacks on U.S.
Columbia 2003 - U.S. military engage in warfare on behalf of dictatorship and against rebels, either as "war on drugs," or as security mercenaries for oil corporations protecting their oil pipelines, used to take oil from the country.
Iraq 2003 - U.S. invasion, bombing, occupation.
Haiti 2004-2005 U.S. marines land after Aristide is ousted by local rebel group.
Pakistan 2005 - CIA missile, air strikes, special forces raid alleged al Queda and Taliban villages.
Somalia 2006 U.S. Special Forces assist Ethiopian invasion to topple government of Somalia; air strikes and missile attacks, plus naval blockade.
Why should the United States be invading and attacking all these other countries? China, Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Yugoslavia. Is there any place on earth that people are safe from us? Why do we keep invading Haiti? Why don't we help them instead of killing them? The U.S. has military troops all over the world. We, the citizens, pay for that. Who benefits from it? The corporations who use the presence and threat of the U.S. military to force countries to turn over their resources to the corporations.
Our military is used as private security, mercenaries, hit-men for the corporate CEOs. Much like the state-sponsored Explorers of Europe from hundreds of years ago would go out in big ships, well-armed, "discover" some country, claim to own it, then kill all the people and steal all the resources. We are doing the same thing, just with a modern twist. Instead of the King, or Queen getting all the gold and jewels, now we have the CEOs who have the military come back and lay this wealth at their feet. It's so ludicrous that people claim we are a religious nation, when the truth is that we spend most of our money, time, effort, and resources in murdering other people around the world and turning our backs on the misery and suffering that we cause.
The citizens pay for this. Our treasury goes to paying for more and more wars and military invasions and occupations. This does not make us safer. It makes everybody in the world hate us. And the government tells us that there is no money left for us. No money for roads, no money for schools, no money for healthcare. We are taught to expect nothing for ourselves, as if we are the lowest of the low: no job security, no education, no healthcare, no homes, no public transportation, no vacations, no sick leave, no holidays. We get nothing. In contrast with people in every other developed country in the world, who have relatively comfortable lives compared to the misery and exploitation of working people in this country.
We need to stop these wars, and we need to tell our government that from now on, we are out of the war business, and we are in the nation-building business, starting with our own nation. Instead of sending bombs to blow up other countries, let's use the money to re-build our own nation. Instead of sending the navy to provide protection for the shipping industry that is carrying resources away from third world countries, we should let those people keep their own resources, and use our money to protect our own people from illness by creating a national healthcare system.
Masters Of War (Bob Dylan)
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desk
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Memorial Day Order, 1868: To Strew With Flowers The Graves Of Comrades Who Died In Defense Of Their Country.
Memorial Day was established in 1868 to honor and remember those military people who died in defense of the nation against the "rebellion." So the guys who fought for the North were to have their graves strewn with springtime flowers. For all the dead guys who fought for the South, nothing.
It's time we stopped filling our cemeteries with young dead men who have died needlessly in war. Putting flowers on somebody's grave doesn't bring them back to their families, and doesn't give the dead guy back the 60 or so years of his life which was stolen because his nation went to war.
If we absolutely must go to war, let's make it a rare occurrence rather than something we do routinely. Let's stop resource wars -- wars of aggression we wage against other countries to protect the claims of corporations that they are entitled to steal resources. We need to get out of the war business. Our nation is broke, and one reason is because we just keep starting wars, and stealing all the money of our citizens and giving it to the war industry. Our nation is also morally bankrupt. We cannot have a democracy when we continue to wage wars against the poorest people in the world to steal their resources, lie about why we're invading them and murdering their people, kidnapping, torturing, murdering generations of young men to prevent them from defending their own countries. We are on the wrong side of history. Most of our politicians take bribes and kick-backs to support these resource wars, while the citizens of this nation are going broke. End the Wars, stop the killing.
"Harvest of Death," by Timothy H. O'Sullivan (photographer) 1863.
It's time we stopped filling our cemeteries with young dead men who have died needlessly in war. Putting flowers on somebody's grave doesn't bring them back to their families, and doesn't give the dead guy back the 60 or so years of his life which was stolen because his nation went to war.
If we absolutely must go to war, let's make it a rare occurrence rather than something we do routinely. Let's stop resource wars -- wars of aggression we wage against other countries to protect the claims of corporations that they are entitled to steal resources. We need to get out of the war business. Our nation is broke, and one reason is because we just keep starting wars, and stealing all the money of our citizens and giving it to the war industry. Our nation is also morally bankrupt. We cannot have a democracy when we continue to wage wars against the poorest people in the world to steal their resources, lie about why we're invading them and murdering their people, kidnapping, torturing, murdering generations of young men to prevent them from defending their own countries. We are on the wrong side of history. Most of our politicians take bribes and kick-backs to support these resource wars, while the citizens of this nation are going broke. End the Wars, stop the killing.
"Harvest of Death," by Timothy H. O'Sullivan (photographer) 1863.Slowly, over the misty fields of Gettysburg--as all reluctant to expose their
ghastly horrors to the light--came the sunless morn, after the retreat by
[General Robert. E.] Lee's broken army. Through the shadowy vapors, it was,
indeed, a "harvest of death" that was presented; hundreds and thousands of torn
Union and rebel soldiers--although many of the former were already
interred--strewed the now quiet fighting ground, soaked by the rain, which for
two days had drenched the country with its fitful showers."
(Photographic Sketch Book of the War. Alexander Gardner wrote these words to describe the now-famous photo above, taken by Timothy H. Sullivan, and commonly referred to as "Harvest of Death." This was a picture taken of the dead in the U.S. Civil War after the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 - July 3, 1863).
Memorial Day Order
I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit
We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.
If other eyes grow dull and other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.
Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan
II. It is the purpose of the Commander in Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.
III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.
—General Orders No. 11 Grand Army of the Republic Headquarters
Friday, May 22, 2009
What Shall We Call The CIA?
If the cops are called the Boys in Blue,
and the FBI are called the Boys in Taffeta (it was J. Edgar's favorite fabric),
Then what shall we call the CIA?
THE BOYS IN WETSUITS!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Al Queda in the Bronx? (The Bronx Is Up And The Battery's Down). Entrapment, Entrapment, Entrapment.
A few decades ago, rich people fire-bombed entire neighborhoods in the Bronx. But they weren't called terrorists -- they were called landlords. And nobody did a thing to stop them. My how things have changed in the Bronx.
It's being reported today that there was a "major" FBI sting in New York City, in the Bronx, arresting four men (al Queda in the Bronx?) who reportedly were planning to (1) blow up a Synagogue, and (2) shoot airplanes out of the sky. But they couldn't do anything until the FBI sent in some informant to infiltrate (or create) their "organization" (did they sit around a trash can and drink beers and talk shit every day?). Not only did the FBI "infiltrate" the "organization," but they also (1) offered to provide explosives to be used in blowing up a synagogue, and (2) offered to provide a weapon that could blow airplanes out of the sky. It took the FBI an entire year to get these four losers to participate at all (who knows how much money they were promised), and even at that the FBI had to actually drive the guys to the "scene of the crime," and stand there and instruct them what to do, so they could be arrested. And called "terrorists."
So let's see: we've got four probably losers who hang out together and talk trash. Then the FBI, working with some right-wing Republican in Congress decides to "infiltrate," and provide a plan for insurrection, plus provide the weapons. What's in it for the FBI? How actively are the Republicans and the state police (FBI, CIA) working together to re-terrorize (is that a word?) the American public, to justify torture and international war crimes, so there will be no hearings or prosecutions? Would they go so far as to invent evidence? Well.... yes, actually. They already invented evidence to use to invade Iraq. They're actually pretty good at it.
Read the story in the New York Times (link below) and get the details of this absurdity.
Given the well-documented history of the FBI in not just framing people and creating false evidence, but out-right murder, I would never assume anything they say or report is truthful. The fact that this entire "investigation" took a year to complete stinks to high heaven. If these men were such a danger to society, then why were they allowed to roam our streets for an entire year
My guess is that they are four loser-nobodys, low-IQs, just like those dudes from Florida who wanted to make a revolution, and whose demands were that they wanted new boots. People like this are used and manipulated by the state police forces to create a phony crisis. I'll bet anything that these four will be held under some terrorist statute that will prevent their attorneys from providing them with a basic defense to the charges. Or even presenting a defense. You know -- "National Security" and all that. Or maybe this will be a test of the new policy of "preventative detention" by which our government claims they can lock us up forever, without trial. You know. To "protect" us.
If somebody wanted to blow up a building, they could get gasoline and soda bottles. If they wanted to kill people, they could get a gun. This whole story stinks. It's like the FBI came up with some truly bizarre scenario to maximize the level to which the public could be terrorized. I'm betting we'll see three things at work in this phony story: Entrapment, Entrapment, and Entrapment. This will undoubtedly be used by the Republicans to justify their torture and international war crimes, and to support the further elimination of our basic constitutional rights. Will it be used by the Democrats to justify the planned war against Pakistan, and Obama's just-announced policy of preventative detention without trial?
What does the New York Times report in its article on May 22, 2009, titled "N.Y. Bomb Plot Suspects Acted Alone, Police Say"? Here are a few important points.
1. The four men who were arrested are described by local cops as "petty criminals."
2. They were acting alone, not with any terrorist organization. (Until the FBI got involved, anyway).
3. All four men had previously been in prison, for petty crimes.
4. The FBI found these four losers by sending informants into a Muslim mosque, and looking for -- poor people?
5. The "plot" consisted of the FBI informant wooing these men for a year, buying them meals, (did the FBI buy these men the SUV they drove to the "crime scene?") and promising them -- what? Millions of dollars? Even at that, the FBI informant, who told the four men he represented some foreign group, spent an entire year before he could get them to agree to do anything. Even then, the four men did nothing. The FBI gave them something which they said was a bomb, and drove them to a synagogue, then sat there and waited for the men to put the bomb out front. The FBI gave these four men something they said was a missile, and the FBI was supposedly going to drive the men to an airport where they would then shoot down airplanes. The four men did nothing. The FBI apparently planned the crime, got the "weapons," got together their "crew," maybe gave these men an SUV, maybe gave them money, maybe promised them millions. Whose the real criminal here? This is so weak that the case should be dismissed immediately.
6. The U.S. Attorneys' office describes the four as "extremely violent men." That's not what the local cops said -- the cops who know these guys. The local cops said these guys are petty criminals. Not based on their conduct. They didn't do anything except what the FBI informant told them to do. We already know the FBI is extremely violent. But these four men have no reported history of violence of any kind. So why would the U.S. Attorney's office come up with the description of "extremely" violent men? I'm guessing because they're going to be held forever, without a trial. Or maybe with some secret trial.
7. Three of the men are U.S.-born, one was born in Haiti. All four men are being reported by the FBI as being Muslim, although family relatives do not confirm that. For example, Wanda Cromitie is a sister of one of the four men arrested. She said: "she was shocked to learn of her brother’s arrest while watching television this morning. She said she was unaware that her brother may have had extreme political views, and that she had last spoken to him about two years ago when she thought he was working at a Wal-Mart or Kmart store. " [Which could make anyone have extreme political views]. “'Right now, to me he’s, like, the dumbest person I ever came in contact with in my life,' Ms. Cromitie said. She added that as far as she knew, he was not a Muslim, but said 'they do a little time in jail and they don’t eat pork no more.'”
8. The FBI sent informants into a Muslim mosque in the hometown of these four men several years ago at least. "At the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque in Newburgh where the men first met the F.B.I. informant, they were not considered devoted members, said an imam at the mosque, Salahuddin Mustafa. He also said that the man he believes was the informant showed up about two years ago and started inviting people to meals, where he would talk about jihad and violence.
9. An assistant imam (like a minister or pastor) at that mosque said that one of the four men appeared to be mentally ill. He "often talked in circles, showed signs of paranoia and kept bottles of urine in a messy apartment. 'He has some very serious psychological problems,'" (the assistant iman said.)
10. Therefore, according to the New York Times, the FBI sent an underground informant into a Muslim mosque, and that informant would invite poor ex-con members out to meals where he would talk to them about violence and jihad. Yes, that's called inciting violence. What exactly did the FBI promise these four men? Money?
11. Actually, these four men were given up by another guy who had been caught in criminal activity, and agreed to be an informant to the FBI in exchange for staying out of prison. This weasel told the FBI that these four losers wanted to attack the U.S. That's how this all began. Or so the FBI claims. Some weasley criminal turned these four guys in so he could stay out of prison. And even at that, it took the FBI an entire year to get these four guys to go along with this ridiculous "plot" to attack a synagogue.
It gets better. The FBI informant actually drove these four losers to the synagogue and watched (or instructed) one of them placing packages (supposedly with explosives) inside cars parked out front. The four bad guys and the FBI who directed the whole "plot" were inside a black SUV. Whose car was this? Did these four men even have a car? The newspaper calls the driver a "cooperator." Is that the same as FBI Informant? The FBI immediately moved in from all sides, including in armored vehicles, smashed in the windows of the SUV (why?) and made the big arrest. Of Al Queda in the Bronx.
The newspaper reports that none of the four resisted at all. Yet the place was swarming with FBI and cops: "'Other police officers, along with members of the Joint Terrorist Task Force, the F.B.I., and the state police, were also on hand, and moved in and took those individuals away.'"
Then to cap it off, we have a new term, "aspiration." The FBI is claiming that these four men "aspired" to be bad guys, but did not have the materials or abilities to do so. Good thing the FBI jumped in to direct, encourage, and pretend to arm them. Entrapment. And a waste of taxpayer money. "A federal law enforcement official described the plot as 'aspirational' — meaning that the suspects wanted to do something but had no weapons or explosives — and described the operation as a sting with a cooperator within the group." Aspirational. They aspire to commit crimes. A "cooperator" in the group: that's the FBI plant who came up with the plan, promised money to the others if they would go along with it, got the phony weapons, and was in charge of the entire bizarre incident. This is a new low.
Here's another good one: "The shadowy figure of the F.B.I. informant is, in many ways, a driving force of the plot laid out by prosecutors." Well yes, driving force. He invented the whole thing. He created it. Delete "in many ways."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/nyregion/22terror.html?_r=1&hp
So, what's really going on with these two-bit criminals being set up like big-time terrorists? Find some ex-cons including one who's crazy, probably poor and unable to find work. Tell them what to do, pretend to represent some wealthy foreign group, provide them with the pretend weapons, promise them what? Millions of dollars? All set up by the FBI.
Here's the proper role for law enforcement: (1) when there has been a crime committed, they investigate, find evidence, turn it over to a prosecuting attorney who decides whether to file charges; (2) if they hear of a planned crime, investigate that, gather evidence to be used to stop the crime. But it is not the proper role of law enforcement to manufacture crimes, to try to get other people to commit crimes so the law enforcement can act like big shots when they arrest the guys. Which is what appears to have happened in this case.
The government got four losers and set them up to take a fall as some big-time Al Queda in the Bronx. But for what? I'd say it is to (1) re-terrorize the public, make people fearful, (2) convince the public that torture and wars of aggression are necessary, so there should be no hearings or prosecution or punishment of those who committed those crimes, (3) provide further support for the elimination of the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country.; and (4) maybe test out the new "preventative detention" theory being floated by our federal government, the idea that they can jerk us out of our homes at any time and throw us in prison, without trial, forever. You know -- to keep the country safe.
The FBI: Fibbers, Bulls***ters and Incompetents.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Credit Card "Consumers' Rights" Bill Does Nothing To Help The Consumers
The Senate just passed an empty law they call a "reform" of the credit card industry. The Democrats will undoubtedly proclaim across the land, I'm guessing by tomorrow in e-mail solicitations, that they are working hard to help the people of this country, protect them from the predators on Wall Street. But the Democrats will be lying when they make those claims, as will President Obama who undoubtedly will use this in his re-election campaign.
The media will also lie about it, trying to fool the public into believing this law does something to help the people. But the only thing it really does is to further defraud the public.
There are a few nonsensical provisions that will have no effect whatsoever. They can't use a dragnet clause (to say a default on anything else, like a mortgage, is a default on their credit card so they can raise the interest). Big deal. Somebody's house is in foreclosure, their credit card is not the biggest thing on their mind. They give people a little bit longer before the late fees hit, but they leave the late fees in there -- which, combined with other ridiculous punitive fees raised $20 Billion for these Loansharks last year alone.
But here's the worst part of all. A new provision says that anyone under 21 must either prove they are able to pay the credit card or have their parents be co-signers. The Democrats claim that this is to "protect" young people from getting credit cards if they're unable to pay them. But the truth is that this is just a sneaky, deceptive way to fool adults to take on responsibility for their children's obligations -- 18 through 21 -- when right now, there is no such obligation. An 18 year old defaults on a credit card, tough luck Citibank, try to collect. Under the new law, Citibank will go grab Mom and Dad's paycheck. Even for a 20-year-old who lives on their own, and has a full-time job. Citibank will now go take the money out of Mom and Dad's checking account. Thanks to the Democrats, who undoubtedly will claim this is another big benefit for working Americans.
Last week, someone introduced an amendment to cap interest on credit cards at 15%. It was shot down. The Democrats have the majority in the Senate, but they also take the most bribes from the credit card industry. So they said no way. The federal government loans money to the credit card industry at 1/2 % interest per year. The credit card industry turns around and loans that money to American citizens, but charge 25% interest per year, and they rake in about a 24% profit per year. Talk about obscene loansharking practices.
This week, somebody introduced an amendment to "limit" interest to 36%, and that was shot down too. No, the Democrats cried, we must let the credit card companies charge 50% interest if they want, because they pay us so much money in bribes.
What we should do is just pick a date, then stop paying and stop using our credit cards. Tell Congress to get up off their fat, corrupt asses and pass a real reform of credit cards to limit interest to 10%, eliminate late and other fees, and make the new interest rate retroactive to January 1 of this year.
What do you call a government that lies to the citizens, deceives them, pretends to be a democracy but actually sells their votes to the richest corporations in the world, lets businesses take the jobs to other countries, watch their own people be thrown out of work and forced to borrow money just to survive, then lets the loansharks charge 25% or more for a simple loan? A corrupt, deceitful, fraudulent, useless, traitorous dictatorship.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_credit_cards
The media will also lie about it, trying to fool the public into believing this law does something to help the people. But the only thing it really does is to further defraud the public.
There are a few nonsensical provisions that will have no effect whatsoever. They can't use a dragnet clause (to say a default on anything else, like a mortgage, is a default on their credit card so they can raise the interest). Big deal. Somebody's house is in foreclosure, their credit card is not the biggest thing on their mind. They give people a little bit longer before the late fees hit, but they leave the late fees in there -- which, combined with other ridiculous punitive fees raised $20 Billion for these Loansharks last year alone.
But here's the worst part of all. A new provision says that anyone under 21 must either prove they are able to pay the credit card or have their parents be co-signers. The Democrats claim that this is to "protect" young people from getting credit cards if they're unable to pay them. But the truth is that this is just a sneaky, deceptive way to fool adults to take on responsibility for their children's obligations -- 18 through 21 -- when right now, there is no such obligation. An 18 year old defaults on a credit card, tough luck Citibank, try to collect. Under the new law, Citibank will go grab Mom and Dad's paycheck. Even for a 20-year-old who lives on their own, and has a full-time job. Citibank will now go take the money out of Mom and Dad's checking account. Thanks to the Democrats, who undoubtedly will claim this is another big benefit for working Americans.
Last week, someone introduced an amendment to cap interest on credit cards at 15%. It was shot down. The Democrats have the majority in the Senate, but they also take the most bribes from the credit card industry. So they said no way. The federal government loans money to the credit card industry at 1/2 % interest per year. The credit card industry turns around and loans that money to American citizens, but charge 25% interest per year, and they rake in about a 24% profit per year. Talk about obscene loansharking practices.
This week, somebody introduced an amendment to "limit" interest to 36%, and that was shot down too. No, the Democrats cried, we must let the credit card companies charge 50% interest if they want, because they pay us so much money in bribes.
What we should do is just pick a date, then stop paying and stop using our credit cards. Tell Congress to get up off their fat, corrupt asses and pass a real reform of credit cards to limit interest to 10%, eliminate late and other fees, and make the new interest rate retroactive to January 1 of this year.
What do you call a government that lies to the citizens, deceives them, pretends to be a democracy but actually sells their votes to the richest corporations in the world, lets businesses take the jobs to other countries, watch their own people be thrown out of work and forced to borrow money just to survive, then lets the loansharks charge 25% or more for a simple loan? A corrupt, deceitful, fraudulent, useless, traitorous dictatorship.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_credit_cards
Monday, May 18, 2009
Permanent War And The Destruction Of Our Country
Chris Hedges has an article over at Truthdig (link below) which he titles "The Disease of Permanent War." He raises some good points. Why do we need to stay in Iraq? Why are we escalating the war in Afghanistan? The New York Times reports we're using chemical warfare now in Afghanistan (white phosporous). Why? They're poor people who live in rubble. What do we want? To pulverize the rubble, kill all the people? Why are we staging a proxy war in Pakistan, escalating our military commitments in the region? How can we ever fix our economy, create jobs, improve our schools, fund social security, get healthcare, if all our money continues to be used to wage wars against people in other nations? How will we ever have peace if we keep waging wars against other people?
Here's the introductory paragraph from the Hedges article, with the link:
"The embrace by any society of permanent war is a parasite that devours the heart and soul of a nation. Permanent war extinguishes liberal, democratic movements. It turns culture into nationalist cant. It degrades and corrupts education and the media, and wrecks the economy. The liberal, democratic forces, tasked with maintaining an open society, become impotent. The collapse of liberalism, whether in imperial Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Weimar Germany, ushers in an age of moral nihilism. This moral nihilism comes is many colors and hues. It rants and thunders in a variety of slogans, languages and ideologies. It can manifest itself in fascist salutes, communist show trials or Christian crusades. It is, at its core, all the same. It is the crude, terrifying tirade of mediocrities who find their identities and power in the perpetuation of permanent war. "
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090518_the_disease_of_permanent_war/
The U.S. War Against Iraq Is A Christian Crusade To Conquer The World (And Steal The Oil)
We still don't know how 9/11 happened. Even if al Queda was behind it, we don't know, for example, why some of the hijackers trained at a Florida flight school run by an ex-CIA guy. Or why the D.C. FBI prohibited the Minnesota FBI from looking inside a hijacker's computer in advance of 9/11 -- if they'd let them go ahead, the attacks might have been prevented.
We don't know if Bush and his gang had enough information before 9/11 to know exactly what was going to happen, but decided to sit back and let it happen because, consistent with the Project for a New American Century policy paper of 1998, they were all fanatics who believed that in order to strengthen the military state in this country, it was necessary to have a new Pearl Harbor.
We have no reason to believe the 9/11 commission, because Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate with it.
But some things are pretty clear. We know that the Bush Regime used the 9/11 attacks to justify privatizing many of the traditional functions of the military, giving no-bid contracts to Republican businesses like Blackwater and Halliburton which, in turn, kicked back enormous bribes to the Republicans. We know that they used 9/11 to allow their friends to loot the U.S. Treasury (and pay enormous kick-backs to the Republicans). We know that they used 9/11 to wiretap most of the Democratic politicians (which may be one reason the Democrats won't do anything -- that plus the bribes they take). We know that they used 9/11 to justify kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people without any lawful or judicial basis for doing so. We know that the Bush Regime disavowed the responsibility of the U.S. to comply with treaties, including the treaty against torture. We know that they destroyed evidence to make it harder for any of them to be subjected to international war crimes tribunals.
Post 9/11, we know that the first response of the Bush insiders was to say "Oh good, now we can invade Iraq." But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And the CIA people, and intelligence people, told the Bush gang that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
We have recently learned that Cheney ordered prisoners be kidnapped and tortured, and forced to "confess" that Iraq did have some involvement with 9/11, so they could use the coerced confessions as a cover for their plan to start a war against Iraq. So they could have a "defense" to international war crimes charges, which they've always known were a strong possibility if the truth ever came out.
As for George W. Bush, it's hard to say how much he understood because he does seem to be either really stupid, beyond our ability to understand stupid, or brain damaged.
But we do know that the people around him manipulated him into the war on Iraq in part by convincing him that God was speaking to him, God wanted him to start a war. Bush even said that God told him to do it.
Now we know it's even sicker than that. GQ got ahold of the artistic covers that were prepared for the secret, confidential briefings given to Bush to try to support the planned war against Iraq. The covers are drawings showing American military people going in to slaughter Iraqis, but covered with quotes from the Bible to justify the slaughter. It's really sick stuff. The people who have been running our country for the past eight years are insane. Fanatics. Crusaders interested in slaughtering the non-Christians of the world, and indoctrinating the young military people into believing that is their job as well: kill for Christ. Don't think for a minute that they won't turn on us, the people of this country who are determined to be not sufficiently "Christian," if somebody tells them that God says they should do so.
Maybe we need to purge the military. At a minimum, we need an investigation and public hearing to get religion out of our military. The military may have a job to do, but it's not based on what somebody thinks God wants. It's based on civil decisions made by Congress.
Here's the link.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
We don't know if Bush and his gang had enough information before 9/11 to know exactly what was going to happen, but decided to sit back and let it happen because, consistent with the Project for a New American Century policy paper of 1998, they were all fanatics who believed that in order to strengthen the military state in this country, it was necessary to have a new Pearl Harbor.
We have no reason to believe the 9/11 commission, because Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate with it.
But some things are pretty clear. We know that the Bush Regime used the 9/11 attacks to justify privatizing many of the traditional functions of the military, giving no-bid contracts to Republican businesses like Blackwater and Halliburton which, in turn, kicked back enormous bribes to the Republicans. We know that they used 9/11 to allow their friends to loot the U.S. Treasury (and pay enormous kick-backs to the Republicans). We know that they used 9/11 to wiretap most of the Democratic politicians (which may be one reason the Democrats won't do anything -- that plus the bribes they take). We know that they used 9/11 to justify kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people without any lawful or judicial basis for doing so. We know that the Bush Regime disavowed the responsibility of the U.S. to comply with treaties, including the treaty against torture. We know that they destroyed evidence to make it harder for any of them to be subjected to international war crimes tribunals.
Post 9/11, we know that the first response of the Bush insiders was to say "Oh good, now we can invade Iraq." But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And the CIA people, and intelligence people, told the Bush gang that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
We have recently learned that Cheney ordered prisoners be kidnapped and tortured, and forced to "confess" that Iraq did have some involvement with 9/11, so they could use the coerced confessions as a cover for their plan to start a war against Iraq. So they could have a "defense" to international war crimes charges, which they've always known were a strong possibility if the truth ever came out.
As for George W. Bush, it's hard to say how much he understood because he does seem to be either really stupid, beyond our ability to understand stupid, or brain damaged.
But we do know that the people around him manipulated him into the war on Iraq in part by convincing him that God was speaking to him, God wanted him to start a war. Bush even said that God told him to do it.
Now we know it's even sicker than that. GQ got ahold of the artistic covers that were prepared for the secret, confidential briefings given to Bush to try to support the planned war against Iraq. The covers are drawings showing American military people going in to slaughter Iraqis, but covered with quotes from the Bible to justify the slaughter. It's really sick stuff. The people who have been running our country for the past eight years are insane. Fanatics. Crusaders interested in slaughtering the non-Christians of the world, and indoctrinating the young military people into believing that is their job as well: kill for Christ. Don't think for a minute that they won't turn on us, the people of this country who are determined to be not sufficiently "Christian," if somebody tells them that God says they should do so.
Maybe we need to purge the military. At a minimum, we need an investigation and public hearing to get religion out of our military. The military may have a job to do, but it's not based on what somebody thinks God wants. It's based on civil decisions made by Congress.
Here's the link.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
Supreme Court Rules: Women Are Second Class Citizens And Have No Legal Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled against women today. Again. Not surprising, since they do that every chance they get.
I would not be surprised if they next affirmed a decision from a lower court upholding a new Texas law requiring all women to wear Burkas, or to stay inside unless accompanied by a male escort, or authorizing stoning to death of any woman who wears lipstick without her husband's permission.
The fact that the highest court in our land exhibits such ongoing, committed hatred towards women should make all women in this country sleep uneasily at night. I'm not entirely surprised at Alito and Roberts, both of whom are fanatical right-wing extremist Catholics of the most bizarre version, probably wearing those metal leg-rings with spikes going into their flesh under their hair-shirts and pants every day to show their devotion to God, to show their commitment to upholding the Catholic Church's hatred of women. And Clarence Thomas never did one bit of work since getting his cushy seat on the court, just asking what did Alito say then saying "Yeah, me too." But I'm surprised that only two of the judges saw fit to condemn the appalling violation of law based on gender discrimination and historical bias against women.
The Supreme Court sends the clear message that women do not matter, and businesses and government should do everything in their power to enslave women and deny them their rights.
Remember, not long ago the Supreme Court upheld a "gotcha" rule that gave a free pass to companies that discriminate against women in pay by saying that if the woman doesn't find out about it pretty quickly, and file suit, then she will be barred. The fact that businesses try to keep their discrimination a secret, and prohibit employees from discussing their pay, held no sway with this team of bigots.
So today we get another ruling from the court affirming discrimination against women in the employment field. The issue before the court was whether, if a woman had taken maternity leave during her career, could that period count towards her pension eligibility. The court ruled no, screw the women. In summary.
In 1979, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, and it barred businesses from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves. But the Supreme Court said that if the materity leave was taken before that, the business could deny the woman employee credit for her maternity leave, even though that same business would give the male employee credit for a disability leave due to a back problem, or surgery, or cancer. Discrimination is okay under the law, according to these women-hating extremists on the court, as long as the victims of discrimination are female.
So based on this ruling today, any man who was out on disability before 1979 for a medical condition can count the period of his absence as part of the time he needs to qualify for a pension. Any woman who was out on disability before 1979 for a pregnancy can not count that time towards her pension. Straight-up gender discrimination. And the Supreme Court, with its crew of women-hating fanatics, says that's just fine with them.
Which is why we need 5 women on the Supreme Court. All this discussion about do we need "another" woman on the court, or should President Obama ignore issues like gender and instead choose based on "merit" is doubly offensive. First, there are as many qualified women for the spot as there are men. Second, I don't see the issue as "choosing" based on gender. I see it as disregarding the traditional biased method of choosing based only gender and race -- white and male -- rather than choosing based on merit.
If merit was the criteria, then half the judges on all the courts would be women, so obviously the selection process has historically been based primarily on gender and race considerations. White men represent about 35% of the population, but they hold about 90% of the top jobs in this country, including the judge positions. That's because of bias against everyone else. In fact, given the relatively few people with a college degree -- let's even say half -- it really comes down to 17% of the people in this country (white males with college education) get 90% of the best jobs set aside for them based solely on race and gender. It's pretty nice to have most of the competition barred from entry.
Does it make a difference having only men on the courts? You bet. Ask any woman who has been the victim of discrimination in hiring, promotion, wages and benefits. Which means, ask any woman who works whether she has suffered economically because of gender discrimination. Almost to a person, they have. Now the court says it's okay to steal from women.
"The high court overturned a lower court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions. .... Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. ... The decision could affect thousands of women who took pregnancy leaves decades ago and now are headed toward retirement. A closely divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that time should count in determining pensions. The Bush administration had urged the court to reverse the San Francisco-based appeals court, with Justice Department lawyers arguing that a decision favoring the women might harm other employees who could lose expected benefits if the company cannot afford to put more money into the pension system. "
[In 2007, Lily Ledbetter sued for discrimination] "after finding out after almost two decades that she made less than her male peers. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote in May 2007, threw out her complaint, saying she had failed to sue within the 180-day deadline after a discriminatory pay decision was made. " [Congress since passed a law reversing the effect of the Ledbetter decision].
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090518/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_maternity_leave
I would not be surprised if they next affirmed a decision from a lower court upholding a new Texas law requiring all women to wear Burkas, or to stay inside unless accompanied by a male escort, or authorizing stoning to death of any woman who wears lipstick without her husband's permission.
The fact that the highest court in our land exhibits such ongoing, committed hatred towards women should make all women in this country sleep uneasily at night. I'm not entirely surprised at Alito and Roberts, both of whom are fanatical right-wing extremist Catholics of the most bizarre version, probably wearing those metal leg-rings with spikes going into their flesh under their hair-shirts and pants every day to show their devotion to God, to show their commitment to upholding the Catholic Church's hatred of women. And Clarence Thomas never did one bit of work since getting his cushy seat on the court, just asking what did Alito say then saying "Yeah, me too." But I'm surprised that only two of the judges saw fit to condemn the appalling violation of law based on gender discrimination and historical bias against women.
The Supreme Court sends the clear message that women do not matter, and businesses and government should do everything in their power to enslave women and deny them their rights.
Remember, not long ago the Supreme Court upheld a "gotcha" rule that gave a free pass to companies that discriminate against women in pay by saying that if the woman doesn't find out about it pretty quickly, and file suit, then she will be barred. The fact that businesses try to keep their discrimination a secret, and prohibit employees from discussing their pay, held no sway with this team of bigots.
So today we get another ruling from the court affirming discrimination against women in the employment field. The issue before the court was whether, if a woman had taken maternity leave during her career, could that period count towards her pension eligibility. The court ruled no, screw the women. In summary.
In 1979, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, and it barred businesses from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves. But the Supreme Court said that if the materity leave was taken before that, the business could deny the woman employee credit for her maternity leave, even though that same business would give the male employee credit for a disability leave due to a back problem, or surgery, or cancer. Discrimination is okay under the law, according to these women-hating extremists on the court, as long as the victims of discrimination are female.
So based on this ruling today, any man who was out on disability before 1979 for a medical condition can count the period of his absence as part of the time he needs to qualify for a pension. Any woman who was out on disability before 1979 for a pregnancy can not count that time towards her pension. Straight-up gender discrimination. And the Supreme Court, with its crew of women-hating fanatics, says that's just fine with them.
Which is why we need 5 women on the Supreme Court. All this discussion about do we need "another" woman on the court, or should President Obama ignore issues like gender and instead choose based on "merit" is doubly offensive. First, there are as many qualified women for the spot as there are men. Second, I don't see the issue as "choosing" based on gender. I see it as disregarding the traditional biased method of choosing based only gender and race -- white and male -- rather than choosing based on merit.
If merit was the criteria, then half the judges on all the courts would be women, so obviously the selection process has historically been based primarily on gender and race considerations. White men represent about 35% of the population, but they hold about 90% of the top jobs in this country, including the judge positions. That's because of bias against everyone else. In fact, given the relatively few people with a college degree -- let's even say half -- it really comes down to 17% of the people in this country (white males with college education) get 90% of the best jobs set aside for them based solely on race and gender. It's pretty nice to have most of the competition barred from entry.
Does it make a difference having only men on the courts? You bet. Ask any woman who has been the victim of discrimination in hiring, promotion, wages and benefits. Which means, ask any woman who works whether she has suffered economically because of gender discrimination. Almost to a person, they have. Now the court says it's okay to steal from women.
"The high court overturned a lower court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions. .... Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. ... The decision could affect thousands of women who took pregnancy leaves decades ago and now are headed toward retirement. A closely divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that time should count in determining pensions. The Bush administration had urged the court to reverse the San Francisco-based appeals court, with Justice Department lawyers arguing that a decision favoring the women might harm other employees who could lose expected benefits if the company cannot afford to put more money into the pension system. "
[In 2007, Lily Ledbetter sued for discrimination] "after finding out after almost two decades that she made less than her male peers. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote in May 2007, threw out her complaint, saying she had failed to sue within the 180-day deadline after a discriminatory pay decision was made. " [Congress since passed a law reversing the effect of the Ledbetter decision].
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090518/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_maternity_leave
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Secret Military Tribunals: If It Was Good Enough For Stalin, It's Good Enough For Us!
President McCain announced this week that another one of the Bush policies that would continue during his administration was the practice of taking people from other countries, kidnapping and torturing them, holding them in secret prisons around the world operated by the CIA murdering thugs and barbarians and their friends, the dictators and despots of the world and, for any prisoner who actually survives years of this, they will be "tried" before secret military tribunals which will hand down a "guilty" sentence, then order these prisoners be murdered. (Sorry about that President McCain bit -- it's getting harder to remember that "we" won).
And, consistent with a secret state police, military, and death-squad criminal enterprise committing state-sponsored kidnapping, torture, and murder, the evidence of those activities by our government will remain secret, probably shredded, to protect the worst criminals in our country from eventual prosecution for war crimes.
Any questions?
We've all heard how Stalin controlled the Soviet Union with an iron hand, staging what we call show trials and mass executions, re-writing history to eradicate evidence of his crimes. But who knew that the United States would choose to follow some of the most reprehensible practices of Comrade Stalin.
For example, in order to get legal authority for arresting and executing anyone he wanted, Stalin passed a law relating to "terrorist organizations and terrorist acts." Really. There were special laws which applied to anyone accused of belonging to a "terrorist organization," or accused of having committed a "terrorist act." One of the most important provisions of these new laws against "terrorism" was a speedy, abbreviated investigation and trial without the benefit of counsel or any appeal, and speedy executions. Just like we do.
Anybody who caught the eye of authorities could be labeled an "enemy of the people," subject to the show trials and mass executions. Of course the people arrested were also tortured. Does any of this sound familiar?
At the same time that the nation and its institutions were under attack from within, with purges against some, including certain ethnic minorities inside the country, the Stalinist regime also began rewriting the history books, and preparing propaganda materials to cover up and/or justify their conduct. Does any of this sound familiar? Not only is Dick Cheney doing his comeback Tour of America, but he's got an entire staff in the Congress promoting the view that international war crimes "Keeps Us Safe," and torture is good. If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't confess. Or if they weren't witches, they wouldn't drown.
Murder by the state is not just being supported by the Republican party, but the Democrats are also now in it up to their eyeballs, covering it up, refusing to allow the citizens their right to have hearings and prosecutions, to have the laws enforced.
What do we call it when the government refuses to enforce the laws? Isn't that a dictatorship?
Historians estimate that as many as 700,000 citizens of the Soviet Union were executed during the Stalinist reign. How many people will die because of the U.S. international war crimes in the middle east?
Assuming we had legitimate grounds to invade Afghanistan, to stop anyone inside that country from attacking us again, we had no grounds to invade Iraq. We had no legal reason to be in Iraq, so obviously have no legal grounds to have kidnapped or imprisoned or tortured or mudered any person from Iraq. And we have no legal grounds to invade Pakistan, although it appears we've already done so.
At least Stalin stayed mostly within his own boundaries. How far will the American Empire go?
If we have kidnapped someone who is not a "prisoner of war," and we do not have legitimate and sufficient evidence to prosecute this person for any alleged crime in a court, with an attorney, with due process, with equal protection of the laws, then we must let that person go. "Permanent detention," another thing President Obama ratified this week, is a tool of dictators. It's what England did to the Irish. It's completely inconsistent with any theory of law.
We had no grounds under any circumstances to move people from one country and drag them to another one. If we kidnapped somebody in Iraq, they should be returned to Iraq and should be tried in Iraq in front of a jury of Iraqis if we claim they committed some "crime." An Iraqi who fought against the U.S. invasion did not commit a crime in the traditional sense of the word. Doesn't everyone have the right to fight against an invader? In that circumstances, it seems to me they should have been considered prisoners of war and held subject to all the rights of the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war -- no torture, no abuse.
If we have legitimate grounds to charge someone with a crime, then do so, and have a public trial in the country where the alleged crime occurred. If we do not have grounds to charge someone, and we still take the position the person is not a prisoner of war, then they must be released. Those are the only two choices of a civilized nation, a nation of laws. Secret trials, and detention forever without charges or trials, are the tools of dictatorships, not a democracy.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Why Did We Have The English Invasion?
Most people know that sometime in the early 1960s, the U.S. experienced what is now called the "English Invasion." Many rock and roll groups from England "invaded" the United States. They came over here, their records were played on the radio, they were in concerts, they were welcomed like liberators, not like what we traditionally think of as "Invaders."
They really were met with rose-petals strewn in their path, young girls frantically ripping off their mother's pearls and grandmother's broaches, throwing desperate kisses at these young, foppish, long-haired, good-looking English males who stole the heart of all the females, and inspired all the young American boys to stop cutting their hair, putting barbers across the nation out of work.
But why did the English invade? Who knows the answer?
At the time of the invasion, American radio stations played this, forcing young Americans to listen over and over, to the same song:
Then one Sunday night, families all over the country turned on their television sets to watch the Ed Sullivan Show, just like they always did, but this time to see four young men from England with long funny hair, and named after an insect, and by Monday the entire music world in this country had changed forever:
In summary, the English "Invaded" the United States to save us from Pat Boone. So cheery-O, good job chaps.
Keeper Of The Flame: Why Don't The Politicians Warn Us About The Fascists Next-Door?
I was listening to someone talk about an American youth group that seemed to have all the characteristics of the German Youth for Hitler. Apparently the adult male "leaders" were teaching the children how to do things like spot a homosexual or a terrorist. I'm sure invaluable lessons for when the kids grow up and get jobs for $5.00/hour selling shoes at a Wal-Mart because there are no other jobs left in this country, because their adult male leaders were too busy playing with little boys to actually get off their rabid right-wing asses and do something to help the community.
But I digress. The discussion made me think of a movie I have not seen in years named "Keeper of the Flame." It starred Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn, was directed by George Cukor, released December of 1942. One of those terrific war-years movies. So why don't we see this movie, or hear about it too often?
The story line goes like this. There was a rich, white male, local political leader who was an inspiration to many including a national youth group. Or maybe he created the youth group. He preached to the children that they should be punctual, steadfast, strong, true, loyal. This man was rumored as a likely presidential candidate. But then one night he was on his way home in the rain, his car went off the road, and he died. There was much press coverage of the death, and Spencer Tracy, a reporter, went to join the crowd and try to get an interview with the widow, played by Katherine Hepburn.
As the movie progresses, we learn that the dead man had dangerous beliefs and tendencies, much like the Nazis, and these youth groups were preparing young Americans to become little rabid Nazis themselves.
It is a dark move, but I really liked it. And I wonder why it is we so rarely see that movie on TV, on the channels that run old movies. And I wonder why it is so seldom that we have movies, or politicians, or media, or teachers or preachers, or anyone teaching the public in this country about the dangers of fascism. Maybe the failure to speak about it is allowing Fascism to flourish under these false names of "family values" and "Christian-Coalitions."
Since maybe 1945, the public in this country has been barraged with scare-stories, lies, nonsense, warnings about the communists next-door. We hear about it all the time. Before 1945, actually, because the Palmer raids back in the 1910-1920 period were in part premised on the theory that trade union immigrants were communists and therefore bad.
We had the McCarthy period where the entire nation was almost brought to a standstill with that old drunken pervert McCarthy and his little toad transvestite taffeta-and-heels-wearing FBI head Hoover, and Roy Cohn (what a crowd) tearing people up, destroying lives and reputations, driving people to suicide, trying to take over the entire film and TV industry (and put that moronic B-Movie Actor Ronald Reagan in charge). (Come to think of it: Ken Starr, almost an exact duplicate of that whole McCarthy era).
We've had war after war based upon a claim that we must "stop" the communists. That's why we were in Korea and Vietnam, or so they said. That's why we were in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, funding and training and supporting the death squads and "disappearing" thousands of peasants. (Oh, you didn't know we did that? Well, we did.) Most of the military intervention this country has done for possibly a century has been based upon the premise that we must stop communism.
And we are warned to watch out for our neighbors, teachers, co-workers. They might be commies. When Barack Obama was running for President, we started hearing the rallying cry from the right that he wants to "redistribute" wealth, like the communists. They stop a little short, calling him a Socialist. But they mean commie, commie pinko.
So here's my question: why doesn't anyone in this country ever stand up to stop the fascists? If we were committed to stopping the spread of fascism, we would have been on the other side of a lot of these conflicts. Many of our "friends" in the world are fascists, thugs, cheap dictators, murderers who allow corporations to steal all the assets of their nation in exchange for kick-backs and bribes -- just like our Congress does. Fascists who believe that corporations should own and rule everything, just like too many of our politicians apparently believe.
Here's a pretty good definition of fascism. Let's see if it applies:
“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.”
I would say this is a perfect description of the Republicans and the right-wing in this country. The gun-nuts. You know why they want their guns? THEY PLAN TO SHOOT US WITH THEM. Why else would anybody be so crazed about a gun? They plan to shoot us. Or anybody that they don't like. The Christians, the extreme right-wing religions who hate everybody that does not follow their doctrine. The drug addict on the radio. Newt Gingrich. That skanky Coulter woman. All the anti-gay gangs. That crazy Bachman lady. The NRA: all nuts. All their institutions: CPAC, American Enterprise Institute.
They all solicit support by appealing to "the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock." That's why Republicans vote against everything: they want the polarization and deadlock because it helps their fascist agenda. They have the approval and support of the military (too many of the brass handing out Bibles and telling the soldiers to kill for Christ) and the police (LAPD at it again). They make vague and emotional appeals based upon some idea of "national unity" "immediate resolution of problems," and "intolerance for dissent." Doesn't this sound like the Republicans, or at least most of them? And the rest of the right-wingers in this country? Shouldn't we all just call it what it is: a fascist movement inside the U.S.
Why doesn't anyone speak up and warn against the people who work at Rupert Murdoch's Whorehouse who, essentially, every day and in every way, promote fascism, the corporate takeover of this country, the destruction of the lives of most working people. Waving around their flag lapel pins, and promoting violence against anyone who does not agree with their crazy positions. Why didn't our media warn that Bush and his gang were supporting a fascist takeover, turning our entire treasury over to their corporate friends to be looted, trampling on our constitution, taking away all our rights. They tortured and murdered people. Doesn't that count for something? Shouldn't they be held accountable if we were a nation of laws? Or have we just abandoned that?
Anyway, it just occurs to me. Maybe we need to start talking about this, because it sure seems to me that the fascists are here, they're organizing, they are dangerous. The Democratic politicians don't stand up for anything except a big fat bribe being delivered by a corporate messenger. Who is going to stand up for our democracy?
Thank God. I Was Afraid I Might Have To Front Him The Rent Money On That White Place.
A.P.: WASHINGTON – "President Barack Obama's personal finances appear to be on sound footing even as the nation's economy struggles, a financial report he released Friday shows."
"Obama and his wife Michelle have $1.4 million to $5.9 million in assets, not counting their Chicago home. Their holdings include up to $265,000 in checking accounts."
"The president's new financial disclosure report mirrors one he filed a few months ago. Much of the Obamas' wealth comes from the president's best-sellers. The books, "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," brought in about $2.5 million in royalties last year, according to tax returns Obama released last month
************************************
I don't understand the point of this. Lots of people are broke. We have 16% unemployment when including people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and people unable to find full-time work, so forced into part-time. Unemployment and job loss is expected to continue not just throughout 2009, but also throughout 2010. Isn't that the real story?
Now that our president's finances are on "sound footing," when is he going to get around to doing something for the rest of us? Like creating jobs, for example. Good paying ones. How about capping interest on credit cards at 10%, and giving every American the option to buy into a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare?
Then we could all be on "sound" financial footing, instead of most of us living out here in earthquake country, as if the San Andreas fault is slipping further every day. Mr. President, Heeeeeelp!
"Obama and his wife Michelle have $1.4 million to $5.9 million in assets, not counting their Chicago home. Their holdings include up to $265,000 in checking accounts."
"The president's new financial disclosure report mirrors one he filed a few months ago. Much of the Obamas' wealth comes from the president's best-sellers. The books, "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," brought in about $2.5 million in royalties last year, according to tax returns Obama released last month
************************************
I don't understand the point of this. Lots of people are broke. We have 16% unemployment when including people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and people unable to find full-time work, so forced into part-time. Unemployment and job loss is expected to continue not just throughout 2009, but also throughout 2010. Isn't that the real story?
Now that our president's finances are on "sound footing," when is he going to get around to doing something for the rest of us? Like creating jobs, for example. Good paying ones. How about capping interest on credit cards at 10%, and giving every American the option to buy into a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare?
Then we could all be on "sound" financial footing, instead of most of us living out here in earthquake country, as if the San Andreas fault is slipping further every day. Mr. President, Heeeeeelp!
Who Likes The Moody Blues?
The Moody Blues is a rock group from England, originally starting in Birmingham, beginning their recording career in around 1964. They were part of the English Invasion, gaining success and popularity in both the U.K. and in the United States. The group wrote and performed a sophisticated and evolving form of rock, sometimes recording with symphonies. At one point they planned to do a "rock" version of Dvorjak's "New World Symphony," although that project apparently was never completed.
The Moody Blues has changed a few members over the years, but continues to perform -- that's over 40 years now.
One of their first hits in both the U.K. and the U.S. was "Go Now":
Go Now
Another one of their very popular songs was "The Story In Your Eyes":
The Story In Your Eyes
One of their best pure rock songs was "I'm Just A Singer In A Rock and Roll Band."
I'm just a wandering on the face of this earth
Meeting so many people
Who are trying to be free
And while I'm traveling
I hear so many words
Language barriers broken
Now we've found the key
And if you want the wind of change
To blow about you
And you're the only other person to know
Don't tell me
I'm just a singer in a rock and roll band
Abortion Fights
Abortion is one of those topics that just won't go away. It's a favorite rallying cry for the right-wing, along with guns and gays. It's so odd that the corporate elite are stealing the savings, wages, pensions, benefits, holidays, vacation, sick time, healthcare, public education, jobs, hope, future from working people in this country, yet the Republicans are still able to convince at least 20% of the people that their "real" concern should be whether some woman they never met can terminate a pregnancy based on reasons and grounds unknown to them. It's astonishing how easily some people can be manipulated.
Here's the basic truth about abortion: it's a tough issue. Nobody is really going to support the abortion of a 8.5 month old fetus unless the mother is going to die without the abortion. Most rational people would not object to the abortion of a 1-week old fetus. The real dispute comes with everything in-between.
Some people see this only in personal and emotional terms: "I could never have aborted my children. It would have been like killing my children." Other people see it only in impersonal and unemotional terms. Some people see it in religious terms: thou shalt not kill (although they often don't seem to apply that to war or the death penalty).
Everybody's entitled to have their own opinion and to make their own decision about how they would proceed if they were ever in a situation in which they considered having an abortion. Nobody has suggested forced abortions, for example. It should be a personal decision.
What is the legal underpinning to this ridiculous national neverending argument? It's much slimmer than most people realize.
The federal government has extremely limited authority. The Constitution is clear in listing the specific areas in which the federal government is given any authority. For example, the federal government is directed to build and maintain a road (highway) system to connect the states, to create and maintain a postal system, to provide for the common defense against foreign invaders, to enter into treaties with other nations. But there is nothing in the constitution that would give the federal government the authority to ban abortion. So that's an important starting point.
If the federal government has no authority to ban abortion, the question then is whether any State has the authority to ban abortion. The generally accepted view is that the States may regulate and control the provision of healthcare services, as part of the general health and safety responsibility of state government. So, for example, they can require that only medically-trained people can provide abortions. They can require that abortions must be performed in a medical clinic, and not in people's homes, if there are sufficient health and safety reasons to support that requirement.
But what would be the legal grounds for any state or for the federal government to outright ban abortion? That's always been the question.
Women have the right, as citizens, to control their own bodies, which should include the ability to abort a fetus. Women do not "belong" to men, so men (even the biological father) have no ability or legal right to enslave women, tie them down, force them to bear an unwanted child. So it seems clear that the decision belongs solely to the woman, a citizen of this nation who has the natural-right to control her own body.
If the state does not have any obvious legal grounds to prohibit abortion, and the biological father cannot, then who has "standing" to go into court and protest the abortion?
What the right-wing has tried to argue is that a fetus is a "Person" under our Constitution. If a fetus is a "Person," the right-wing argues, then each "Person" is entitled to [Equal] protection by the federal and state government. The fetus, through a legal representative, could petition the court to "protect" it against abortion. That's the theory upon which they have pinned their hopes.
Some states have passed laws saying that if a pregnant woman is murdered, that is a double-homicide. This is primarily intended to serve as a stepping stone to banning abortions. Each time such a new law is passed, saying that assaulting a pregnant woman is a double-assault, for example, it always turns out the backers of the law are the right-wing religious groups whose true goal is to provide a legal underpinning for their ultimate objective of getting a court to rule that a fetus is a Person for all purposes.
But the fact is that the Constitution never in any way acknowledged, considered, or recognized a fetus as a Person, or as anything else. There is nothing in the Constitution (federal or any state) that recognizes any rights at all in a fetus. That is because everybody who is not ideologically blind understands the word "Person" means a born human being, not an un-born human. Fetuses abort all the time, miscarry, are lost, for many reasons, so whether the fetus will or will not ever become a "Person" is uncertain until birth.
If a fetus was a Person, for example, then the Constitution would include the fetus in the count of the population (census) which is used to determine how many Representatives will be allocated to each state. But there is no such mention of a fetus, and for good reason. A fetus is a potential Person and nothing more. In our Constitution, a fetus is not entitled to legal recognition as a "Person" until it is born.
The Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade used a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 analysis. During the first 1/3 of a pregnancy, women are free to have abortions, and nobody should interfere. During the second 1/3, there are sufficient medical implications that a state can require, for example, that it be performed only under medically-appropriate conditions (not in a home, for example). During the last 1/3 of the pregnancy, the Supreme Court held that a fetus is "viable," meaning it theoretically could live outside the mother, and that is close enough for it to be considered entitled to protection, so a state can ban what are called late-term abortions.
But what about if the mother's life is in danger, and it's late-term? Who gets to decide? Seven-month pregnant woman who will likely die unless the pregnancy is aborted? For example, her blood pressure sky-rockets and she is at high risk of stroke or death. Who decides? Does the act of getting pregnant make women incompetent, or mean their rights as human beings should be taken away, given over to the government?
How could the government be given the right to condemn women to death if, for example, they start bleeding, and the only way to save their life is to abort the pregnancy? Should the government have the authority to rule that all women in those circumstances must be left to die, that no medical person can help them, stop the bleeding, save their lives, if it would abort the pregnancy? This debate is fundamentally about whether the state has the right to order all women be left to die in a problem late term pregnancy.
Of course feminists believe the anti-abortion rant has nothing to do with pregnancy, and everything to do with the rage of the religious-right who want to punish women for leaving the kitchen and using birth control to decide when to get pregnant, and how many children to have.
Much of the anti-abortion movement is populated by people who have a sincere belief that abortion is murder, and they are entitled to their belief. But much of the anti-abortion movement, and I would say the leaders, are simply men who are in a rage against independent women, and the door-mat women who are trying to get acceptance, protection, maybe even love, from these fanatical men who advocate killing any woman who supports abortion. Like having a crush on O.J.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Patent Con: U.S. Corporations Claim To Own Everything.
A few years ago, I "attended" (online) a three-hour seminar on the subject of Patents, and recent developments. I was horrified at the extent to which U.S. corporations had taken control of the Patent process, and were filing millions of patent applications and claims, on everything imaginable and even some not so much, trying to get an official U.S. government certification saying that the corporation "owned" some device, or idea, or concept. If they succeed, then anyone who wants to use that device, or idea, or concept, will be legally required to pay the corporate owner money as a license fee on every single sale. Most patents last for 20 years.
Here's how it works, in theory: somebody invents a device. They file for a patent. If the device is unique, new, creative, they will be given a patent which will prevent anyone else from copying their device for a certain number of years. During the time the patent is in effect, the inventor can license it to manufacturers, and charge a fee for them to use the inventor's design. At the expiration of the patent, anybody is free to make their own similar device, and won't have to pay anything to the original inventor.
But in recent years, as U.S. corporations began to "outsource" (have all the work done in other countries), and as new businesses began to form in third world countries to make products, the U.S. corporations went back through every single thing they ever made, every assembly, every screw, every idea, and applied for patents on all of them so they could try to extort money from third world businesses.
For example, let's say some U.S. Corporation has made and sold toasters right here in the U.S.A. for decades, but now they're going to have the jobs sent overseas. The toaster itself is made up of a series of tiny internal components, all held together by welds, screws, inter-connecting pieces. The U.S. corporation hires a team of lawyers, who hire engineers, and file a patent application on every single part of that toaster including how it is made. They will succeed in getting the patent issued in a remarkable number of instances. Think about it: how likely is it that some small company in Indonesia that makes toasters would even know about this patent application that had been filed, never mind have the resources to file something in the patent office to dispute the U.S. corporation's claim that they "own" it, or it is "their" idea. Then the U.S. corporation can go over to Indonesia, for example, and file a lawsuit against the little local guy who makes toasters, say he is using "their" patent, so he has to pay them money for every single toaster he sells.
This whole process accelerated as a part of the Clinton-sponsored "globalization" idea: that all U.S. corporations should send their jobs overseas to be done by slave, prison, or child labor, which is a lot cheaper than American workers. Essentially, globalization is a concept that means that Americans are thrown out of work and replaced by third world employees who have no rights. Thanks again, Bill. Since the U.S. corporations had decided to go out of business inside the U.S., and instead license most of their work to foreign companies, by getting a frantic last-minute rush of patents, they can earn money off of every single business anywhere in the third world. While doing absolutely nothing. They hire some facility in China to make their toasters, but if anybody tries to compete with them, they wave around their patent and make all toaster companies in the world pay them a percentage of their sales.
Not surprisingly, when the U.S. started entering into what they mis-named "free" trade agreements, one of the biggest areas of protection was for the patents claimed by U.S. corporations: every other country in the world is required to sign something saying they will "honor" those U.S. corporate patents. There are no protections for American Workers in the "free" trade agreements entered into by the U.S., but the corporate patents are protected.
One of the current areas of questionable patent claims arises in the medical and scientic research area. For example, some corporation that went into the Amazon cut down samples of every plant they found, then brought them back to the U.S. for testing, to see if the plants had any unique properties that could be used here in the U.S. One of the plants turned out to have cancer-fighting qualities, so the corporation filed a patent and said they owned the plant, and any and all rights to use that plant to make cancer-fighting drugs. Oh yeah? What about the people native to that country? What about their rights? And beyond that, didn't God, or nature, or whoever or whatever created the world actually make this plant? And in that case, doesn't it belong to all the people of the world?
Here's a link to an article discussing turmeric. Turmeric is a spice that is frequently used in Indian food. Turmeric has been used in India for thousands of years in many ways, including using it for medicinal and healing purposes. But when the University of Mississippi realized that Turmeric appeared to have medical or healing properties, they applied to the U.S. Patent office for a patent, and got it. India protested that some Mississippi university (or any American institution) could not claim that they "owned" turmeric, something which was in common use in India for thousand of years. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tur-cn.htm The turmeric patent was eventually challenged and overturned, but at what cost? Who can afford to pay for lengthy patent lawsuits? The better question is why was the patent issued in the first place?
Here are a few links to articles discussing Bio-Piracy and the devastating effect on the third world. Everything happening in the third world is a preview of what we can expect here in the U.S. in the future. http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/crg.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/uspatsys.cfm
American corporations and the Empire have moved into a new phase. Originally western nations claimed they owned other countries as "colonies." Then later, western nations would militarily invade another country, set up a puppet government, steal all the resources, under a slight variation on colonialism which many called "imperialism." But today we have something new: the corporations simply claim to own everything in the world, or at least everything that is needed to sustain life. They don't need to own land and plantations, or factories, or even to employ anyone if they can claim that they own everything: every idea, every device, every assembly, every method, every seed, every plant, every spice, every form of medicine or healing. They just sit back and sue, collect license fees or royalties from third world countries, from every person, from every business. And what is the likelihood a person or any small business can fight against a U.S. multinational corporation -- before a U.S. patent office -- and win? Slim to none.
Chemical companies like Monsanto are buying up all the seed that exists for the basic food stuff of the world: corn, rice, and wheat. Then they do something to create a minor mutation in the seed, kind of like imprinting a bar-code on it, and call it a "Genetically Modified Organism" (GMO). Then they patent the genetically-modified seed and distribute it throughout the world, along with their U.S. government-sponsored patent claim that says that any time their seed is found in any crop, the farmer is required to pay to Monsanto a big "license fee" for using their seed. So if the seed blew in from a neighbor's crop, for example, it doesn't matter, the farmer can still be required by a court of law to pay an enormous fee to Monsanto. And they have been aggressively pursuing such lawsuits. See "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/MonsantoExSum1.14.2005.pdf
Monsanto will profit most if it can eliminate all the "natural" seed that exists in the world, or at least contaminate all of it with the genetically-modified Monsanto seed. Then they will demand that every single person in the world pay a license fee to Monsanto every time they take a bite of any basic food stuff that keeps us alive, generally rice, wheat, or corn. Monsanto will claim that they "own" the patent on rice, wheat, and corn, so nobody can grow it, sell it, or eat it without paying a fee to Monsanto every single time. Forever.
Monsanto also, as an aside, is creating a "terminator" aspect to their genetically-modified seeds, so that the seeds will break down completely at the end of the season, so the seeds cannot be reused. Farmers throughout the world have been saving and reusing seeds for thousands of years, but Monsanto wants to make all seeds completely self-destruct at the end of one growing season, so that all farmers will need to buy new Monsanto seed every year. And of course more people will starve because most farmers in the world would not be able to survive if they could not save and re-use seeds. If the terminator seed mis-fires, it could also destroy the entire world's food supply if, for example, it "terminates" not only itself but also neighboring plants. And the U.S. Government is letting Monsanto do this.
Below is an excerpt from an article about Monsanto now trying to genetically modify animals -- in this case pigs. (Hmmmm, what have I read recently about "swine?" Was it "FrankenSwine"? A genetic mutant created in a laboratory?). Monsanto is trying to take over every single part of the food chain in the world. They've already got patents on seeds, and are eliminating the "natural" seeds that God (or nature, or whoever) created. Now they're starting in on the animals that are part of our food chain. Soon they will in-breed their FrankenSwine with enough other pigs that all pigs will eventually show the Monsanto bar-code in their DNA, and all pig-food-products sold will require that a license fee or royalty be paid to Monsanto. They will literally allow the world to starve to death unless they get their fees. How do we know this? Look at the patent-owner of the Aids drugs who have allowed millions to die rather than have a genetic version made available to save lives.
Here's an excerpt of an article about Monsanto's FrankenSwine:
"The Earth is flat, pigs were invented by Monsanto, and genetically modified organisms are safe. Right." http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2006/02/27/terminator_corporations_suicide_seeds.htm
" Monsanto is blatantly continuing their scheme of rounding up the food chain from A to Z!"
"One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level. So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they've made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig."
"The big picture is chilling to anyone who mistrusts Monsanto's record disinterest for environmental safety. And if you're not worried, you should be: central control of food supply has been a standard ingredient for social and political control throughout history. By creating a monopoly position, Monsanto can force dangerous experiments like the release of GMOs into the environment on an unwilling public.They can ensure that GMOs will be sold and consumed wherever they say they will."
"Such blatant abuse can only continue if it is not challenged. Unfortunately, the typical lack of response from the masses and the idle government oversight is precisely why these perversions occur and continue. Sadly the only way to counter these shenanigans is to collectively and openly flaunt these patents ..."
"It's official. Monsanto Corporation is out to own the world's food supply, the dangers of genetic engineering and reduced biodiversity notwithstanding, as they pig-headedly set about hog-tying farmers with their monopoly plans. We've discovered chilling new evidence of this in recent patents that seek to establish ownership rights over pigs and their offspring. In the crop department, Monsanto is well on their way to dictating what consumers will eat, what farmers will grow, and how much Monsanto will get paid for seeds. In some cases those seeds are designed not to reproduce sowable offspring. In others, a flock of lawyers stand ready to swoop down on farmers who illegally, or even unknowingly, end up with Monsanto's private property growing in their fields. "
"One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level. So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they've made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig. "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2480
When Paul Bremer was sent into Iraq to act like the "pretend King of Iraq," he issued 100 Orders to take complete control of the economy and resources of Iraq away from the citizens of that country, and turn it over instead to the multinational corporations. One of his orders, cut the tax rate of any corporation doing business in Iraq. One of his orders gave full immunity to any foreign contractor (Halliburton and Blackwater) from Iraq's laws: a license to kill. But of most interest, Order #81 specifically authorized the patenting of plant forms from Iraq, and authorized the distribution of the chemical company GMO, geneticially modified seeds, into Iraq. To saturate the entire country with food forms which, in the future, will require all Iraqis to pay a license fee to Monsanto or whichever other chemical company "owns" the seed.
And now we learn that the U.S. patent office has actually given a corporation a "patent" on a gene. A gene from human beings. How can somebody have a patent on a gene? They didn't invent the gene. They "found" it inside somebody else's body. It is an important gene, because it may indicate the likelihood of breast or ovarian cancer. Critical information many women would want. But the only company that can test for that gene is the one with the patent. Now somebody has sued, saying it isn't right.
May 13, 2009 (New York Times)
Cancer Patients Challenge the Patenting of a Gene
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html
What should happen?
1. The laws should be changed to prohibit anyone from receiving a patent on a gene.
2. The laws should be changed to prohibit anyone from claiming a patent on any form of food, plant or animal.
3. The laws should be changed to eliminate patents on any medical treatment or drug that is life-saving unless the patent-owner makes the drugs available at a cost that is "affordable" to the citizens of each country. The question of what is "affordable" should be locally determined. For poor countries, the patents should be ignored and generic versions should be made locally and distributed to the local population.
4. The laws should be changed to prohibit any business from attempting to modify animals or plants other than in a university environment subject to strict controls, and no commercial use or production should be allowed for a period of at least 10 years. By allowing businesses to genetically modify food stuff, we run the substantial risk that they will wipe out the entire source of food, or delete the nutritional value of food, or create a FrankenSwine which could spread disease and give rise to new forms of crop-disease, and much of the world will starve. This is not the type of experimentation that corporations should be allowed to conduct.
5. Patents on any product or device should expire in 5 years after the product or device was first made available.
Here's how it works, in theory: somebody invents a device. They file for a patent. If the device is unique, new, creative, they will be given a patent which will prevent anyone else from copying their device for a certain number of years. During the time the patent is in effect, the inventor can license it to manufacturers, and charge a fee for them to use the inventor's design. At the expiration of the patent, anybody is free to make their own similar device, and won't have to pay anything to the original inventor.
But in recent years, as U.S. corporations began to "outsource" (have all the work done in other countries), and as new businesses began to form in third world countries to make products, the U.S. corporations went back through every single thing they ever made, every assembly, every screw, every idea, and applied for patents on all of them so they could try to extort money from third world businesses.
For example, let's say some U.S. Corporation has made and sold toasters right here in the U.S.A. for decades, but now they're going to have the jobs sent overseas. The toaster itself is made up of a series of tiny internal components, all held together by welds, screws, inter-connecting pieces. The U.S. corporation hires a team of lawyers, who hire engineers, and file a patent application on every single part of that toaster including how it is made. They will succeed in getting the patent issued in a remarkable number of instances. Think about it: how likely is it that some small company in Indonesia that makes toasters would even know about this patent application that had been filed, never mind have the resources to file something in the patent office to dispute the U.S. corporation's claim that they "own" it, or it is "their" idea. Then the U.S. corporation can go over to Indonesia, for example, and file a lawsuit against the little local guy who makes toasters, say he is using "their" patent, so he has to pay them money for every single toaster he sells.
This whole process accelerated as a part of the Clinton-sponsored "globalization" idea: that all U.S. corporations should send their jobs overseas to be done by slave, prison, or child labor, which is a lot cheaper than American workers. Essentially, globalization is a concept that means that Americans are thrown out of work and replaced by third world employees who have no rights. Thanks again, Bill. Since the U.S. corporations had decided to go out of business inside the U.S., and instead license most of their work to foreign companies, by getting a frantic last-minute rush of patents, they can earn money off of every single business anywhere in the third world. While doing absolutely nothing. They hire some facility in China to make their toasters, but if anybody tries to compete with them, they wave around their patent and make all toaster companies in the world pay them a percentage of their sales.
Not surprisingly, when the U.S. started entering into what they mis-named "free" trade agreements, one of the biggest areas of protection was for the patents claimed by U.S. corporations: every other country in the world is required to sign something saying they will "honor" those U.S. corporate patents. There are no protections for American Workers in the "free" trade agreements entered into by the U.S., but the corporate patents are protected.
One of the current areas of questionable patent claims arises in the medical and scientic research area. For example, some corporation that went into the Amazon cut down samples of every plant they found, then brought them back to the U.S. for testing, to see if the plants had any unique properties that could be used here in the U.S. One of the plants turned out to have cancer-fighting qualities, so the corporation filed a patent and said they owned the plant, and any and all rights to use that plant to make cancer-fighting drugs. Oh yeah? What about the people native to that country? What about their rights? And beyond that, didn't God, or nature, or whoever or whatever created the world actually make this plant? And in that case, doesn't it belong to all the people of the world?
Here's a link to an article discussing turmeric. Turmeric is a spice that is frequently used in Indian food. Turmeric has been used in India for thousands of years in many ways, including using it for medicinal and healing purposes. But when the University of Mississippi realized that Turmeric appeared to have medical or healing properties, they applied to the U.S. Patent office for a patent, and got it. India protested that some Mississippi university (or any American institution) could not claim that they "owned" turmeric, something which was in common use in India for thousand of years. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/tur-cn.htm The turmeric patent was eventually challenged and overturned, but at what cost? Who can afford to pay for lengthy patent lawsuits? The better question is why was the patent issued in the first place?
Here are a few links to articles discussing Bio-Piracy and the devastating effect on the third world. Everything happening in the third world is a preview of what we can expect here in the U.S. in the future. http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/crg.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Patent/uspatsys.cfm
American corporations and the Empire have moved into a new phase. Originally western nations claimed they owned other countries as "colonies." Then later, western nations would militarily invade another country, set up a puppet government, steal all the resources, under a slight variation on colonialism which many called "imperialism." But today we have something new: the corporations simply claim to own everything in the world, or at least everything that is needed to sustain life. They don't need to own land and plantations, or factories, or even to employ anyone if they can claim that they own everything: every idea, every device, every assembly, every method, every seed, every plant, every spice, every form of medicine or healing. They just sit back and sue, collect license fees or royalties from third world countries, from every person, from every business. And what is the likelihood a person or any small business can fight against a U.S. multinational corporation -- before a U.S. patent office -- and win? Slim to none.
Chemical companies like Monsanto are buying up all the seed that exists for the basic food stuff of the world: corn, rice, and wheat. Then they do something to create a minor mutation in the seed, kind of like imprinting a bar-code on it, and call it a "Genetically Modified Organism" (GMO). Then they patent the genetically-modified seed and distribute it throughout the world, along with their U.S. government-sponsored patent claim that says that any time their seed is found in any crop, the farmer is required to pay to Monsanto a big "license fee" for using their seed. So if the seed blew in from a neighbor's crop, for example, it doesn't matter, the farmer can still be required by a court of law to pay an enormous fee to Monsanto. And they have been aggressively pursuing such lawsuits. See "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers," http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/MonsantoExSum1.14.2005.pdf
Monsanto will profit most if it can eliminate all the "natural" seed that exists in the world, or at least contaminate all of it with the genetically-modified Monsanto seed. Then they will demand that every single person in the world pay a license fee to Monsanto every time they take a bite of any basic food stuff that keeps us alive, generally rice, wheat, or corn. Monsanto will claim that they "own" the patent on rice, wheat, and corn, so nobody can grow it, sell it, or eat it without paying a fee to Monsanto every single time. Forever.
Monsanto also, as an aside, is creating a "terminator" aspect to their genetically-modified seeds, so that the seeds will break down completely at the end of the season, so the seeds cannot be reused. Farmers throughout the world have been saving and reusing seeds for thousands of years, but Monsanto wants to make all seeds completely self-destruct at the end of one growing season, so that all farmers will need to buy new Monsanto seed every year. And of course more people will starve because most farmers in the world would not be able to survive if they could not save and re-use seeds. If the terminator seed mis-fires, it could also destroy the entire world's food supply if, for example, it "terminates" not only itself but also neighboring plants. And the U.S. Government is letting Monsanto do this.
Below is an excerpt from an article about Monsanto now trying to genetically modify animals -- in this case pigs. (Hmmmm, what have I read recently about "swine?" Was it "FrankenSwine"? A genetic mutant created in a laboratory?). Monsanto is trying to take over every single part of the food chain in the world. They've already got patents on seeds, and are eliminating the "natural" seeds that God (or nature, or whoever) created. Now they're starting in on the animals that are part of our food chain. Soon they will in-breed their FrankenSwine with enough other pigs that all pigs will eventually show the Monsanto bar-code in their DNA, and all pig-food-products sold will require that a license fee or royalty be paid to Monsanto. They will literally allow the world to starve to death unless they get their fees. How do we know this? Look at the patent-owner of the Aids drugs who have allowed millions to die rather than have a genetic version made available to save lives.
Here's an excerpt of an article about Monsanto's FrankenSwine:
"The Earth is flat, pigs were invented by Monsanto, and genetically modified organisms are safe. Right." http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2006/02/27/terminator_corporations_suicide_seeds.htm
" Monsanto is blatantly continuing their scheme of rounding up the food chain from A to Z!"
"One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level. So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they've made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig."
"The big picture is chilling to anyone who mistrusts Monsanto's record disinterest for environmental safety. And if you're not worried, you should be: central control of food supply has been a standard ingredient for social and political control throughout history. By creating a monopoly position, Monsanto can force dangerous experiments like the release of GMOs into the environment on an unwilling public.They can ensure that GMOs will be sold and consumed wherever they say they will."
"Such blatant abuse can only continue if it is not challenged. Unfortunately, the typical lack of response from the masses and the idle government oversight is precisely why these perversions occur and continue. Sadly the only way to counter these shenanigans is to collectively and openly flaunt these patents ..."
"It's official. Monsanto Corporation is out to own the world's food supply, the dangers of genetic engineering and reduced biodiversity notwithstanding, as they pig-headedly set about hog-tying farmers with their monopoly plans. We've discovered chilling new evidence of this in recent patents that seek to establish ownership rights over pigs and their offspring. In the crop department, Monsanto is well on their way to dictating what consumers will eat, what farmers will grow, and how much Monsanto will get paid for seeds. In some cases those seeds are designed not to reproduce sowable offspring. In others, a flock of lawyers stand ready to swoop down on farmers who illegally, or even unknowingly, end up with Monsanto's private property growing in their fields. "
"One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. Monsanto has aggressively set out to bulldoze environmental concerns about its genetically engineered (GE) seeds at every regulatory level. So why stop in the field? Not content to own the pesticide and the herbicide and the crop, they've made a move on the barnyard by filing two patents which would make the corporate giant the sole owner of that famous Monsanto invention: the pig. "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2480
When Paul Bremer was sent into Iraq to act like the "pretend King of Iraq," he issued 100 Orders to take complete control of the economy and resources of Iraq away from the citizens of that country, and turn it over instead to the multinational corporations. One of his orders, cut the tax rate of any corporation doing business in Iraq. One of his orders gave full immunity to any foreign contractor (Halliburton and Blackwater) from Iraq's laws: a license to kill. But of most interest, Order #81 specifically authorized the patenting of plant forms from Iraq, and authorized the distribution of the chemical company GMO, geneticially modified seeds, into Iraq. To saturate the entire country with food forms which, in the future, will require all Iraqis to pay a license fee to Monsanto or whichever other chemical company "owns" the seed.
And now we learn that the U.S. patent office has actually given a corporation a "patent" on a gene. A gene from human beings. How can somebody have a patent on a gene? They didn't invent the gene. They "found" it inside somebody else's body. It is an important gene, because it may indicate the likelihood of breast or ovarian cancer. Critical information many women would want. But the only company that can test for that gene is the one with the patent. Now somebody has sued, saying it isn't right.
May 13, 2009 (New York Times)
Cancer Patients Challenge the Patenting of a Gene
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13patent.html
What should happen?
1. The laws should be changed to prohibit anyone from receiving a patent on a gene.
2. The laws should be changed to prohibit anyone from claiming a patent on any form of food, plant or animal.
3. The laws should be changed to eliminate patents on any medical treatment or drug that is life-saving unless the patent-owner makes the drugs available at a cost that is "affordable" to the citizens of each country. The question of what is "affordable" should be locally determined. For poor countries, the patents should be ignored and generic versions should be made locally and distributed to the local population.
4. The laws should be changed to prohibit any business from attempting to modify animals or plants other than in a university environment subject to strict controls, and no commercial use or production should be allowed for a period of at least 10 years. By allowing businesses to genetically modify food stuff, we run the substantial risk that they will wipe out the entire source of food, or delete the nutritional value of food, or create a FrankenSwine which could spread disease and give rise to new forms of crop-disease, and much of the world will starve. This is not the type of experimentation that corporations should be allowed to conduct.
5. Patents on any product or device should expire in 5 years after the product or device was first made available.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Senate Rejects Proposal To Cap Credit Card Interest At 15%
What change? Exactly what has changed?
The Senate today voted down a proposal that would cap credit card interest at 15%. The Senators who voted against it (only 33 supported it) argued that it was such a "controversial" provision, they were afraid that they would lose support for their consumer rights credit card law that they have drafted, which President Obama has claimed will be some great victory for consumers.
Except the pending law is a bunch of meaningless crap. The real reason they won't cap interest rates is because the credit card companies pay so much money in bribes to the politicians. So they sell their votes. And Obama sells the presidency and the white house. And the public gets screwed once again.
This much ballyhooed consumer-rights law includes such ridiculous "protections" as requiring the credit card company to give debtors notice before they raise the interest rates (to however high they want). What good does that do? The debtor can't pay off the card -- they don't have the money. The debtor can't move to some other card -- they all do the same, they all have the low-interest come-on that is yanked away in 3 months and replaced with the usurious interest.
Loan sharks. Our entire federal government is on the payroll of loan sharks. Criminals. The people who put the Mafia out of business. And they own Congress, and they own the President.
This is what we should do. Stop paying our credit cards. Demand a cap of 10% interest, and don't pay one penny to the credit card companies until Congress gets up off their lazy corrupt asses and passes a law making it illegal for anyone, credit card companies included, to charge anyone more than 10% interest on any loan, charge, or other financial transaction bearing interest.
Want a big laugh? The Republicans keep saying the Democrats are "socialists." The Democrats are closer to being made-men in the mob than to being socialists. Socialists actually do something for the people once in awhile, instead of just shoveling all the money into the coffers of the corporations.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/senate-rejects-limit-on-credit-card-interest-rates/?partner=rss&emc=rss
The Senate today voted down a proposal that would cap credit card interest at 15%. The Senators who voted against it (only 33 supported it) argued that it was such a "controversial" provision, they were afraid that they would lose support for their consumer rights credit card law that they have drafted, which President Obama has claimed will be some great victory for consumers.
Except the pending law is a bunch of meaningless crap. The real reason they won't cap interest rates is because the credit card companies pay so much money in bribes to the politicians. So they sell their votes. And Obama sells the presidency and the white house. And the public gets screwed once again.
This much ballyhooed consumer-rights law includes such ridiculous "protections" as requiring the credit card company to give debtors notice before they raise the interest rates (to however high they want). What good does that do? The debtor can't pay off the card -- they don't have the money. The debtor can't move to some other card -- they all do the same, they all have the low-interest come-on that is yanked away in 3 months and replaced with the usurious interest.
Loan sharks. Our entire federal government is on the payroll of loan sharks. Criminals. The people who put the Mafia out of business. And they own Congress, and they own the President.
This is what we should do. Stop paying our credit cards. Demand a cap of 10% interest, and don't pay one penny to the credit card companies until Congress gets up off their lazy corrupt asses and passes a law making it illegal for anyone, credit card companies included, to charge anyone more than 10% interest on any loan, charge, or other financial transaction bearing interest.
Want a big laugh? The Republicans keep saying the Democrats are "socialists." The Democrats are closer to being made-men in the mob than to being socialists. Socialists actually do something for the people once in awhile, instead of just shoveling all the money into the coffers of the corporations.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/senate-rejects-limit-on-credit-card-interest-rates/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why Don't The Democrats Just Put The Marines Outside The Doors To Their Healthcare Hearings And Tell Them To Shoot Any Citizen Who Tries To Come In?
Why is it that the Congress always has time for the show-hearings with the big baseball players, coming in to chat about steroids and sign autographs, have their pictures taken next to the Senators and Representatives.
And why is it that Congress always has time to interject itself into the story-of-the-day, like when they brought in that guy who was the captain of the boat that got hijacked by the pirates, got lots of photo ops with him asking him completely stupid questions.
And why is it that Congress always has time for their corporate masters who bring truckloads full of bribes and kick-backs. Plenty of time for Blue Cross and Aetna and Kaiser Permanente. Plenty of time for Citicorp and Bank of America and General Electric.
But no time for us. No time for the citizens. Not even a minute to let anyone come to Congress to testify before their "hearing" about healthcare. Why would they care what Blue Cross says? Blue Cross doesn't have any problems. They've got all the money. It's the citizens who've got the problems, because they don't have the money, and they either have no, or inadequate and grossly overpriced healthcare. It's ridiculous. It's just another opportunity to solicit more corporate bribes.
I'm surprised the Democrats don't line up the military outside their hearings, and just tell them to shoot any citizen that comes near.
What change? Exactly what change? I don't see it.
And why is it that Congress always has time to interject itself into the story-of-the-day, like when they brought in that guy who was the captain of the boat that got hijacked by the pirates, got lots of photo ops with him asking him completely stupid questions.
And why is it that Congress always has time for their corporate masters who bring truckloads full of bribes and kick-backs. Plenty of time for Blue Cross and Aetna and Kaiser Permanente. Plenty of time for Citicorp and Bank of America and General Electric.
But no time for us. No time for the citizens. Not even a minute to let anyone come to Congress to testify before their "hearing" about healthcare. Why would they care what Blue Cross says? Blue Cross doesn't have any problems. They've got all the money. It's the citizens who've got the problems, because they don't have the money, and they either have no, or inadequate and grossly overpriced healthcare. It's ridiculous. It's just another opportunity to solicit more corporate bribes.
I'm surprised the Democrats don't line up the military outside their hearings, and just tell them to shoot any citizen that comes near.
What change? Exactly what change? I don't see it.
Those Corrupt Money-Loving Back-Stabbing Traitorous Democratic Politicians Are Cheating On Us Again. Demand Single-Payer Healthcare.
(NOTE: "Single-Payer" Healthcare means that one person pays the bills. Generally, that means the government pays the bills. Doctors receive information from the government about how much they pay for office visits, procedures, etc., where to send the bills, and the doctors get paid by the government. No insurance companies involved, and no premiums paid to the insurance companies. They contribute nothing, so they are rightfully eliminated from the entire system).
President Obama and the Democrats, in general, have been promising Americans for decades that if only they (the Democrats) had any power at all in the national government, they would make sure that we all have a healthcare system that provides healthcare to all Americans.
Well hallelujah hallelujah. The Democrats are in control. Of the White House. Of the Senate. Of the House of Representatives. And better still, there's no real opposition left. So let's do it, Democrats, let's move forward on one of the most disgraceful failings of our country, the refusal to provide our own people with medical care when they are sick.
I suppose only a moron would be surprised to learn that now they have gained power, by making these fraudulent promises to the citizens, the Democrats have no intention whatsoever to change the healthcare system. It turns out, they were just throwing out the word "change" as a paddle to get the Medical Industry to pay them even more bribes. "Here," the lobbyists said, "Here are millions more of our money. Don't change a thing."
Just like the credit card industry did to stop the Democrats from putting a cap on interest rates and getting rid of the late fees. So Congress abandoned any protection of the consumers and passed some stupid, meaningless, toothless "borrower's rights" laws that do nothing to stop the credit card companies from raping the public, and do nothing to help the citizens. With help like that, maybe we should have just elected the Republicans. What change? This isn't change.
Doctors make a bundle. In addition to their main practices, many of them have sidelines like weight-loss clinics, sports training facilities, they buy MRIs then get their friends to send all their patients to them for testing, they get hospital contracts and staff them with their friends, taking a piece out of everything paid. They even become consultants to soap operas. They're cleaning up, making a fortune. And one way they can continue to do that is to grossly overcharge for their services, keep an artificially-created shortage of doctors so they don't have much competition, and bribe Congress so that nobody passes laws to change this rotten system.
Actually, every time a hospital says they're going to cut back, they always cut back on the nurses who earn a paltry wage and do most of the work. There should be little difference between what a nurse earns and what a doctor earns, but the fact is that nursing has always been a female-dominated profession, and that's why they are paid so little. For example, if nurses make $50,000/year, and doctors make $350,000 (which is minimal where I live), then why not pay the nurses $75,000, pay the doctors $150,000, and have money left over to refund to the patients. They're both making a good living, and the provision of care becomes more affordable.
As far as hospitals go, they have become "profit centers." Built by community funding then eventually taken over by for-profit criminals, this $5.00 for an aspirin is straight-up fraud and theft. Let's take the hospitals back, turn them into non-profit centers owned by the community, and get rid of this smelly mold-like growth that goes by the name "hospital administrators."
Let's talk about the drug pushers -- the legal ones. Guess who funds most of the medical research? Taxpayers do, through the universities. When a university discovers something of value, it is licensed to a drug company, then sold to the public with a 1000% mark-up, or more. Mostly these corporate drug pushers invest in drugs for healthy people who don't need drugs. You want to sell drugs to healthy people so they will stay alive and keep buying the drugs for a long time, providing an income stream. Let's say, for example, that the corporate drug pusher can convince the public that anyone who feels uncomfortable in a roomful of strangers is actually suffering from a medical disease known as Social Anxiety Disorder. But before you panic, here's the good news: THERE IS A CURE!!! Call your doctor (they tell you, in the TV commercial) and get a prescription.
Now why would doctors push this crap on people? Because the doctors get bribes and kick-backs. There is an entire industry known as "Pharmaceutical Sales." Almost to a person they are young and exceptionally good-looking people. They make their living by "visiting" with doctors, flirting, smiling, be pretty or handsome, dining, wooing cooing and noodling, all to get the sale. And they're well-paid to do it. The doctors like having these good-looking young people hanging around. And what the heck, they get lots of free samples so their patients are happy. Every-body-makes-money. Well, except for the patients.
These drug pushers actually calculate the income stream per target -- or patient. Let's say you get someone to buy Drug A, at $30/month, you determine the person's life expectancy, add in a factor for inflation and increase in price of the drugs, calculate it out till the date of death, discount to present value, and you can put a dollar number on exactly how much that patient will pay to the drug company for Drug A during their lifetime. Pretty cool, huh? How can you guarantee the patient will take the drug for life? Have warnings against going off it, for one thing. And maybe throw in a little something extra that will make it uncomfortable for people to go off. They're hooked, baby, and they're going to be paying money to the corporate drug pusher until the patient dies.
Most of the drugs the drug pushers make and sell have nothing to do with health or healthcare, and have everything to do with the question of what is most profitable. My God, Alzheimers is a terrible thing, no question. But most people who get it are relatively well-off white Americans, fairly old. Only about 1.6% of the population of this country suffers from Alzheimers. Even once people reach 90, there is only about a 7% chance they will get Alzheimers in any given year. It isn't quite the epidemic level that one might believe from the news. But why all the advertising, fund raising push for this particular problem? Because there's money in it, that's why.
Relatively well-off people who see mom beginning to slip will spend a lot of money to fund medical research to help mom, because they're terrified they'll get it themselves. But if we really want to help the people in this country, we would be better off starting school programs to provide kids with 3 meals/day of healthy food so they don't end up so fat. Kids are fat because their parents feed them junk, because the food industry has been taken over by people who want to maximize profit, which they do by selling junk to kids. Want to improve our health? Start there.
Viagra. Anti-balding pills. What a pathetic waste that we have millions of children in the world who die from lack of clean drinking water, but the medical industry in the U.S. devotes much of its resources to finding drugs to help men have thick hair and 3-hour erections. And of course the new area of focus for the drug pushers is to try to find a drug for women over 50 that will make them horny all the time. To go along with the old man with the thick head of hair and the 3-hour erection.
The Medical Industry in our country is corrupt. They care about nothing except making money, and they do not care how many Americans die from the gross failure of the entire system. They're in it for the money, they'll get theirs, it's not their problem.
But it is our problem. And now that the Democrats are in complete control, what can we expect by way of relief?
It doesn't look good. Go to OpenSecrets.org (link below) and look under the Healthcare Industry for donations. Go back to about 1990, the Medical Industry paid $20 million in bribes and kick-backs to the politicians. That started to jump up under the pro-business Republican president Clinton, up to $68 million in bribes paid by the Medical Industry to the politicians by 1996. Then we have a huge jump up to $100 million paid by the Medical Industry in bribes and kick-backs in 2000 and 2002.
Somewhere in there, the Republicans passed a law saying the Medicare system would pay for drugs, and forbidding the government agencies from trying to get a discounted price on anything. This was a two-fold level of corruption by the Republicans. First, it was an enormous giveaway to the corporate drug pushers who, in turn, paid enormous kick-backs and bribes to the Republicans. Second, the Republicans want to bankrupt Medicare so they can end the entire program. A two-fer.
By 2004, after Bush had shown his willingness to allow the Medical Industry and all the other criminals to completely loot our country, the Medical Industry paid out $124 million in bribes and kick-backs to the politicians.
In 2008, realizing that the horse was about to change in mid-stream from Republican to Democrat, the Medical Industry paid out almost $165 million in bribes to the politicians (slightly over half of that paid to the Democrats).
One hundred sixty-five million dollars in bribes paid in 2008 alone. Over half of that paid to the Democrats. What do you think are the chances that the Democrats will bite the hand that feeds them? None, unless we make them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H
What should we demand? That all citizens have the right to participate in a single-payer health system. Anybody who wants to continue to buy private insurance should be free to do so. People who would prefer buying into a single payer system run by the government, like Medicare, should be free to do so. Let the people have a choice. The Democrats, who formerly promised that they would make single-payer one of the options available, are now refusing to even discuss it. That's because they took bribes from the Medical Industry, and one of the conditions of the bribes was that the Democrats tell the citizens that there will be no single-payer option. Period.
How would single payer work? Just like Medicare does. Everybody who chooses to be a part of the single payer system would sign up, get a card, then go to the doctor when they need to. The government pays the bills. That's it.
Now, should people who work contribute something to the cost? That seems fair. As long as they earn enough money. People who are poor shouldn't have to pay. Since the businesses have stopped paying healthcare for employees, their taxes should be raised to capture some of that savings. But most working people would gladly pay to the government some monthly amount for healthcare.
For self-employed or unemployed people, who have to buy their own insurance, health insurance is illusory: it "exists" so long as you're healthy, you pay money to them and they pay nothing for you, but if you get sick they will jack up your premiums to the point that you can no longer afford insurance, and they will walk away with all your money in their pocket, and leave you to die. I know a guy who had a heart attack at 42, and his health insurance premiums went up to over $1,000/month. He couldn't afford it. I just heard about some guy, 59, just diagnosed with adult onset diabetes, his premiums went from $300/month to $1300/month, so he no longer has insurance because he couldn't afford it.
These insurance companies take premiums for 40 years, but as soon as the person gets sick they raise the premiums to force the sick person to drop the insurance. These insurance companies all are staffed by psychotic mass-killers, and they should be in prison.
These insurance companies contribute nothing to healthcare. They take our money but when there is a medical problem, they do everything in their power to deny paying for the care. They will delay processing a claim for treatment in the hopes that the patient will die, so they won't have to pay. These people and this industry have no business being involved in healthcare.
As far as the whining doctors, with their AMA lobby bribing Congress, all they're in it for is the money. I'd say that if a doctor can treat patients under a single-payer system and earn $150,000/year, they should be grateful because they're still earning a lot more money than most Americans do. And because they always whine about malpractice insurance, and the high cost of a medical education, I'm sure we could work something out to offset those costs, over time, for doctors who participate in the system. For doctors who refuse, fine, let them go treat people who have private health insurance. Rich people.
Demand a single payer option be made available to the American public. The health insurance industry is fighting hard against this because polls show that when people are told what this option would mean, a huge percentage of Americans would choose it rather than continue to be raped by the criminals running the health insurance industry. I would take that single-payer option in 2 seconds if it was available in order to get away from the scumbucket health insurance industry. I've been self-insured for over 15 years, in good health, but all they ever do is suck money out of me and I get nothing in return.
***********************************************************
Here's a link to, and some excerpts from, an article by Ralph Nader discussing the single-payer healthcare issue, and the plan of the Democrats to abandon it in exchange for all the bribes paid to them by the Medical Industry:
"Remember the Baucus Eight! - The Single-Payer Taboo"
By RALPH NADER
"Among the giant taboos afflicting Congress these days is the proposal to create a single payer health insurance system (often called full Medicare for everyone). ... [S]ingle payer is only supported by a majority of the American people, physicians and nurses. They like the idea of public funding and private delivery. They like the free choice of doctors and hospitals that many are now denied by the HMOs. "
"There are also great administrative efficiencies when single payer displaces the health insurance industry and its claims-denying, benefit-restricting, bureaucratically-heavy profiteering. According to leading researchers in this area, Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, single payer will save $350 billion annually."
"Yet, on Capitol Hill and at the White House there are no meetings, briefings, hearings, and consultations about kinds of health care reforms that reform the basic price inflation, indifference to prevention, and discrimination by health insurers."
"There is no place at the table for single payer advocates in the view of the Congressional leaders who set the agenda and muzzle dissenters."
"Last month at a breakfast meeting with reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to a question about health care with these revealing and exasperating words: "'Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer.'"
*********************************
Ralph Nader goes on to discuss the hearings just begun in the Senate to discuss health care changes, but not one single person invited to speak will support single payer healthcare. The Democrats have barred any witness who supports single payer healthcare. They refuse to even let the public hear about this option. Demonstrators have been evicted from the hearings for standing up and speaking out for single payer healthcare.
So, what can you do? Call, e-mail, write your representative and senator and your local paper, and speak out in support of single payer healthcare.
Point out the bribes paid to the politicians in Washington D.C. by the Medical Industry (almost $400 Million Dollars paid by the Medical Industry to the politicians in Washington D.C. from 2004 through 2008, most of it as bribes and kick-backs to make sure Congress does not pass any law to help the citizens of this country get a modern, rational, affordable healthcare system).
Point out that the only reason single-payer is being rejected is because of these enormous bribes and kick-backs that have been paid by the Medical Industry to our politicians. Point out that a corrupt government will not stand, will not survive in times like these when the citizens need help, but all we see is the government continuing to give massive hand-outs to the corporations and the rich, and back-of-the-hand to the people. Point out that it may be the right to time to start a new political party, maybe call it the "Honest" party, if the Democrats keep giving all the money to the rich people and refuse to do anything to help everyone else. P.S.: we need dental care included in the bill.
Ralph Nader's full article can be seen at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader05112009.html
And here's a link to a website about the bill in Congress proposing a single payer healthcare system. http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/whats-single-payer/
Sunday, May 10, 2009
"Songs My Mother Taught Me," by Antonin Dvorak
Songs my mother taught me
in the days long vanished
Seldom from her eyelids
were the tear drops banished.
Now I teach my children
each melodious measure.
Often tears are flowing
from my memory's treasure.
in the days long vanished
Seldom from her eyelids
were the tear drops banished.
Now I teach my children
each melodious measure.
Often tears are flowing
from my memory's treasure.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Happy Mother's Day. The Righteous Mothers: Old Fat Naked Women For Peace.
Mother's Day didn't really start as just a day for breakfast in bed. Its origins lie in the decision by Julia Ward Howe to issue a public proclamation and demand that the carnage and brutality of war, in her case the U.S. Civil War, be ended, and that women take up the role as an anti-war force in societies throughout the world, since they seem to be the only ones with enough sense to realize that war must end.Mother’s Day Proclamation (1870) (Julia Ward Howe)
Arise then ... women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly: We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.
From the voice of a devastated
Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace ...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God—
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.
She was right then, and she's still right now. Men start wars, grab the children from the arms of their mothers and send them to foreign countries to kill or be killed so that some few leaders can grab more riches for themselves. Who can stop this madness except women?
Here are some Old Fat Naked Women who are committed to the cause of peace:
More Americans Thrown Out Of Work. 16% "Real" Unemployment. Our Economy Does Not Work For The Average Person.
We now have almost 16% "real" unemployment in this country, and economists say we will continue to bleed jobs every single month for at least the rest of 2009, and high unemployment will continue in our country at least until 2011.
The only people getting rich around here are the criminals on Wall Street, in the Banks, and in the executive offices, the same ones who have looted the country and devastated the economy of the world. For most working people in this country, the economy does not work. Wages have been essentially frozen (when adjusted for inflation) since 1970 -- for 40 years, for some people, an entire working career.
While wages have been frozen, and a smaller piece of the pie went to the workers, a bigger chunk has been stolen by the executives and the CEOs, a percentage of which they use to pay kick-backs and bribes to Congress to cut their taxes and pass laws to let them take jobs out of the country.
Prices have risen dramatically, particularly in healthcare (no longer paid by employers, with the most minor procedure now costing even insured people tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, driving many people into bankruptcy every year). Many people now pay half their take-home just for housing, a level which is, by definition, unaffordable. They exhaust their savings and, in a downturn, they have nothing. But the rich get richer and everyone else gets hosed.
Wall Street cheered and stocks again rose on the news that another 540,000 Americans lost their jobs in April. Almost 2.6 million Americans have been thrown out of work during the first four months of this year, while the government has handed billions of dollars over to the richest people on Wall Street as bonuses.
The entire goal of Wall Street, the corporate masters, and their servants in Congress, has been to throw Americans out of work, take their jobs to third world countries, open the borders and allow tens of millions of immigrants in to compete for work. Once Americans have been crushed, their life savings gone, homes gone, cars gone, jobs gone, pensions gone, then they will be willing to "compete" with third world workers, to work for a dollar day if that's what they can get.
JOBS LOST IN U.S.
December, 2008
524,000
(Sept. - Dec. 2008)
1.9 million
2008 Total: 2.6 million jobs lost, worst year since1945.
"Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession."
"When economic conditions deteriorate, greater attention is paid to persons who are without work and seeking jobs—the unemployed. At such times, there is also greater interest in a group of persons who do not meet the official definition of unemployment but who have shown interest in labor force participation. These individuals—referred to as “marginally attached to the labor force”—wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not actively searched for work in the past 4 weeks. The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force increased sharply during the current recession, rising to 2.1 million in the first quarter of 2009. From the U.S. government Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/ils74abs.htm
The only people getting rich around here are the criminals on Wall Street, in the Banks, and in the executive offices, the same ones who have looted the country and devastated the economy of the world. For most working people in this country, the economy does not work. Wages have been essentially frozen (when adjusted for inflation) since 1970 -- for 40 years, for some people, an entire working career.
While wages have been frozen, and a smaller piece of the pie went to the workers, a bigger chunk has been stolen by the executives and the CEOs, a percentage of which they use to pay kick-backs and bribes to Congress to cut their taxes and pass laws to let them take jobs out of the country.
Prices have risen dramatically, particularly in healthcare (no longer paid by employers, with the most minor procedure now costing even insured people tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, driving many people into bankruptcy every year). Many people now pay half their take-home just for housing, a level which is, by definition, unaffordable. They exhaust their savings and, in a downturn, they have nothing. But the rich get richer and everyone else gets hosed.
Wall Street cheered and stocks again rose on the news that another 540,000 Americans lost their jobs in April. Almost 2.6 million Americans have been thrown out of work during the first four months of this year, while the government has handed billions of dollars over to the richest people on Wall Street as bonuses.
The entire goal of Wall Street, the corporate masters, and their servants in Congress, has been to throw Americans out of work, take their jobs to third world countries, open the borders and allow tens of millions of immigrants in to compete for work. Once Americans have been crushed, their life savings gone, homes gone, cars gone, jobs gone, pensions gone, then they will be willing to "compete" with third world workers, to work for a dollar day if that's what they can get.
JOBS LOST IN U.S.
December, 2008
524,000
(Sept. - Dec. 2008)
1.9 million
2008 Total: 2.6 million jobs lost, worst year since1945.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/index.htm?postversion=2009010912
January, 2009
598,000 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090207_598_000_U_S__jobs_lost_in_January.html'>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090207_598_000_U_S__jobs_lost_in_January.html">http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090207_598_000_U_S__jobs_lost_in_January.html
February, 2009
706,000
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a75eifvEz47k
March, 2009
742,000
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a75eifvEz47k
April, 2009
539,000
8.9%: Current "official" unemployment rate.
15.8% Current "real" unemployment rate when including people whose unemployment benefits ran out even though they are still unemployed, and people who have lost a full-time job but have part-time work.
This is now the longest recession since World War II.
13.7 Million Americans unemployed. (Plus, see bottom, 2.1 million "marginally attached" workers weren't even included in this number, even though they were unemployed, because they did not report having looked for a job during the past four weeks.
(AP is reporting): "Looking ahead, economists expect monthly job losses for most -- if not all -- of this year. However, they hope the reductions won't be as deep."
"Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, wouldn't speculate on the future pace of layoffs, but warned that some of the jobs lost "may not come back." She urged jobseekers to get the training and education needed to be contenders for work in growing industries, such as health care, which added nearly 17,000 jobs in April. "
"The Fed says unemployment will remain elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal -- meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate -- until 2013.
"Microsoft Corp. said it was starting thousands of the 5,000 job cuts it announced in earlier this year and left the door open to even more layoffs." [SOMEBODY SHOULD ASK THEM WHETHER THEY ARE THROWING AMERICANS OUT OF WORK AND JUST REPLACING THEM WITH H1B VISA IMMIGRANT CONTRACT WORKERS FROM INDIA, WHO THEY PAY $11,000/YEAR LESS THAN AN AMERICAN.]
"Ranks of Discouraged Workers and Others Marginally Attached to the Labor Force Rise During Recession."
"When economic conditions deteriorate, greater attention is paid to persons who are without work and seeking jobs—the unemployed. At such times, there is also greater interest in a group of persons who do not meet the official definition of unemployment but who have shown interest in labor force participation. These individuals—referred to as “marginally attached to the labor force”—wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not actively searched for work in the past 4 weeks. The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force increased sharply during the current recession, rising to 2.1 million in the first quarter of 2009. From the U.S. government Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/ils74abs.htm
Father Cutie-Pie
Father Cutie (the media pronounces it Q-tee-aay) is a Catholic priest, formerly assigned to Miami Beach, Florida. He's very good-looking. But the really big news is that he's not only heterosexual, but he actually likes grown-up women instead of children. No little boys or girls for Father Cutie-Pie. He was photographed rolling around in the sand, on a beach, with some good-looking woman, engaged in normal adult heterosexual contact. So the church went ballistic.
One might think that the Catholic Church would be so overjoyed to find a priest in their midst who not only was not a pedophile, but who actually likes grown-up females, that they would give him a Straight-To-Pope pass, and this guy would be headed to CEO Heaven, or at least the Catholic version of it. But you would be wrong.
No, apparently the sin of a priest being heterosexual-while-praying is still a mortal sin inside the Catholic church. Those heterosexuals must be banned from the cathedrals, stripped of their robes (which, strangely, is exactly what the beach-babe seemed to be trying to do).
I' m just thinking of all those pedophiles over decades who, when they were caught, the church stood by them. Pedophile = good, heterosexual adult women = bad. Go figure. Remember how it came out that every time a pedophile priest got caught, the church would shuffle him off to some new (unsuspecting) parish. The church later said this was some kind of "punishment." But it looked to me like it might be a rewards system. If they like you, then every few years they send you to a new parish full of young, apple-cheeked innocent young 5 year old boys, so you get a fresh crew. These pedophiles sexually stimulated 5 year old boys, touched their penises to try to make them get erections, made these little boys kiss and lick the old man priest's penis so he could get an erection. And the church protected those priests as if they were goblets from the last supper.
As a basic, fundamental, organizing principle of the Catholic Church, one that precedes all others, they preach and teach and believe that women are disgusting. Women are the most vile, unclean creatures on earth. I'll bet if a priest screwed a pig they'd get off with barely a Hail Mary as contrition. But screw a woman, or even think about it, and you may be defrocked. Women exist, in the eyes of the church, only to entice men, spread their evil ways, lead men to the devil, encourage men to have sex with women for pleasure and for reproductive purposes, so they will leave the church. Or leave "God," is how the church puts it. What kind of twisted mind would turn Jesus' birthmother into a virgin (huh?). If a woman has a problem in a pregnancy, they kill the woman, save the fetus. It's dogma. Women are of no importance other than as slaves and breeders to raise little children to be future victims of the pedophile priests.
How can any institution claim this much power, and retain this much wealth, when they require their leaders to deny one of their basic human instincts: to have sex, usually with a member of the opposite sex? And how can they convince generations of young men that they should do this? By painting women as the most disgusting, dirty, filthy, dishonest, ignorant, worthless creatures that ever lived.
I know other religions have similar attitudes, except their VPs get to have sex. Sometimes they have sex with all their parishioners, during "prayer." So they all have some weird attitudes about sex, and promote the view of women being servants and slaves.
But the Catholic Church is the worst. We hear so much about Islam, about the Muslims and the Taliban and all the crazies, and yes, as a modern branch, they're pretty awful. But the Catholic church exists in modern nations in modern times. Their priests are educated, and many of their parishioners are educated, intelligent people. The Catholic church clings to these old attitudes because of a perverse hatred of women, a need to ascribe to women some terrible status in order to prop up an unworkable, irrational, man-created doctrine that for some reason took hold in the Church, and said the priests may no longer marry. Little boys are okay, but grown women are off-limits.
Wake up Pope. You're losing your best people.
********************************************************************
(From the Miami-Herald, 5/5/09):
"The Rev. Alberto Cutié, a national figure with movie star looks, was removed from his Miami Beach church Tuesday after photographs appeared in a magazine showing him frolicking with a woman in the sand on a Florida beach."
"A wildly popular Catholic priest, newspaper columnist and radio and television personality, Cutié will no longer run operations or lead Sunday Mass at St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church."
"Word of Cutié's punishment came during a brief news conference in front of a small gathering of reporters at the Archdiocese of Miami headquarters on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami Shores.
''The vow of celibacy is part of the ordination,' said spokeswoman Mary Ross Agosta. 'A man who is a priest is able to totally focus on the church.'"
"Earlier in the day, Cutié spoke with Archbishop John C. Favalora, who said that the pictures of Cutié and the woman saddened him. 'Father Cutié's actions cannot be condoned despite the good works he has done as a priest,' Favalora said in a statement. 'I ask for everyone's prayers at this time.'"
"This week's cover of TVnotas shows Cutié, 40, lying on his back in blue shorts with an unidentified, long-brown-haired woman in a dark bathing suit wrapping her legs around him.
The other 24 pictures, which TVnotas says were taken over a three-day period in March, include one with Cutié's hand inside the woman's bathing suit touching her posterior. Still another shows the couple kissing at an unidentified terrace bar.'' (Miami-Herald, 5/5/09)
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Danny Schechter's Blog "News Dissector" Wins 2009 Aronson Award For Social Justice Journalism.
The winners of the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism were just announced. They include Danny Schechter's blog "News Dissector," which should be on everyone's daily reading list. The award is given in the name of James Aronson, a journalist who spent his entire career reporting on social justice, peace, and human dignity issues.
Here's the link to the blog, a terrific source of important news often ignored by the major newspapers or TV stations: http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/
Here's the link to the blog, a terrific source of important news often ignored by the major newspapers or TV stations: http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Love Theme From Roman Polanski's "Chinatown."
The score to Roman Polanski's movie "Chinatown" is quite beautiful and, amazingly, was written in only ten days. Robert Evans, the producer, threw away the original score that had been prepared for the film, called veteran Hollywood composer Jerry Goldsmith and asked him if he could do the entire score for the movie -- in ten days. Goldsmith did, and the result is a beautiful score, starting with the Love Theme (below).
Jerry Goldsmith has written the soundtracks for an astonishing number of films, just a few of which are listed below:
Alien
Air Force One
Basic Instinct
Boys from Brazil
Breakheart Pass
City Hall
Coma
Executive Decision
First Knight
Gremlins
Hoosiers
In Harm's Way
L.A. Confidential
The Last Castle
Lillies of the Field
List of Adrian Messenger
Malice
Mr. Baseball
Not Without My Daughter
The Omen
Night Crossing
Papillon
A Patch of Blue
Patton
Planet of the Apes
The Prize
Poltergeist
Rudy
The Russia House
The Sand Pebbles
Six Degrees of Separation
Sleeping With The Enemy
Stagecoach
Wind And The Lion
Jerry Goldsmith has written the soundtracks for an astonishing number of films, just a few of which are listed below:
Alien
Air Force One
Basic Instinct
Boys from Brazil
Breakheart Pass
City Hall
Coma
Executive Decision
First Knight
Gremlins
Hoosiers
In Harm's Way
L.A. Confidential
The Last Castle
Lillies of the Field
List of Adrian Messenger
Malice
Mr. Baseball
Not Without My Daughter
The Omen
Night Crossing
Papillon
A Patch of Blue
Patton
Planet of the Apes
The Prize
Poltergeist
Rudy
The Russia House
The Sand Pebbles
Six Degrees of Separation
Sleeping With The Enemy
Stagecoach
Wind And The Lion
Dien Ben Phu, Dien Ben Phu, When Will You, Meet Your Dien Ben Phu?
Is the United States going to invade Pakistan? Directly or indirectly. There have been stories for sometime about U.S. special forces already being inside many countries in the region. But Pakistan seems to be a particular focus of the Obama administration. People make much of the fact that the President learned to say the country's name properly -- Pah-kee-stan -- but nobody's bothered to ask why. Is it because the U.S. has it next on the list of countries that we will invade seeking the rose-petal path? Or maybe break it up into pieces, hand them out to neighboring countries who are either our friends or our colonies, keep everything away from any possible claims by China?
The people who started the movements towards the New American Empire -- called PNAC, Project for a New American Century -- don't really disappear just because "their" guy loses an election. Their goals remain the same. And remember, most of the money from this country has been stolen by their members -- the wealthy elite, the oil, the defense, the Wall Street criminals who have looted and pillaged during the Bush years. They've got the money, they bribe our politicians, they can pretty much get whatever they want.
So here's the question: since President Obama campaigned to end the war in Iraq, why doesn't he do it? We have 142,000 U.S. military personnel occupying Iraq right now, and an additional -- 100,000? --- private contractor mercenaries. That's 250,000 people occupying a foreign country. Let's get them out of there. But Obama says no, let's wait a year, and even then we'll leave 50,000 troops. To "help." That's ridiculous. The only thing the U.S. has done in Iraq is to kill and destroy, and teach others to do the same. Nothing is going to be resolved as long as we continue to militarily occupy that country. We need to get out. Now. Out Now.
But then we get the surprise news. Yes, Obama wants to "end" the war in Iraq by reducing forces to 50,000 -- which doesn't sound like an end to me, more a pause -- but he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. But why? What's there except rubble and poor people? What is our purpose or goal in being in Afghanistan? Except to have a staging ground to attack Pakistan. No, they won't call it an attack -- they'll say we're just sending some advisors in to help prop up the puppet government. Is that really why we are escalating in Afghanistan? To set up the staging ground for the next U.S. war?
There is a major battle taking place right now in Pakistan between the official government and the "militants" we call the Taliban. It should not be surprising that the Taliban would have popular support and strength in Pakistan. The Pakistan government and its state police, the ISI, haVE reportedly been big supporters of the Taliban for years. The country was a home-base for the al-Queda efforts in the region, with many of the top level people in the government being sympathizers with al-Queda (just like the royal family in Saudi Arabia provided their funding). Remember, they popularized the religious-fanatic schools that brainwashed the children and turned them out to become little suicide bombers of the future. Why would anyone be surprised that Pakistan is overrun with fanatics? We've been funding them for years -- they're our "friend." Just like with bin Laden, we have funded our future enemies.
This may seem abhorant to us - who could support the Taliban, never mind al Queda? Here's the answer: people support the local team. When the Yankees come to town to play against the team with the smallest payroll, youngest and most inexperienced players, oldest ballfield, who do the home-town fans support? The local team, no matter what the odds are against them. They don't like outsiders coming in and trying to take over. Same thing.
The United States has been a physical presence in the area since sometime after Israel was set up, since our arming of Israel and ongoing obscene levels of funding of Israel, our non-negotiable support for Israel's genocide against the Palestinians, and whatever else they do, has made it clear to a majority of the people in the region that the U.S. is only there to support a western, European-style colony of the region with the non-whites and Muslims acting the part of slaves, and the U.S. and Israel acting the part of brutal colonial forces. They do hate us, but it's not for our freedoms -- it's for our decades of brutal colonial assault on their countries and their lives.
I can see this whole thing playing out to one end: U.S. war in Pakistan. Not to get al -Queda -- I'm beginning to think nobody really cares about al -Queda -- just to get control. The elusive goal, the never-ending war: just until it's stabilized, even if we have to kill every single person in that country. Obama's position since he got into the White House has been a direct aim at Pakistan. I don't love Pakistan, don't get me wrong. But we have no business in Pakistan other than if we know bin Laden is there, let's go in and kill him. Other than that, stay out. U.S. Out of Pakistan.
Remember, Joe Biden wanted to break up Iraq into segments, give control of each segment to some friendly regime. Do they have the same thing in mind for Pakistan? Break it up, turn over control of segments to U.S.-aligned nations, have "treaties" which give us control of all their resources? Prevent China from gaining control in Pakistan? Remember, Pakistan's longest border may be with India, but they also have a border with China.
We will not "win" the countries in that region through military means. We can kill all the people, enslave the population, and keep an unstable puppet regime in place for short periods of time. But in the long run, we cannot "win." Not by bombs or guns.
Think of all the things we could have done that would have been good. Let's start with the Palestinians. Tell Israel to get out of the settlements and return to some borders (pick one -- any one). Rebuild everything for the Palestinians. Employ the people. Build housing, give them jobs, build schools, hospitals. Bring their brightest students to the U.S. for immediate professional education such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs, engineers, but at the same time build professional-level universities in their own country where they can turn out all the top-level people they need to run their new nation. Provide the funding. Build transportation and roads. If we had done that, and the Palestinians had gone from being the poorest victims of western colonial greed to becoming a new nation of opportunity where all the people have housing, food, clothing, medical, education, think how different things might have been. And at probably a fraction of what it costs for any of these wars.
We can win by showing people that there are better ways, better opportunities, that it's possible for countries to meet the needs of their people. Instead we bomb, murder, destroy. And this is what we have: war, neverending war. And a new one on the horizon.
While the citizens at home wait for help, our government is engaged in on-going wars against other countries with no benefit to us. We get nothing. The corporations get control of the resources. The citizens of those countries get killed or maimed. These are corporate wars, and we need to end them.
When the French were trying to keep control, keep their colonial ownership of Vietnam, the U.S. gradually moved in to aid in that effort, very early on funding 80% of the war against the Vietnamese. Then we sent in "advisors," then "special" forces, then the whole military. The French got their butts kicked at a battle in a place called Dien Ben Phu. Remember that song: Waterloo, Waterloo, when will you meet your Waterloo? The moment of reckoning. How many wars will it take until our creditors cut us off and our military limps home?
The federal government under the control of Bush and Cheney bankrupt our country and created devastation throughout the world. So far, President Obama has done nothing but spread a thin veneer of calm over what is otherwise a nation in a disaster, headed for collapse. Future generations of this country will pay by inheriting crushing debt, an economy which has few jobs, no manufacturing, no ability to make anything, no ability to grow our own food, no money, no capital, no public infrastructure, no schools or roads or transportation, no healthcare for the people, no adequate police or fire protection. Just like in Third World Countries -- nothing for the people, everything for the rulers.
U.S. Out of Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. End the Wars. Bring the Troops Home.
AP: "MINGORA, Pakistan – Helicopter gunships and mortar teams pounded militant strongholds, killing dozens outside emerald mines and in a district near the capital, the military said, as Taliban reinforcements poured down from their mountain hideouts."
"As the army began taking the fight to militants entrenched about 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital, Pakistan's leader prepared to hear demands from President Barack Obama for forceful action from a struggling ally. "
"The army actions in the Swat Valley and Buner will please Washington, which is urging Pakistan to crack down on militants blamed for rising violence at home and in Afghanistan.
Since fighting broke out Tuesday, thousands of men, women and children have fled the region's main town of Mingora and surrounding districts, fearing an imminent major military operation. The government said it believes refugees could reach 500,000. "
"'It is an all-out war there. Rockets are landing everywhere,' said Laiq Zada, a 33-year old who fled the valley late Tuesday and was now in a government-run tent camp out of the danger zone. 'We have with us the clothes on our bodies and a hope in the house of God. Nothing else.'"
"The clashes followed the collapse of a 3-month-old truce in Swat that was widely criticized in the West as a surrender to the militants, who had fought the army to a standstill in two years of clashes that saw hundreds of civilian casualties. "
"The developments brought Islamabad's faltering campaign against extremism into sharp focus as President Asif Ali Zardari prepared for talks Wednesday in Washington with Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on how best to counter an increasingly overlapping spectrum of extremist groups behind surging violence in the neighboring countries."
"The Obama administration hopes to build a strong and lasting regional alliance, linking success in Afghanistan with security in Pakistan. Toward that end, the administration is encouraging Pakistan to confront — not make peace with — the Taliban and other militants.
'We need to put the most heavy possible pressure on our friends in Pakistan to join us in the fight against the Taliban and its allies,' Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a congressional committee Tuesday. 'We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's support and involvement.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
Stonewall Jackson: "Waterloo"
___
The people who started the movements towards the New American Empire -- called PNAC, Project for a New American Century -- don't really disappear just because "their" guy loses an election. Their goals remain the same. And remember, most of the money from this country has been stolen by their members -- the wealthy elite, the oil, the defense, the Wall Street criminals who have looted and pillaged during the Bush years. They've got the money, they bribe our politicians, they can pretty much get whatever they want.
So here's the question: since President Obama campaigned to end the war in Iraq, why doesn't he do it? We have 142,000 U.S. military personnel occupying Iraq right now, and an additional -- 100,000? --- private contractor mercenaries. That's 250,000 people occupying a foreign country. Let's get them out of there. But Obama says no, let's wait a year, and even then we'll leave 50,000 troops. To "help." That's ridiculous. The only thing the U.S. has done in Iraq is to kill and destroy, and teach others to do the same. Nothing is going to be resolved as long as we continue to militarily occupy that country. We need to get out. Now. Out Now.
But then we get the surprise news. Yes, Obama wants to "end" the war in Iraq by reducing forces to 50,000 -- which doesn't sound like an end to me, more a pause -- but he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. But why? What's there except rubble and poor people? What is our purpose or goal in being in Afghanistan? Except to have a staging ground to attack Pakistan. No, they won't call it an attack -- they'll say we're just sending some advisors in to help prop up the puppet government. Is that really why we are escalating in Afghanistan? To set up the staging ground for the next U.S. war?
There is a major battle taking place right now in Pakistan between the official government and the "militants" we call the Taliban. It should not be surprising that the Taliban would have popular support and strength in Pakistan. The Pakistan government and its state police, the ISI, haVE reportedly been big supporters of the Taliban for years. The country was a home-base for the al-Queda efforts in the region, with many of the top level people in the government being sympathizers with al-Queda (just like the royal family in Saudi Arabia provided their funding). Remember, they popularized the religious-fanatic schools that brainwashed the children and turned them out to become little suicide bombers of the future. Why would anyone be surprised that Pakistan is overrun with fanatics? We've been funding them for years -- they're our "friend." Just like with bin Laden, we have funded our future enemies.
This may seem abhorant to us - who could support the Taliban, never mind al Queda? Here's the answer: people support the local team. When the Yankees come to town to play against the team with the smallest payroll, youngest and most inexperienced players, oldest ballfield, who do the home-town fans support? The local team, no matter what the odds are against them. They don't like outsiders coming in and trying to take over. Same thing.
The United States has been a physical presence in the area since sometime after Israel was set up, since our arming of Israel and ongoing obscene levels of funding of Israel, our non-negotiable support for Israel's genocide against the Palestinians, and whatever else they do, has made it clear to a majority of the people in the region that the U.S. is only there to support a western, European-style colony of the region with the non-whites and Muslims acting the part of slaves, and the U.S. and Israel acting the part of brutal colonial forces. They do hate us, but it's not for our freedoms -- it's for our decades of brutal colonial assault on their countries and their lives.
I can see this whole thing playing out to one end: U.S. war in Pakistan. Not to get al -Queda -- I'm beginning to think nobody really cares about al -Queda -- just to get control. The elusive goal, the never-ending war: just until it's stabilized, even if we have to kill every single person in that country. Obama's position since he got into the White House has been a direct aim at Pakistan. I don't love Pakistan, don't get me wrong. But we have no business in Pakistan other than if we know bin Laden is there, let's go in and kill him. Other than that, stay out. U.S. Out of Pakistan.
Come to think of it, remember the oil pipeline? Way back in 2001, the U.S. made demands in Afghanistan to let western oil companies build a pipeline through their country? Because we want our corporations to steal all the oil from the region, carry it overland by pipeline, dump it into tankers, and have them bring it to California to fuel the Hummers. What was that campaign called? "Save the Hummers." As I recall, that pipeline was also supposed to go through Pakistan. Hmmm.
The AP article (link and partial quotes below) say that the Obama administration's position is that the U.S. cannot "win" in Afghanistan without peace and support, an alliance with Pakistan, that Obama is pushing the Pakistan government to engage in military battles with the Taliban, that the Obama government is claiming that the bad guys are now coming from Pakistan (I thought they were coming from Iran -- they keep changing the story). Oh My God, the U.S. is going to start another war. I can smell it.Remember, Joe Biden wanted to break up Iraq into segments, give control of each segment to some friendly regime. Do they have the same thing in mind for Pakistan? Break it up, turn over control of segments to U.S.-aligned nations, have "treaties" which give us control of all their resources? Prevent China from gaining control in Pakistan? Remember, Pakistan's longest border may be with India, but they also have a border with China.
We will not "win" the countries in that region through military means. We can kill all the people, enslave the population, and keep an unstable puppet regime in place for short periods of time. But in the long run, we cannot "win." Not by bombs or guns.
Think of all the things we could have done that would have been good. Let's start with the Palestinians. Tell Israel to get out of the settlements and return to some borders (pick one -- any one). Rebuild everything for the Palestinians. Employ the people. Build housing, give them jobs, build schools, hospitals. Bring their brightest students to the U.S. for immediate professional education such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs, engineers, but at the same time build professional-level universities in their own country where they can turn out all the top-level people they need to run their new nation. Provide the funding. Build transportation and roads. If we had done that, and the Palestinians had gone from being the poorest victims of western colonial greed to becoming a new nation of opportunity where all the people have housing, food, clothing, medical, education, think how different things might have been. And at probably a fraction of what it costs for any of these wars.
We can win by showing people that there are better ways, better opportunities, that it's possible for countries to meet the needs of their people. Instead we bomb, murder, destroy. And this is what we have: war, neverending war. And a new one on the horizon.
While the citizens at home wait for help, our government is engaged in on-going wars against other countries with no benefit to us. We get nothing. The corporations get control of the resources. The citizens of those countries get killed or maimed. These are corporate wars, and we need to end them.
When the French were trying to keep control, keep their colonial ownership of Vietnam, the U.S. gradually moved in to aid in that effort, very early on funding 80% of the war against the Vietnamese. Then we sent in "advisors," then "special" forces, then the whole military. The French got their butts kicked at a battle in a place called Dien Ben Phu. Remember that song: Waterloo, Waterloo, when will you meet your Waterloo? The moment of reckoning. How many wars will it take until our creditors cut us off and our military limps home?
The federal government under the control of Bush and Cheney bankrupt our country and created devastation throughout the world. So far, President Obama has done nothing but spread a thin veneer of calm over what is otherwise a nation in a disaster, headed for collapse. Future generations of this country will pay by inheriting crushing debt, an economy which has few jobs, no manufacturing, no ability to make anything, no ability to grow our own food, no money, no capital, no public infrastructure, no schools or roads or transportation, no healthcare for the people, no adequate police or fire protection. Just like in Third World Countries -- nothing for the people, everything for the rulers.
U.S. Out of Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. End the Wars. Bring the Troops Home.
AP: "MINGORA, Pakistan – Helicopter gunships and mortar teams pounded militant strongholds, killing dozens outside emerald mines and in a district near the capital, the military said, as Taliban reinforcements poured down from their mountain hideouts."
"As the army began taking the fight to militants entrenched about 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital, Pakistan's leader prepared to hear demands from President Barack Obama for forceful action from a struggling ally. "
"The army actions in the Swat Valley and Buner will please Washington, which is urging Pakistan to crack down on militants blamed for rising violence at home and in Afghanistan.
Since fighting broke out Tuesday, thousands of men, women and children have fled the region's main town of Mingora and surrounding districts, fearing an imminent major military operation. The government said it believes refugees could reach 500,000. "
"'It is an all-out war there. Rockets are landing everywhere,' said Laiq Zada, a 33-year old who fled the valley late Tuesday and was now in a government-run tent camp out of the danger zone. 'We have with us the clothes on our bodies and a hope in the house of God. Nothing else.'"
"The clashes followed the collapse of a 3-month-old truce in Swat that was widely criticized in the West as a surrender to the militants, who had fought the army to a standstill in two years of clashes that saw hundreds of civilian casualties. "
"The developments brought Islamabad's faltering campaign against extremism into sharp focus as President Asif Ali Zardari prepared for talks Wednesday in Washington with Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on how best to counter an increasingly overlapping spectrum of extremist groups behind surging violence in the neighboring countries."
"The Obama administration hopes to build a strong and lasting regional alliance, linking success in Afghanistan with security in Pakistan. Toward that end, the administration is encouraging Pakistan to confront — not make peace with — the Taliban and other militants.
'We need to put the most heavy possible pressure on our friends in Pakistan to join us in the fight against the Taliban and its allies,' Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told a congressional committee Tuesday. 'We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's support and involvement.'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
Stonewall Jackson: "Waterloo"
___
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sometimes It Feels Like The Same Old Fascist Bullshit.
In the words of the great Yogi Berra, it's Deja Vu all over again.
We are involved in two ridiculous wars of aggression, with no reason to be there, no understanding of why we are there or what it is we are seeking to accomplish, never mind whether it's even legal for us to be doing what we are doing in militarily occupying two other countries and murdering their civilians. Just like Vietnam. And now they want to attack Pakistan.
We hear Obama taking up the Lyndon Johnson mantle saying we can't leave now, we need to go forward, "win." Barack, listen to somebody other than the maniacs you've hired for your cabinet: We can't win. You cannot win a war when there's no reason to be there. The only way to win these wars is to kill every single person over there.
Our politicians could not be more corrupt. If this was some movie about right before the fall of the Empire, central casting can rest because they can go straight to Congress and just film those liars, thieves and whores in their daily lives.
Today we hear that the Aipac spies will not even be prosecuted. They get a walk. How nice. Maybe that's why Mukasey was put into the AG spot by his personal Democratic guardians Schumer and Feinstein -- to just sit on the whole thing. Then the Obama folks come in, right before the Aipac convention, give a present to their generous friends. So every single politician in our government is spending the week over at the Aipac convention with their bagmen picking up their bribes and kick-backs.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg weren't executed because they allegedly stole classified or top secret information to give to a foreign country. They were executed because they were poor, and they didn't have enough money to bribe our politicians to buy their lives back.
The thieves and rapists who have looted every business in this country, hiding assets overseas, refusing to pay taxes, taking jobs elsewhere, stealing retired people's pensions and healthcare money, defrauding the public -- they've been rewarded by Congress, given billions more and bonuses. And they pay Congress enormous kick-backs for their generosity.
In the meantime, unemployment is dire and nobody in our government is doing a G-D thing to help the American working people who are out of work. No jobs, no job creation, just bonuses and champagne and parties with Wall Street and the Aipac spies. They should call it the Traitor's Ball.
As for healthcare, the Democrats have already sold us out to the insurance companies who take billions every year and pay nothing, and refuse to allow us, the citizens, the taxpayers, the option of buying into the Medicare system -- single payer -- let the government pay for all the medical services, and those of us who are employed can pay a premium directly to the government. Screw the insurance companies. All they do is raise premiums (mine just went up 13%) and pay nothing, lie cheat and steal, refuse to even answer the telephone while their insureds sit, sick, holding on, desperately waiting to get some chemotherapy or other life-saving treatment that the "adjusters," or "assassins" who work for the insurance companies will do everything in their power to deny, or postpone, or put on hold ("claim pending") because if the insured just dies, the adjuster gets a bonus. And I'm not exaggerating. These insurance adjusters and executives belong in prison, not in charge of the healthcare of our entire nation.
I thought "we" won. But it appears that Wall Street won. If there was one Republican left in the whole country, not an opponent in sight, these criminals and scum-buckets called the Democrats in Congress would still spend every single day of their lives going out soliciting bribes to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
What else can they do to us? Isn't this a Republican platform we're seeing? Screw the people?
We are involved in two ridiculous wars of aggression, with no reason to be there, no understanding of why we are there or what it is we are seeking to accomplish, never mind whether it's even legal for us to be doing what we are doing in militarily occupying two other countries and murdering their civilians. Just like Vietnam. And now they want to attack Pakistan.
We hear Obama taking up the Lyndon Johnson mantle saying we can't leave now, we need to go forward, "win." Barack, listen to somebody other than the maniacs you've hired for your cabinet: We can't win. You cannot win a war when there's no reason to be there. The only way to win these wars is to kill every single person over there.
Our politicians could not be more corrupt. If this was some movie about right before the fall of the Empire, central casting can rest because they can go straight to Congress and just film those liars, thieves and whores in their daily lives.
Today we hear that the Aipac spies will not even be prosecuted. They get a walk. How nice. Maybe that's why Mukasey was put into the AG spot by his personal Democratic guardians Schumer and Feinstein -- to just sit on the whole thing. Then the Obama folks come in, right before the Aipac convention, give a present to their generous friends. So every single politician in our government is spending the week over at the Aipac convention with their bagmen picking up their bribes and kick-backs.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg weren't executed because they allegedly stole classified or top secret information to give to a foreign country. They were executed because they were poor, and they didn't have enough money to bribe our politicians to buy their lives back.
The thieves and rapists who have looted every business in this country, hiding assets overseas, refusing to pay taxes, taking jobs elsewhere, stealing retired people's pensions and healthcare money, defrauding the public -- they've been rewarded by Congress, given billions more and bonuses. And they pay Congress enormous kick-backs for their generosity.
In the meantime, unemployment is dire and nobody in our government is doing a G-D thing to help the American working people who are out of work. No jobs, no job creation, just bonuses and champagne and parties with Wall Street and the Aipac spies. They should call it the Traitor's Ball.
As for healthcare, the Democrats have already sold us out to the insurance companies who take billions every year and pay nothing, and refuse to allow us, the citizens, the taxpayers, the option of buying into the Medicare system -- single payer -- let the government pay for all the medical services, and those of us who are employed can pay a premium directly to the government. Screw the insurance companies. All they do is raise premiums (mine just went up 13%) and pay nothing, lie cheat and steal, refuse to even answer the telephone while their insureds sit, sick, holding on, desperately waiting to get some chemotherapy or other life-saving treatment that the "adjusters," or "assassins" who work for the insurance companies will do everything in their power to deny, or postpone, or put on hold ("claim pending") because if the insured just dies, the adjuster gets a bonus. And I'm not exaggerating. These insurance adjusters and executives belong in prison, not in charge of the healthcare of our entire nation.
I thought "we" won. But it appears that Wall Street won. If there was one Republican left in the whole country, not an opponent in sight, these criminals and scum-buckets called the Democrats in Congress would still spend every single day of their lives going out soliciting bribes to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
What else can they do to us? Isn't this a Republican platform we're seeing? Screw the people?
Marilyn French (November, 1929 - May 2, 2009)
I loved The Women's Room, a novel by Marilyn French (1977). It was a brilliant book, exposing the underside of the 1950s picture-perfect family, showing the complete exclusion of women from most areas of society at that time, confined to their homes and their house-work and cooking. It provided a painful exploration of feminist theories as relating to motherhood, marriage, divorce, sexism, and work.
Marilyn French got her B.A. and Masters degree from Hofstra in Long Island, and got her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1972, after divorcing her husband. She taught at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, was a Mellon fellow in English at Harvard, was an artist in residence at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Study. She was the author of novels, nonfiction, essays and articles. Her book The Women's Room is considered one of the most influential novels of modern feminism. I highly recommend it.
Marilyn French got her B.A. and Masters degree from Hofstra in Long Island, and got her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1972, after divorcing her husband. She taught at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, was a Mellon fellow in English at Harvard, was an artist in residence at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Study. She was the author of novels, nonfiction, essays and articles. Her book The Women's Room is considered one of the most influential novels of modern feminism. I highly recommend it.
One Bank's Solution To Excessive Number of New Homes In California With No Buyers: Tear Them Down.
First Greenspan, Rubin and Clinton screwed with our financial policies to allow the developers and lenders to raise the price of new housing by 300%, then turn around and make funny loans to people who could not afford them, so they would buy these grossly over-priced houses. Then the lenders bundled the loans into big packages, hiding the nasty details (such as that people who got the loans couldn't afford the loans), and Wall Street took the bundles and sold them off in pieces to the ignorant public.
Who got the money here? (1) Real Estate Developers. (2) Banks. (3) Wall Street.
Who got conned? (1) The people who bought these homes. (2) Local communities whose real estate markets are falling faster than a bowling ball dropped from a rooftop. (3) The taxpayers because for reasons unknown, our government keeps giving these criminal lenders more of our money.
What would I have them do? Tell every lender that before they get one penny, they must sign papers to re-pay it plus interest. Then tell them that in addition, they must build rental units in specified communities, and turn the ownership and control over to a citizens grassroots housing organization. Tell each local municipality to adopt rent control laws (which could be provided, one set fits all) and anti-eviction policies. Bring up the number of rental units for the people being evicted and, in the future, the people who just can't afford to own a single family residence. Get some balance into the housing system and begin to move away from the ecologically disastrous tract home style.
Who got the money here? (1) Real Estate Developers. (2) Banks. (3) Wall Street.
Who got conned? (1) The people who bought these homes. (2) Local communities whose real estate markets are falling faster than a bowling ball dropped from a rooftop. (3) The taxpayers because for reasons unknown, our government keeps giving these criminal lenders more of our money.
What would I have them do? Tell every lender that before they get one penny, they must sign papers to re-pay it plus interest. Then tell them that in addition, they must build rental units in specified communities, and turn the ownership and control over to a citizens grassroots housing organization. Tell each local municipality to adopt rent control laws (which could be provided, one set fits all) and anti-eviction policies. Bring up the number of rental units for the people being evicted and, in the future, the people who just can't afford to own a single family residence. Get some balance into the housing system and begin to move away from the ecologically disastrous tract home style.
Happy Cinco de Mayo.
(Painting of the Battle of Puebla, May 5, 1862)
"Cinco de Mayo" means the fifth day of May in Spanish: "Cinco" is five, "Mayo" is May. It is not a national holiday in Mexico. I was in Mexico City one year on the fifth day of May and looked forward to what I assumed would be a city-wide party. Instead, there was nothing. No party, no celebration, nada.
It seems that Cinco de Mayo is more an American invention. Who knows why this day was picked, but it is celebrated in the United States as kind of a day of celebration of Mexican heritage: costumes, music, dancing, food.
Technically, the apparent basis for the holiday is the Battle of Puebla, which was a battle between the Mexican Army and the French Army in 1862. The Mexicans won.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Hey Mrs. B, Google This: "Lorena" and "Bobbitt."
The AP is reporting that the 72-year-old billionaire conservative Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi has demanded that his 52-year-old wife apologize to him, publicly, for saying that she was going to divorce him for screwing around on her.
"Veronica will have to publicly apologize to me. And I don't know if that will be enough," Berlusconi was quoted in an Italian daily on Monday.
Mrs. Berlusconi, Veronica Lario, is a 52-year-old former actress, and she just publicly stated that she will divorce her husband because of his flirtations with other women.
Hey Mrs. B, Google this: Lorena and Bobbitt.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
May 4, 1970: Four Dead in Ohio (Kent State)
(Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by John Filo of Mary Ann Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, kneeling over the body of student Jeffrey Miller, who had been shot dead by the National Guard at Kent State, Ohio.)In the spring of 1970, despite massive nationwide marches, demonstrations, teach-ins, protests, letter-writing, petitioning of the government and demands from the citizens that the U.S. War Against Vietnam be ended and the troops be brought home, Richard Nixon decided to expand the war by starting a war against another country, Cambodia. When the nation learned that the war had been expanded, and the United States was attacking Cambodia, all hell broke loose all across the country.
(National Guard with riot gear, rifles up, bayonettes in fixed position, ready to "confront" unarmed college students in anti-war demonstrations at Kent State, Ohio).Students from law schools, colleges, high schools and junior high schools walked out of their classrooms and gathered on their campuses and in the streets to protest the war. Not only students and hippies marched in the streets, but also mothers, fathers, children, car-dealers, veterans, CPAs were out demanding that this illegal, immoral, disastrous war be ended.
The response of the Republicans who were in charge was to get tough and send in the National Guard to any area where there was any possibility of a disturbance of the peace through peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins, mass rallies or otherwise. The National Guard has never been so dispersed in modern times among the civilians, told to raise their weapons against the citizens of this country, in such a broad manner, for the purpose of preventing the citizens from protesting the actions of the national government. If anyone wonders how Fascism would come to this country, it would likely start by the government turning the National Guard against the people of their own communities such as happened in 1970.
(Kent State students being gassed by National Guard - streams show cannisters being lobbed at students)One college which had protests and demonstrations and teach-ins and sit-ins was Kent State in Ohio. The National Guard was sent in and told to disperse the students (although they went to school there, and there was no legitimate reason they should not or could not have been there). But the National Guard nonetheless went in and ordered all the students to leave.
(Kent State students, "armed" only with their bookbags, teen-agers, almost still children, after being shot and killed by the National Guard which had been sent to their college to stop them from publicly protesting against the Nixon government.)The National Guard, in full riot gear, rifles up, bayonnettes in a fixed and ready position, began moving on the students in one long line, shoving them back, yelling, and threatening. Chaos was the inevitable result. Then the National Guard began lobbing cannisters of tear gas into the middle of the crowd of students, blinding the students, causing a stampede with some shoved to the ground. Some of the students picked up rocks and threw them at the National Guard.
As the students moved back, away from the line of the National Guard, the National Guard also began to retreat but stopped at one point, turned, faced the retreating students. Someone in the National Guard gave the clear order to "Fire," and the National Guard fired directly into the crowd of unarmed students -- 67 shots in total. Four students were killed. No one was ever held accountable. This was murder.Kent State was followed by police shootings ten days later at another college named Jackson State, in Mississippi, where African-American students demonstrating against the war were shot, two killed and 12 wounded. There was also a shooting by the National Guard-occupied campus at the University of California in Santa Barbara, where one student was killed.
Neal Young wrote the song "Ohio" ("Four Dead in Ohio") as a tribute to the murdered students and a rallying cry for the anti-war movement:
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Occasionally the Upper Classes, By Mistake, Produce An Interesting Person.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's father was named James. James had a child with his first wife, and named that child James (nicknamed Rosy Roosevelt). Rosy Roosevelt was the much-older half-brother of FDR. Rosy Roosevelt married Helen Astor and had two children, one named Tadd. Tadd was therefore FDR's nephew, although the two were very close in age.
Tadd, following the pre-set footsteps of the Roosevelt and Astor family lines, went to Harvard for his college studies. He did not graduate, however, instead leaving due to some scandal. He moved to New York, married a Hungarian prostitute, and was completely disowned by his father and his father's family.
Tadd inherited from his mother, from the Astor family, but never touched any of that inheritance. He remained married to the lady from Hungary for 40 years, until his wife's death. When he died, he left his entire estate, including the inheritance from the Astor family, to the Salvation Army.
The basic information is from a footnote in Jonathan Alter's remarkable book The Defining Moment, about FDR.
Tadd, following the pre-set footsteps of the Roosevelt and Astor family lines, went to Harvard for his college studies. He did not graduate, however, instead leaving due to some scandal. He moved to New York, married a Hungarian prostitute, and was completely disowned by his father and his father's family.
Tadd inherited from his mother, from the Astor family, but never touched any of that inheritance. He remained married to the lady from Hungary for 40 years, until his wife's death. When he died, he left his entire estate, including the inheritance from the Astor family, to the Salvation Army.
The basic information is from a footnote in Jonathan Alter's remarkable book The Defining Moment, about FDR.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Women: Stop Begging Men, And Stop Apologizing To Men.
I just saw this video below, created around a speech given by Malcolm X titled "Stop Begging White Men, And Stop Apologizing To White Men." Malcolm X taught black people in this country that they needed to clean up their own act, stop engaging in the "vices" that are made available to them, engage in a critical analysis of why white men brainwash black people into believing they are stupid, dishonest, and ugly, discover their own history because it is erased by the white men, and start feeling proud of who they are.
When I was watching this, it occurred to me that every single thing he said also applied to women. Women in history are simply erased, their contributions are ignored, their art and literature and music is triviliazed, they are excluded from the "official" version of everything that has happened, other than when the woman is the femme fatale, and two men decide to go to war because they each want her. But for all the rest, the women who hold up half the world, make half the sacrifices, do well-more than half the work, they are eliminated from history. It is as if they never existed.
Today's modern woman spends much of her time begging for opportunity, working twice as hard and getting half the money, settling for crumbs, and apologizing for not being a Playboy centerfold. The attacks are constant: get breast implants, carve up your nose, get a bigger or smaller butt, work out more, don't eat, smile smile smile. While putting in a 60-hour week. And be obedient: the first commandment. Be obedient to your father, husband, pastor, boss, all men.
No wonder young girls have no self-confidence, no sense of self-esteem. For all they know, no other women has ever accomplished, ever achieved, ever done anything of merit or worth, so the hill seems quite steep, almost impossible to climb.
Of course Malcolm X was assassinated for speaking these truths. Maybe that's exactly why we should go back and give a listen.
When I was watching this, it occurred to me that every single thing he said also applied to women. Women in history are simply erased, their contributions are ignored, their art and literature and music is triviliazed, they are excluded from the "official" version of everything that has happened, other than when the woman is the femme fatale, and two men decide to go to war because they each want her. But for all the rest, the women who hold up half the world, make half the sacrifices, do well-more than half the work, they are eliminated from history. It is as if they never existed.
Today's modern woman spends much of her time begging for opportunity, working twice as hard and getting half the money, settling for crumbs, and apologizing for not being a Playboy centerfold. The attacks are constant: get breast implants, carve up your nose, get a bigger or smaller butt, work out more, don't eat, smile smile smile. While putting in a 60-hour week. And be obedient: the first commandment. Be obedient to your father, husband, pastor, boss, all men.
No wonder young girls have no self-confidence, no sense of self-esteem. For all they know, no other women has ever accomplished, ever achieved, ever done anything of merit or worth, so the hill seems quite steep, almost impossible to climb.
Of course Malcolm X was assassinated for speaking these truths. Maybe that's exactly why we should go back and give a listen.
Friday, May 1, 2009
May 1: International Workers' Day and The Haymarket Massacre
(Newspaper accounts)In 1884, a labor organization in the U.S. (predecessor to the AFL) decided to organize workers around the demand for an 8-hour day (instead of the 12, or 14-hour days which were the regular working hours for most American workers). They planned to spend 2 years educating and organizing workers around this issue and then, on May 1, 1886, hold a nationwide strike to demand the 8-hour day as well as other rights for working people.
As it turns out, in Chicago, the workers at a plant owned by McCormick were on strike right before May 1, 1886, came around. The company owner had replaced all the workers with scabs, and locked out the regular workers. One evening when the scabs left work, the regular workers met them and there were fights and skirmishes. The police sided with the business owner, and shot and killed several of the workers.
(Drawing of police shooting workers)This was followed immediately by the planned labor demonstration on May 1, 1886, and 80,000 people in Chicago marched for labor rights exactly as the organizers had planned. The local rich people and business owners were horrified at the idea that they might be stopped from using their workers as slave labor, forcing them to work however many hours that they demanded. So the local business owners demanded that the police get tough on the labor organizers, and shut down their efforts to organize to demand the 8-hour day.
The labor and other political organizers called for a mass meeting on May 4 to protest the police killing of workers on strike at McCormick. The meeting was scheduled to be held in the Chicago haymarket. A large crowd gathered in the street to hear the speakers for the meeting, but rain began to fall. Towards the end of the meeting, 200 local police massed on one end and began demanding that the workers break up immediately. Just then, somebody threw a bomb right in the middle of where the police were standing. The police panicked and began firing at random into the crowd of workers, killing several workers. Several police were also killed, one from the bomb and the rest supposedly by friendly fire (in their panic, they shot their own people by mistake).
The right-wing and the business owners seized on this incident, lied about what had really happened, began calling it "The Haymarket Riot" to suggest that workers who try to organize for their rights are all crazed bomb-throwing gun-shooting lunatics, and used the fear they created to crack down on labor unions and organizations across the country.Because of this effort by the right-wing, the push for an 8-hour day was ended in its tracks. The 8-hour day did not become an official part of American workers' rights until fifty years later, in 1935.
(The Haymarket gathering)Seven labor organizers in the Chicago area including Albert Parsons, including people who had not even been present at the Haymarket that night, including people who had no involvement in the meeting, were prosecuted in bogus show-trials. The prosecution's theory was that labor organizers were responsible for any violence that happened at a labor rally because, by encouraging working people to stand up for their rights, they were essentially encouraging violence. It was a disgusting and disgraceful misuse of our criminal injustice system. The real point of the trial was to shut down the efforts of the labor movement, and give a fierce warning to workers everywhere that if they stood up for their rights, they would be murdered by the state. There was never any evidence introduced at the trial, or later, to show that any of these 7 (later called the "Haymarket Martyrs") had any involvement with the bomb, or ever did anything to encourage violence.
On June 26, 1894, Governor John Peter Altgeld of Illinois found that the trial of the Haymarket Market Martyrs had been grossly unfair, and he pardoned all seven of the defendants. It did no good to the five who were already dead: Parsons, Spies, Fischer and Engel had already been hanged, and Lingg supposedly committed suicide in his cell.
(The hanging).In 1889, the AFL sent a delegate to the international labor conference in Paris, to urge that May 1 of each year thereafter be celebrated as a day of labor solidarity. That proposal was adopted, and May 1 is considered International Workers' Day or Labor Day, an official holiday, for most nations in the world. Except the United States, which did not want to encourage working people to remember the history of labor struggles. So our Labor Day is in September and commemorates nothing more than having a bar-be-que before the kids start back to school.
Monument to the Haymarket Martyrs:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/haymkmon.htm
The Irish (Celtic) Holiday Of Bealtaine
Bealtaine (or Beltane) is the Gaelic name for both the month of May and a festival that traditionally took place throughout Ireland on the first day of May. The festival was also celebrated in Scotland and Wales.
Beltane marks the beginning of the summer season in Ireland. At the end of the day on May 1, the communities would light a big bonfire on top of a hill, all across Ireland. The bonfires were lit to drive out evil spirits and cleanse the community to prepare for the joyous days of summer and hopefully a bountiful harvest in the fall. All of the residents of the community would bring their own torch to the bonfire to get new fire, take it home, and re-light their own hearths as a symbol of a new beginning. Because the festival involved lighting fires, the first day of May was called "Laa Buidhe Bealtaine (Bright May Day).
The tradition of lighting bonfires continues in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and among some groups in the Irish diaspora.
Another part of the festival was the hanging of Mayflowers, or flower arrangements, on the doors and windows of the homes, and the erection of a May bush which was decorated with flowers and ribbons (similar to May poles).
Here is a video of a recent Beltane celebration.
Beltane marks the beginning of the summer season in Ireland. At the end of the day on May 1, the communities would light a big bonfire on top of a hill, all across Ireland. The bonfires were lit to drive out evil spirits and cleanse the community to prepare for the joyous days of summer and hopefully a bountiful harvest in the fall. All of the residents of the community would bring their own torch to the bonfire to get new fire, take it home, and re-light their own hearths as a symbol of a new beginning. Because the festival involved lighting fires, the first day of May was called "Laa Buidhe Bealtaine (Bright May Day).
The tradition of lighting bonfires continues in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and among some groups in the Irish diaspora.
Another part of the festival was the hanging of Mayflowers, or flower arrangements, on the doors and windows of the homes, and the erection of a May bush which was decorated with flowers and ribbons (similar to May poles).
Here is a video of a recent Beltane celebration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
