listens to cheney instead.

god bless atta j. turk!

two thousand and six

click on image to enlarge, please.

we knew this

but now we have researched evidence.
here:

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

uh, yeah.
no news here.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

okay.

still.

oh, i saw this at downwithyranny.com.
they're cool.
a tip of the rabble sombrero to keninny.

too many ways to go with this one; all of them good.

talk among yourselves.

(could medication be developed to treat this condition?
would recovery result in registering as a Democrat?)

from Ward Sutton

Nepal

we can only hope and pray that this news from Kathmandu is as good as it sounds:
Jubilation over Nepal peace pact

background:
Legacy of insanity

Buddha Gautama was born in what is now Nepal.

One of the princes of the Shakya confederation was Siddharta Gautama (563–483 BC), who renounced his royalty to lead an ascetic life and came to be known as the Buddha ("the one who has awakened").

not exactly your Dalai Lama type

Rootin' tootin' Putin:

He announced that in 2007 alone he would be spending $ 11.2 billion on new weapons, including 17 new nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. He added that between now and 2015 he would be spending $ 188 billion on new weapons.

He must've already built all the schools, hospitals and parks they would ever need and this weapons funding is from the subsequent surplus.
"17 new nuclear-tipped ICBMs"!!
What a charmer this guy is!

"Follow me to Fascism !"

"I know this cool shortcut!"


Darth Cheney translated
from the original Klingon

Darth Speaks:

In addition, the entire program undergoes a thorough review approximately every 45 days. After each review, the President personally has to determine whether to reauthorize the program. And he has done so more than 30 times since September 11th - and he has indicated his intent to continue doing so as long as our nation faces a threat from al Qaeda and related organizations.

Glenn Greenwald translates:

There is no need to worry about our illegal, secret spying on you, because the Leader Himself -- "personally" -- reviews this and approves of it. And even though there is a law in place enacted almost 30 years ago by your democratically-elected representatives making it a felony for us to do this, and even though the only court to rule on this issue has ruled that we are violating not only your constitutional rights, but also a federal criminal statute, we are still doing it, and we will continue to. Because we want to and because we can.

Totally frightening that these people have credibility, let alone hold reins of power, in this country.

(my apologies to the Klingons. ~ ydj)

i heart this

Orcinus

Kewl Kidz and Queen Bees Friday, November 17, 2006 Sara Robinson The image of the mainstream media as a gaggle of adolescent Kewl Kidz giggling and sneering in high school hallways has been in circulation as a stock lefty blogger meme for a few years now. But I don't know that anyone's really stopped and taken a look at the deeper implications of that analogy -- or the possible solutions it might point to, especially what we know these days about "relational aggression," which is what this precise form of bullying is called when it happens in schools. Bullying between boys has been a concern of vice principals as long as there have been schoolyards to fight in and windows to break. But it's only been the past 15 years or so that thoughtful psychologists and child development experts, mostly women, have taken a look at the very different ways girls bully each other. Where boy bullying is hard to ignore, given how often it leads to physical aggression and outright violence, girl bullying is far more subtle and therefore easier to shrug off. Yet the effects on girls are no less devastating; and the wounds cut so deep that many women will be emotionally and socially disabled by them for the rest of their lives. The Parenting Perspectives website provides a concise description of this devastating style of coercion and abuse: Acts of relational aggression are common among girls in American schools. These acts can include rumor spreading, secret-divulging, alliance-building, backstabbing, ignoring, excluding from social groups and activities, verbally insulting, and using hostile body language (i.e., eye-rolling and smirking). Other behaviors include making fun of someone's clothes or appearance and bumping into someone on purpose. Many of these behaviors are quite common in girls' friendships, but when they occur repeatedly to one particular victim, they constitute bullying. Increasingly common is another form of harassment termed “cyber bullying”—using e-mail and websites to harm someone. Cyber bullies use personal websites and instant messaging to spread rumors about classmates over the Internet. Cyber bullies might also use classmates or “friend's” PIN numbers and pass codes to send embarrassing e-mails. Sometimes it is easier to engage in cyberbullying than more direct acts because the bully never faces the victim. This form of harassment is also very fast--an instant message posted at night may spread through an entire school before the first class period…. Relational aggression tends to be most intense and apparent among girls in fifth through eighth grade. This type of behavior often continues, although perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree, in high school.…

please read this at her site.
it is excellent.

with a heavy heart

alas friends and neighbors,
"we" here at psychoRabble must bid adieu to our beloved
PinkFluffySlippers
since it appears psychoRabble
is holding her back at her home,

Cello, et Cetera,

and Blogger Beta beckons.

the sense that we had a team here has always been an illusion,
of course, but it is a comforting and cherished illusion,
and an illusion psychoRabble still supports.
and it is easier than someone trying to masquerade
as an alter-ego playing the role of imaginary teammate.

anyway Pink must move on to Beta and we must let her.

so ...

Ms Slippers,

it’s been awesome.
if only in my dreams.
Thanks.
Go, in Peace.
we will always have Rabble.

see you at C et C,
~ lil’ jimi

Bushcronium

xan at Corrent Wire offers zut's comments from teh Crack Den.
(atrios by any other name could be another's crack. i suppose.)

i thank everyone.
much.

Bushcronium: New Element on Periodic Table

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named “Bushcronium.” Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is “W”.

"Bushcronium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as “Critical Morass”. When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons."

and it is extremely toxic.

The Free and Sovereign State of Oaxaca

Oaxaca

Late Saturday, protesters gathered to mourn Bradley Roland Will, a 36-year-old from New York who was killed Friday during a shootout between protesters and men they claim were local police on Oaxaca's outskirts.

Will, whose body was laid out in a white shirt and a glass-topped coffin at a funeral parlor near the central square, was remembered as a video and documentary-maker devoted to the protesters' cause.

A video posted by Indymedia.org showed the last minutes of footage Will shot Friday, apparently including the moment he was hit by gunfire.

So I swear I’ll keep telling your tale, old friend, and you’ll be right there in the streets with us. Solid.

Mad Love, Sascha

everything above is a link.
in more ways than one.

these posts form a pattern ...

a straight line ...
to you.

there is great hope:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/27/117/73550

there is great peril:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/will-congressional-calender-preserve.html

we are called to action:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/26/republicans-are-losers-so-make-sure-they-lose/#more-4685

Our heroes are those who answer the call of duty to our nation with the risk and sacrifice of their lives. We Must honor them by joining their cause. Every one of them has sworn the Oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against its enemies.

This our turn.
Defeat Republicans.
Follow Pachacutec's charge.
Pay our debt to our heroes.

Surprise!

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html

question:
How does she Not Know that this was Bound to come out?
Maybe that's just too obvious to us.
Being all "reality based" and all.
You know how just sometimes those things just jump out at you out of nowhere?

Besides, isn't it now an established precept of this regime to contradict the facts, both as matters of policy and personality, as often as possible?
Most adults have abandoned the "dog ate my homework" routine since junior high.

Or ...
... maybe she just forgot ...
... along with whatever else is locked up in that closet.

please look at the documents shown in the article at Raw Story.
Really.

Incompetent Cover-up

Think Progress

today September 26, 2006

Rice Falsely Claims Clinton Administration Did Not Leave A ‘Strategy To Fight Al Qaeda’

In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice claims that the Clinton Administration did not develop a strategy to fight al Qaeda:

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton’s claim that he “left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Here’s what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about it:

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period of three to five years …[including] covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]

Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, “[W]e urgently need…a Principals level review of the al Qida network.” His request was denied.

Posted by Think Progress at 11:56 am

Permalink

Fighting the fight against feeling demoralized, dispirited

Gulags and torture are what we fight wars against.
PLEASE.

Please thank Digby for this excellent post at Hullabaloo.

Perhaps nobody cares that that this very thing is being done every day to hunger strikers in Guantanamo. But do people honestly think it can't happen to them? Once we unleash this beast it won't only be terrorists or Muslims who will be in danger. In one way or another, we all will be.

And children are not safe either.
Ever heard of Camp Iguana?
7, 8 and 11 year olds designated Enemy Combatants.

Unconscionably shameful.
Welcome to Insane America.
One of Hell's colonies now.

Those who have brought us here must be repudiated.
We may not indulge in anything less than vigilance.
And action.

no matter how sick to the stomach we feel.

I read this quote at FDL comments

we tip our psychoRabble sombero to rat bastahd at Firedoglake's comments section

Boston Globe columnist James Carroll put it this way:

"“Justice is measured in every society by how the worst malefactors are treated -— the worst not only in culpability, but in capacity for general harm. The best way to combat terrorism is to wrap accused terrorists in the cloth of the law they would rip asunder. More important, to legalize the abuse of a class of prisoners is to prepare for the abuse of all."”

This is why I read: I can find words that express these truths so much better than I ever could. Mr. Carroll makes them incandescent.

We fail to heed this wisdom only at our peril, at our nation's peril.

...

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Shrill, hysterical lefty partisan blogger

What Glenn Greenwald said:

This lefty blogger fails to take seriously the existential threat posed by Islamofascist-Nazi Terrorists, because he resists the notion that the Constitution changes as a result of that threat. Instead, he claims that the Constitution can only be changed by the amendment process set forth within that document, not by whimsical reactions to contemporary events. Apparently, he hasn't heard the brilliant insight that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact"-- which means we can disregard it any time doing so makes us safe -- or that, as the President said, Judge Taylor's decision ruling the NSA program unconstitutional happened because she "simply do[es] not understand the nature of the world in which we live":

He says it better than I.
Again.
Thanks, Mr. Greenwald.

Accountability

I read Firedoglake every day.
This post by Jane Hamsher is the latest reason why.
This and the never-ending flow of wise, wise-ass, smart-aleck, vivid, intelligent, profane, witty and delicious comments which attend every post.
FDL commenters are cool, in many flavors.
but all seriousness aside ...
... a snide
... a snide
remark
... a snark ...

They cultivate a bent of humor that burns with a deep blue flame.
It burns very hot.
It is the vent for the anger I feel.
Ever since December 12, 2000.
Ever since SCOTUS handed down their judicial coup d'etat in Bush v. Gore.

FDL is an effective part of my rage management system.
The Firedogs provide relief from enraging things like this:
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html

For my beyond outrageous levels of enragement I seek refuge among the Firedogs where we warm ourselves by the bright, hot clear Blue light ... on the shores of the Lake, in the comments section.

Jane quotes Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Washington Post article:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein'’s government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -— restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'’Beirne'’s office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'’Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn'’t need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'’Beirne'’s staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Yes, because that really will determine whether you can build a bridge or restore clean water to blighted cities. No wonder things are going so swimmingly.

Many of those chosen by O'’Beirne'’s office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq'’s government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -— but had applied for a White House job -— was sent to reopen Baghdad'’s stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq'’s $13 billion budget, even though they didn'’t have a background in accounting.

Okay, sit down and think about this for a minute. Breathe. We a’re stuck in a disastrous Bush/Lieberman war we can'’t extricate ourselves from, and the reconstruction that just might have led Iraq into self-sufficiency was turned over to a bunch of 24 year-olds whose only qualifications were their anti-abortion sentiments.

Are you outraged yet? Because I know I am.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration'’s gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation that sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

Keep breathing. That'’s good. Don'’t hyperventilate.

Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government'’s first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -— to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -— training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation - — could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.

It'’s a vision of a world run by Jonah Goldbergs, the idyll of the mediocre and the entitled, fueled by wingnut welfare and the complete detachment from reality that created this untenable disaster. Yes, this is what an NRO universe would look like. They got everything they wanted and all the money they could burn to enact their grand schemes, and the result is -— well, they speak for themselves really, don't they.

Please read the entire article, because I'’ll be linking to it again and again if the time comes and Congressional investigations actually become a possibility. But if it hasn'’t been clear before, it should be now -— this is your government on drugs.

Thank you, Ms Hamsher.
I feel better.
I will feel much better once this is posted to my (this) blog.
So, anyway.
Now we (you) must go and read Mr. Chandrasekaran's words.
Jane said so.

Oh, and read Firedoglake.
Too.
Please.
Otherwise I will have to post all of their posts here.
It is easier this way.
The heroes at FDL also tell us things we can DO.
Very theraputic.

Read, then Do.

but you already knew all this?
cool.

ABC/Disney: corrupt propaganda for your home

Mr. Sheldon Rampton at FiredogLake does the documented repudiation of "Path to 9/11" 's claims of Clinton culpability. psychoRabble thanks, Mr. Rampton.


So Disney couldn't be bothered to distribute "Fahrenheit 911" because it was too political, yet they now give away (no sponsors and no underwriters) 6 hours of prime time, commercial-free broadcast time on their major broadcast network to promote this pernicious right wing propaganda:

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Center for American Progress Action Fund
Reply-To: tellabc@americanprogressaction.org
To: yellowdog jim
Subject: Thank you for telling ABC to tell the truth about 9/11

Dear yellowdog jim , Thank you for telling ABC to tell the truth about 9/11. Our goal is to have ABC fix the major inaccuracies in their program or else refuse to put it on the air. The events leading up to September 11, 2001 are too important and too tragic to play politics with the facts. Here are 2 more ways you can help: Please tell your friends and family to join you by taking action at http://www.ThinkProgress.org/TellABC The email message you just send to ABC is important. You can also help by calling ABC Headquarters and registering your opinion: 212-456-7777. Thank you, The Think Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund teams

you know what to do.
spread the word.
carry on ...

Come see me

Dear Jimi, I started a blog about my own obsessions. Drop in sometime if you like. My Other Blog.

NSA legal arguments

from
Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald:

That's where we are in this country -- with an Administration expressly claiming it has the power to engage in actions which the American people, through their Congress, expressly made it a criminal offense to engage in.

Federal court finds warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, enjoins the program

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Federal court finds warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, enjoins the program

Seventh, the court made its scorn quite clear for the administration's Yoo theory of executive power because, as the court put it, "there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Citing Youngstown again, the court made clear that even in time of war, and even with regard to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, the President is subject to constitutional restrictions -- a proposition long unquestioned in our system of government until the Bush administration began inventing radical theories of executive power.

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

and Glenn Greenwald also tells us of the heroic Judge Diggs Taylor,
brave author of this important opinion:

In 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be appointed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Nineteen years later, she became the first black woman Chief Judge for that circuit as well.

Taylor had great difficulty obtaining her first job as an attorney for the Office of Solicitor for the U.S. Department of Labor, despite graduating form the prestigious Yale Law School in 1957. Very few opportunities existed for a black woman in law at this time. In 1961, Taylor relocated from the Washington D.C. area to Detroit, Michigan. Here she was involved in both public and private practice until her appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on which she continues to serve. Taylor’s position has enabled her to open doors for other women and minorities to pursue and achieve their dreams. She strives for gender and racial equality in the law and currently serves on the Joint Steering Committee of the Gender and Racial Ethnic Fairness Task Forces for the Sixth Circuit.

...

Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks

Mr. Grennwald has nailed this, in his latest edition of his never-ending crusade to nail all the lying bu$hite bastards for all of their bush shit, erm, bull shit:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html

From the very beginning of the NSA scandal, this has been the point -- the principal, overarching, never-answered point. There is no reason for the Bush administration to eavesdrop in secret, with no judicial oversight, and in violation of the law precisely because the legal framework that has been in place for the last 28 years empowers the government to eavesdrop aggressively on all of the terrorists they want, with ease.

This fact, yet again, demonstrates the sheer dishonesty motivating those right-wing pundits claiming that "Democrats" oppose the type of eavesdropping used to stop this plot. Legal eavesdropping, within the FISA framework, is exactly the eavesdropping which Bush critics advocate, and it was precisely that legal eavesdropping which was used to engage in surveillance of suspected terrorists here.

Additionally, The Wall St. Journal is simply incoherent when it says that "Other Democrats are still saying they will censure, or even impeach, Mr. Bush over the FISA program if they win control of Congress." This claim just makes no sense. Nobody opposes "the FISA program." Bush critics want aggressive eavesdropping within the "FISA program." The censure of the President has been proposed because of the President's eavesdropping outside of the FISA program -- i.e., outside of the law. Does The Wall St. Journal Editorial Board really not understand that most basic point? Why are they falsely telling their readers that Democrats oppose "the FISA program" -- as though Democrats oppose eavesdropping itself?

Read everything Mr. Greenwald posts.
Read his book How Would a Patriot Act?
With guys like him on our side we can be heroes.
Read.
Please.

....

Krugman: WORD!

http://fivezerofive.com/main/index.php?itemid=446

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on — and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.

They say: Pay no attention to the fact that I was wrong and the critics have been completely vindicated by events — I’m “sensible,” while those people are crazy extremists. And besides, criticizing any aspect of the war encourages the terrorists.

That’s what Joe Lieberman said, and it’s what his defenders are saying now.

Indeed.
Thank you Mr. Krugman.
...
and every aspect of the war in Iraq has encouraged every terrorist.

Four Weeks that Shook Oaxaca

i heard this over at Lying Media Bastards: http://www.lyingmediabastards.com/2006/08/destroyed

Oaxaca’s State TV Station Under Popular Control- I have not at all been following the upheaval going on in Oaxaca right now. Long story short, every year, there is a sort of political dance where Oaxacan teachers march on the capital, go on strike, sometimes form a tent city that lasts for weeks, and then negotiate a new deal with the government. This year, the governor decided to replace the negotiations with a police riot that tear-gassed and bashed up the tent city. This has led to a much wider opposition and revolt against the governor. The latest of which was a march of 350 women who took over a local state-owned TV station, and are using it to broadcast their message and demands.

As Arlen Specter sells us out to Cheneybu$h on NSA spying

glenn greenwald says:

The only question is whether (a) George Bush should be able to eavesdrop on Americans in secret and with no oversight, or (b) George Bush can eavesdrop on Americans, but only with a requirement of judicial oversight - a requirement which every President, without complaint, has complied with for the last 30 years, including Ronald Reagan at the height of the Cold War.

With just the smallest amount of resolve and message discipline, they can easily convey that this is not a debate about whether to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda -- everyone is for that -- but is about whether George Bush should have the power to eavesdrop on Americans with no oversight, an awesome power which this country overwhelmingly decided 30 years ago, in the wake of decades of abuses, that we do not trust the President -- any President -- to have. This is yet another long-standing safeguard against abuses of executive power which the Bush administration is uprooting -- in the process, changing the kind of nation we are.

i agree.
i agree intensely.
i am in extreme agreement.
Yes.

Well said

Lambert says it for me.
he is voicing my outrage.
thank you.

i want to know why there isn't mass outrage.
a coherent laser beam of white hot anger focused on the danger
of these threats and attacks on our Constitutional Rule of Law.
why hasn't the bright light of the public awareness been focused
on this line that has been crossed?

why is this left underexposed when we were forced to spend $40 million dollars for monica's stained blue dress? She, the trophy hunting fellatio artist braggart provocateur.

no one could not take away our Constitutional freedoms with attacks like 9/11.
cheneybu$h surrendered them willingly.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

Election 2006

Brent Budowsky at The Washington Note

Please read:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001416.php

It's important.

Thank you.

We Have Been Lied To ...

... for a long time by the traditional corporate-
owned media.
No surprise.

But here we can see that the entire media landscape has been tilted to the right.

Way tilted.
As in propaganda!

Consider the last two presidents. Bill Clinton faced near-constant media obsession with his "scandals," while George W. Bush has gotten off comparatively easy.

Even many members of the media have stopped contesting this painfully obvious point, instead offering dubious justifications. Bill Clinton's "scandals" made for better stories than George Bush's, we are told, because they were simpler and easier for readers and viewers to understand. "Sex sells," while George Bush's false claims about Iraq are much harder to explain.

This excuse is simply nonsense.

First, what's so hard to understand about this? George Bush and his administration systematically distorted available intelligence to lead the nation to war on false pretenses. His administration has been marked by corruption, incompetence, lies, secrecy, and flagrant disregard for bedrock constitutional principles. None of that can be too complicated: Polls suggest that the majority of Americans believe all of those things.

Second, even if it were true that Clinton's "scandals" were easier for consumers of news to understand, the ease of explaining an affair would, if we had a serious and functional news media, be more than offset by the far greater importance of Bush's misdeeds.

Finally, this is such a grotesque distortion of the media's treatment of Clinton that it is difficult to explain by anything other than outright dishonesty. Reporters who offer the excuse that they and their colleagues covered Clinton "scandals" so much because sex sells, and is easily explained and understood, are cherry-picking. They are ignoring the obsessive coverage they gave to Clinton "scandals" that had nothing to do with sex, and that were not widely understood.

They are ignoring, for example, years of coverage of Whitewater, an obscure land deal in which the Clintons lost money and that was investigated by multiple independent counsels, congressional committees, federal agencies, and every news organization in the country -- none of which found any wrongdoing by the Clintons. Whitewater had nothing to do with sex, and nobody understood it -- probably because there was nothing to understand. And that's not even going into Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster's suicide, or the myriad other "scandals" the media covered that did not involve sex.

Eric Boehlert, author of the excellent new book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (Free Press, May 2006), has offered one example of the obsessive coverage the media gave Whitewater:

In the 24 months between Jan. 1994 and Jan. 1996, long before Monica Lewinsky entered the picture and back when Whitewater was about an alleged crooked land deal, Nightline devoted 19 programs to the then-unfolding scandal and investigation, for which no Clinton White House official was ever indicted.

And that's how it was for eight years: obsessive media coverage and hype of made-up Clinton "scandals" that never went anywhere because they never existed anywhere other than the fevered imaginations of a few far-right Clinton-haters and the credulous news media that took them seriously.

How bad did it get? As we're fond of pointing out, the Washington Post editorial board called for the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Whitewater "even though -- and this should be stressed -- there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong." That's right: The Post called for an independent counsel to investigate "no credible charge."

Boehlert offered a comparison to the Bush era:

But during the 24 months between Sept. 2003 and Sept. 2005, Nightline set aside just three programs to the unfolding CIA leak investigation, for which Libby, an assistant to the president, was indicted. On the night of the Libby indictments, Nightline devoted just five percent of its program to that topic.

And that's pretty much how things have been for the past five years: Clear, conclusive evidence exists that Bush and his administration have committed countless transgressions far more serious than whatever it is reporters thought Bill Clinton might have done. And it has received far less coverage than Clinton's non-scandals.

Mr. Jamison Foser's article at Media Matters hits this nail squarely on the head and puts the lie to the notion that the media is/has been even-handed or "fair and balanced".

They are fascist propagandist liars.
They have wielded the sword of freedom of the press against the value of the truth and the mission of journalism.

They have been the deliberate enablers of the Bushites' monarchist regime.
They lie.

Media Matters is a masterful resource for debunking the republican propaganda machine from its disguise as the "Free Press".

Be informed, but be forewarned.

Chimperor's New Clothes

glenn greenwald at Unclaimed Territory

Like most Bush followers, leaks are only infuriating to [Andrew] McCarthy when done by Democrats or when they result in political harm to the President.

Unclaimed Territory shines the light on TREASON!

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/does-white-house-nsa-defense-come-from.html

smoke 'em, if you got 'em.
read 'em and weep.

NSA's spying is illegal

Notice the salient sequence of historic events here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutional_Convention

The Philadelphia Convention (also known as the Constitutional Convention or the Federal Convention) took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was completed on September 17, 1787, with its adoption by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia,

The U.S. Constitution was completed and adopted on September 17, 1787.

And then the Bill Of Rights was proposed, passed and approved by December of 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Amendments

The amendments were proposed by Congress as part of a block of twelve in September 1789. By December 1791 a sufficient number of states had ratified ten of the twelve proposals, and the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/bill-of-rights-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/bill-of-rights.caption.html

Bill of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The sequence:

First, the Constitution;

Second, the Bill of Rights.

So that the Bill of Rights amends the Constitution.

That is, everything that is in the Constitution to the contrary is superseded by the Bill of Rights.

And because the Constitution, as amended, is the Supreme law of the Land,

violating the Fourth Amendment is/has been/remains Illegal

UNTIL

or UNLESS

the Fourth Amendment is repealed or restricted by the passage and approval of such subsequent constitutional amendments.

How else would the Originalists look at this issue?

How are they and their conservative siblings not screaming for impeachment?

The data mining of the telcoms' telephony/data switches by the NSA amounts to a massive serial violation of the very idea of the Right to Privacy. The feds have cast the widest imaginable net over every byte of information and then mine it for whatever they want. "Mine" in this case means putting to work the not trivial capabilities of the NSA supercomputers to filter out whatever information of whatever interest. This is a totally indiscriminate intrusion of everybody's right to privacy. And getting a warrant from a judge with the demand for probable cause is impossible. Because there is no probable cause. Because this is a pure fishing expedition. You have to identify your suspects to have probable cause that they'd do something to justify a warrant. And these data-mining expeditions are massive non-specific illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment.

But our BushCo. regime says they are only looking for the bad guys and because they have "unitary executive authority" they are absolved of any illegalities.

How do we know they are looking only for bad guys?

They say, "Trust us."

"Trust us."

We are to trust them because they are looking for terrorists.

I have an acquaintance I see from time to time who I can tell is very politically conservative.

Well, I can tell she is a Bush supporter.

A while back she offered this analysis of the support for her "president".

"Well, you know, it's just like everybody always says,

When people get scared, what do they do?
Run hide behind a Bush!"

She was completely nonplussed when I pointed out to her that it is only in the world of cartoon animation that they hide behind a bush And even then it always proves comically ineffective.

"Surely, you don't intend the Bush supporters to appear as fools, do you?"

"Well, that's what they say and Bush's support proves it."

It does explain a lot.

Even if she doesn't seem to understand the consequences.

I would not expect her to follow the details about the Constitution I present here.

She votes.

The inescapable problem (especially for the originalists) is that the BushCo. regime's illegal wire tapping has been in clear and undeniable violation of the intention of the Founding Fathers in the Fourth Amendment.

When they say, "Trust us", we have to find out why they do not trust the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court? And if they say they can not comply (as they have), then we must doubt their wisdom because any evidence gained through illegal surveillance can not to be used in prosecution of suspects and hence undermines our government's case against these suspected terrorists.

A separate yet underlying question is whether these terrorists pose a sufficient threat to justify abolishing the Right to Privacy, as BushCo. has already done. When I was younger it was the communists who were the bogey man. Now it is the terrorists. I'm supposed to be too afraid to still want a Right to Privacy.

Oh, whenever you see this term "unitary executive authority", it is just a substitute for "monarchy".

Terrorists, WMDs, and whatever happened to those anthrax guys?

Defining attribute of terrorism:
"according to the United States Department of Defense, terrorism is:

"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

... ... aka the essence of BushWad foreign policy

In terms of promulgating fear and terror the Bush regime are the World Champions. They have been the self-gratifying, pernicious purveyors of bin Laden hysteria.

The history of BushCo. policy and politicizing has been one of constant assault on the public with fear:

Fear of more attacks like September 11, 2001;

Fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, in order to stampede the American public (and U.S. Congress) into an illegal war of aggression, which is defined as a war crime.

What did bin Laden ever have? Maybe 10,000 guys?

What was Saddam Hussein? Maybe a tenth rate military midget?

Oh yeah, he was supposed to have those scary weapons, those massively destructive ones.

So scary that we didn't seem to mind invading his country.

So scary that we had to invade his country? (?)

And we were afraid he would hit the United States with a nuclear weapon?

Even if he could get some yellow cake and even if he could turn it into a weapon and even if he could design, build and execute an effective delivery system, what do we think he was going to do with it?

What is Israel, chopped liver?

So Saddam was going to nuke us (Or, for that matter, Israel), right?

We still have ICBMs?

And he doesn't know this?

Fuck, give him a fucking nuke and dare him to use it! What the hell!

Should he have used a nuclear device against any civilian U.S. territory, the international community would have stepped aside and quietly clapped as we vaporized Baghdad.

And we all know the consequences would have been the same if he nuked Tel Aviv.

Good or bad; Fair or Just; For better or worse: I'm not saying ...

But that's the reality that being a Super Power brings. Even to a crackpot, tin-horn bully like Saddam Hussein. Even for him, the very idea was a non-issue, it is so obviously, transparently counter cost-effective; so completely against his own self interests.

Separate and apart from the fact that Osama and Saddam were enemies. Well, now maybe not so much, thank you, Mister Bush.

We used to walk softly and carry a big stick.

America used to be brave enough, strong enough and tough enough to let the enemy take their first shot.

Nowadays, Shrub, Condi, Cheney, Rumsfeld whine about "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and holler "shock and awe" at the top of their lungs while they fritter away our military capabilities across the planet in some neo-con misguided apocalyptic delusions.

These guys tromp as loudly as possible while whittling our military superiority into toothpicks they then scatter everywhere.

And we are supposed to be afraid of bin Laden's gang and, heaven forbid, what if they got any weapons of mass destruction?

Ever notice that they have to be a zillionth rated military power? (And why aren't we handling these murderers with a lot more James Bond and a lot less G.I. Joe? Are we trying to make them feel important?)

Guess what, we have terrorists and they have weapons of mass destruction and they are in the United States.

Ever heard of Tyler, Texas? Or Noonday? Noonday, Texas? The one in Smith county; Hundred some miles from Dallas. It's just outside of Tyler. Maybe 600 folks or so.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1562621

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0911FD3E580C708DDDAB0994DB404482

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3733385

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd04reynolds

http://www.rickross.com/reference/supremacists/supremacists126.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-12-19/pols_naked6.html

http://www.alternet.org/rights/17514/

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1151_0_26_0_C32

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003410.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_dneiwert_archive.html#108372108971437668

and

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5350.htm

One Mr. William J. Krar had more Weapons of Mass Destruction than Saddam Hussein had.

Well, at a minimum, Krar had more chemical weapons than Saddam had in all of Iraq.

He had them less than three hundred miles from our house in Austin.

Austin, Texas? The only liberal enclave on the blood red state of Texas.

Where would a liberal hater like Krar want to use a sodium cyanide bomb?

Why would Mr. Krar seem a greater danger than Saddam Hussein or bin Laden?

Is it just me?

And when is this Krar guy getting out?

How many more Krars are out there?

Of course it was those PATRIOT act empowered super surveillance systems of the Homeland Security Department that saved the day and caught Mr. Krar, right? All that high-dollar, high-octane whiz-bang security safety stuff pays off! Way to g... ... ...

Wha? No big press conference announcement of the capture of these armed and dangerous terrorists (and their weapons) inside the United States?

What? ... ... It didn't happen that way? They didn't catch him?

Krar mailed incriminating stuff to the wrong address?

With a note inside? That said, "We would hate to have this fall into the wrong hands."

Hmmm ...

Also, please note the casual (next to nil) coverage the otherwise hysterical media has given/gave to significantly graver and more serious threat to American civilian lives.

Krar gets out of prison, hmm, ... he went in in 2004; he got 11 years; he gets out in 2015, at the latest.

Well, who's to say ol' Bill Krar was really such a bad guy anyway? Paul Krugman? Who does Krugman think he is anyway? Well, someone who used to be "Calico Cat" begs to disagree and disparage these insinuations against Citizen Krar.

How many more Krar sympathizer Calico Cats are there out there?

Anthrax, anthrax ... someone was trying to poison prominent liberal icons with anthrax?

Whatever happened to them?

Plame Bombshells

i am in an uproar about things that some would call "political".
due to their sensitivities (or aggressive insensitivity?) i post this warning.

if i had a hammer,
i'd hammer in the morning,
i'd hammer in the evening,
all over this Land.
i'd hammer out Danger!
i'd hammer out Warning!

anyway, there's your warning. my thanks to lee hayes and pete seeger.

many are adverse to the inherent drudgery in the consideration of all things "political".
it is easy to understand this sentiment.
we do not feel attracted to considering the machinations of our municipal sanitary sewage treatment systems either.
everybody has some things they find repulsive.
for a great many, our feelings about politics are about the same as our feelings about sewage.
except sewage won't lie to you.

for those kinds of reasons it is not too unreasonable for people to prefer sewage, given the choice.
at least everybody can agree about sewage.

so why do i go there?
well, at the weakest excuse we have: somebody's got to do it.

now about sewage, i trust the experts who are in charge there.
about politics, i fear that we are at too great a risk to trust the people who do go there in general and the people currently in charge are lying dangerous maniacs who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground, pardon my French.
the threat from sewage is real. (thank a plumber today.)
but the threat from politics is much more dangerous.

at the greater excuse(s), i have a thing about our country and democracy.
my feelings for our country and its government don't feel like "politics" to me.
it's just a thing i have to engage because i care about it or i suffer in my spirit.
it's something that i can't help.

too much about me.

anyway, John Dickerson is our current hero of the moment.
Mr. Dickerson has left Time magazine's employment and has offered his insights and reporting at Slate about his experiences as White house correspondent for Time.
http://www.slate.com/id/2135554/

go there a read.
i'll wait quietly till you come back.

you didn't go there.
i was quiet.

okay then go here and read.

no?
oh, let me read it for you! (use a fussy tone because i am old and fussy) :
ReddHedd at firedoglake offers her informed analysis:

Well, well, well...can you say concerted effort to discredit Wilson, planned carefully by folks at the White House, executed with precision planning, and...conspiracy?

did i mention that RH has been a prosecutor? i thought i did.
also from Redd:

First of all, Dickerson is snide. You have to like that in a correspondent, don't you?

and

Second, how can you not love a reporter who gives a hat tip to FDL for reporting on Traitorgate and catching Dickerson's name in the Libby docu-dump in the first place?

it seems like this Mr. Dickerson is a real live genuine journalist. one among an endangered species.

("if i had a bell, i'd ring it in the morning, i'd ring it in the evening, all over this land ... ")

reading his article feels like there is this sizzling, hissing fuse burning on an ever shorter on and ever increasing load of dynamite.

(" ... i'd ring out Danger. I'd ring out 'Warning!' ... ")

which makes me smile.
because, for once, this is all so excellently bad for all the right people.
and it is very well written.

("if i had a song,
i'd sing it in the morning,
i'd sing it in the evening
all over this land ...
...
i'd sing about the
Love Among
My Brothers and My Sister,
All Over This Land!")

~ Many Happy Kabooms!