Thursday, September 05, 2013
Weekly reminder
As of September 3, at least 7,865 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 79 of them in Massachusetts.
124.9 - Outrage of the Week: US intelligence knew in advance of attack, gave no warning
Outrage of the Week: US intelligence knew in advance of attack, gave no warning
I had to cut myself off at the previous item because I have one more thing I have to get to: the Outrage of the Week. This, too, is about Syria.
Foreign Policy magazine reports that:
If using chemical weapons is such a monstrous crime, if gassing people is such a monstrous crime, what of those who passively stand by and allow it to happen?
Outrage doesn't begin to cover it.
Sources:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-this-isnt.html
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched
I had to cut myself off at the previous item because I have one more thing I have to get to: the Outrage of the Week. This, too, is about Syria.Foreign Policy magazine reports that:
American intelligence agencies had indications three days beforehand that the Syrian regime was poised to launch a lethal chemical attack that killed more than a thousand people and has set the stage for a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.They knew - three days in advance, they knew. They knew that Assad was preparing a major nerve gas attack - and they did nothing. They said nothing. They told no one except each other. The Syrian opposition, the target of this attack, one so despicable we have to respond with more death or it will be a "catastrophe" for our "credibility," the Syrian opposition was not told. The victims, the ones who cause such tears in the high offices of the White House, the victims were left in the dark.
If using chemical weapons is such a monstrous crime, if gassing people is such a monstrous crime, what of those who passively stand by and allow it to happen?
Outrage doesn't begin to cover it.
Sources:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-this-isnt.html
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched
124.8 - Syria: More death is not an answer
Syria: More death is not an answer
For the rest of the show I'm going to be talking about Syria.
As I know you know, there is a case being made for a US attack on Syria, based on - take your pick, reports, claims, allegations, intelligence - that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad carried out chemical weapons attacks on the rebels who have been fighting his regime for something approaching three years now.
In that time, in that 2-1/2 to 3 years, by best estimates over 100,000 Syrians have been killed as the fight evolved from a government crackdown on a peaceful protest movement into a full-scale civil war appropriately described as "scarily reminiscent" of the one that has ripped up Iraq over the last decade, a civil war, let's not forget, that our invasion unleashed and which saw at least 67 people killed in coordinated bomb attacks on Tuesday.
In Syria, ethnic massacres have been committed by both sides and both sides have groups that we consider as terrorists as allies. Again, in that last 2-1/2 years, over 100,000 Syrians, both fighters and civilians, have been killed. They have been shot, shredded by shrapnel, blasted, bombed, slaughtered, and strafed. They have been murdered by mortars and mauled by mines.
There are two million United Nations-registered refugees, half of them children, three-quarters of those younger than 11. The total number of refugees may be as high as seven or eight million.
And across that time the world, including the US, watched and muttered vague threats and shuffled its feet and turned away because the demands of international power politics and posturing spoke louder than the wails of the wounded.
Oh, but now that's all going to change, yessiree! Our Nobel Peace Prize president is gonna show that Assad guy what for! Why now? Because, the White House claims, Assad killed 1,429 people - a number I find suspiciously precise - 1,429 people with a chemical weapons attack.
Yes, chemical weapons are regarded as particularly horrendous. Yes, they are banned by international law and treaty, legal concepts that under other conditions doesn't seem to concern us much. But yes, they are horrendous and yes, they are banned. And yes, despite some lingering doubts, doubts well-based in the miserable failures of American intelligence in the case of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and despite a surprising number of suggestions of a false-flag operation - that is, that it was the rebels who gassed their own supporters in order to pin it on Assad in hopes of provoking Western intervention - despite that, I am quite willing to accept that Assad did use chemical weapons. On the what, Doctors Without Borders is convinced chemical weapons were used, and that's good enough for me. On the who, I find the false-flag claims utterly unconvincing, no more than wild pro-Assad speculation, which leaves Assad as the who.
But still I have to ask: Are those victims any more dead than the 100,000 others? Were their screams any louder? Do their families mourn them any more deeply?
So why now? Is it actually because of chemical weapons? Not exactly: It's because of what we said about chemical weapons. It's about the "red line" we drew. It's about our "credibility." It's about, as John McCain said, "sending a message" not just to Syria but to Iran, North Korea, and those we consider terrorist groups. It's about because we said we would, not because it will accomplish anything other than creating an even bigger piles of bodies. Even the White House doesn't claim it's call for a "limited strike" - by the way, the White House has a somewhat odd understanding of the word "limited": Appearing on "All In with Chris Hayes" on MSNBC on Tuesday, former NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor, described as being "back at the White House" to help Obama make his pitch for an attack, referred to what he also called a "limited strike" as involving "a couple hundred cruise missiles." Apparently, anything short of a nuclear first strike is "limited."
Anyway, even the White House doesn't claim this "limited strike" will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again; it only claims that it will serve to "degrade his capacity" to do so.
Glenn Greenwald said it well:
I will, I swear I will, talk more about this next week even if the vote, scheduled for the week of September 9, has already happened.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/obama-congress-syria_n_3860126.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wave-of-bombings-kill-47-in-iraq.php?ref=fpb
http://news.yahoo.com/video/syrias-one-million-lost-children-153651080.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/president-gassing-divisions.html
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52916809#52916809
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/following-pew-poll-abc-wapo-finds-even-larger?ref=fpb
For the rest of the show I'm going to be talking about Syria.As I know you know, there is a case being made for a US attack on Syria, based on - take your pick, reports, claims, allegations, intelligence - that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad carried out chemical weapons attacks on the rebels who have been fighting his regime for something approaching three years now.
In that time, in that 2-1/2 to 3 years, by best estimates over 100,000 Syrians have been killed as the fight evolved from a government crackdown on a peaceful protest movement into a full-scale civil war appropriately described as "scarily reminiscent" of the one that has ripped up Iraq over the last decade, a civil war, let's not forget, that our invasion unleashed and which saw at least 67 people killed in coordinated bomb attacks on Tuesday.
In Syria, ethnic massacres have been committed by both sides and both sides have groups that we consider as terrorists as allies. Again, in that last 2-1/2 years, over 100,000 Syrians, both fighters and civilians, have been killed. They have been shot, shredded by shrapnel, blasted, bombed, slaughtered, and strafed. They have been murdered by mortars and mauled by mines.
There are two million United Nations-registered refugees, half of them children, three-quarters of those younger than 11. The total number of refugees may be as high as seven or eight million.
And across that time the world, including the US, watched and muttered vague threats and shuffled its feet and turned away because the demands of international power politics and posturing spoke louder than the wails of the wounded.
Oh, but now that's all going to change, yessiree! Our Nobel Peace Prize president is gonna show that Assad guy what for! Why now? Because, the White House claims, Assad killed 1,429 people - a number I find suspiciously precise - 1,429 people with a chemical weapons attack.
Yes, chemical weapons are regarded as particularly horrendous. Yes, they are banned by international law and treaty, legal concepts that under other conditions doesn't seem to concern us much. But yes, they are horrendous and yes, they are banned. And yes, despite some lingering doubts, doubts well-based in the miserable failures of American intelligence in the case of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and despite a surprising number of suggestions of a false-flag operation - that is, that it was the rebels who gassed their own supporters in order to pin it on Assad in hopes of provoking Western intervention - despite that, I am quite willing to accept that Assad did use chemical weapons. On the what, Doctors Without Borders is convinced chemical weapons were used, and that's good enough for me. On the who, I find the false-flag claims utterly unconvincing, no more than wild pro-Assad speculation, which leaves Assad as the who.
But still I have to ask: Are those victims any more dead than the 100,000 others? Were their screams any louder? Do their families mourn them any more deeply?
So why now? Is it actually because of chemical weapons? Not exactly: It's because of what we said about chemical weapons. It's about the "red line" we drew. It's about our "credibility." It's about, as John McCain said, "sending a message" not just to Syria but to Iran, North Korea, and those we consider terrorist groups. It's about because we said we would, not because it will accomplish anything other than creating an even bigger piles of bodies. Even the White House doesn't claim it's call for a "limited strike" - by the way, the White House has a somewhat odd understanding of the word "limited": Appearing on "All In with Chris Hayes" on MSNBC on Tuesday, former NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor, described as being "back at the White House" to help Obama make his pitch for an attack, referred to what he also called a "limited strike" as involving "a couple hundred cruise missiles." Apparently, anything short of a nuclear first strike is "limited."
Anyway, even the White House doesn't claim this "limited strike" will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again; it only claims that it will serve to "degrade his capacity" to do so.
Glenn Greenwald said it well:
There are few things more bizarre than watching people advocate that another country be bombed even while acknowledging that it will achieve no good outcomes other than safeguarding the "credibility" of those doing the bombing. Relatedly, it's hard to imagine a more potent sign of a weak, declining empire than having one's national "credibility" depend upon periodically bombing other countries.There is so much more to say about this, such as how we're supposed to be just so thrilled that Obama deigned to ask Congress for authorization even as the White House made it clear that he don't need no stinking authorization and he might just go ahead and bomb Syria anyway even if Congress says no, which is what the public wants it to do. He did it in the case of Libya, why wouldn't he do it again?
I will, I swear I will, talk more about this next week even if the vote, scheduled for the week of September 9, has already happened.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/obama-congress-syria_n_3860126.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wave-of-bombings-kill-47-in-iraq.php?ref=fpb
http://news.yahoo.com/video/syrias-one-million-lost-children-153651080.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/president-gassing-divisions.html
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52916809#52916809
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/following-pew-poll-abc-wapo-finds-even-larger?ref=fpb
124.7 - Recent news on global warming
Recent news on global warming
Updated with a question: The hit count on this post is unusually
high for me, which makes we think someone linked to it - but I don't know who.
Anyone willing to leave a comment to let me know?
I haven't talked about global warming in a while, so I thought I'd run down a few recent bits and pieces.
Let's start with the latest news. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the world's preeminent climate science organization, is due out sometime this month. The latest draft of the report of the says that human-made global warming is "extremely likely," meaning the chances that humanity is the main reason for the warming are 95%. It also says that continuing greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will produce changes in climate unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years, with many of those changes persisting for "many centuries."
Worldwide, 2012 was the 8th or 9th warmest year on record, despite the cooling effect of it being a La Nina year. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record. It was the 27th year in a row the global average temperature surpassed the average of the 30-year period 1961-1990.
The World Meteorological Organization said in its annual climate report that the years from 2001 to 2012 were all among the top 13 warmest on record.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, says all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years.
We are already seeing human impacts: A study by climate scientists at Great Britain's national weather service, released a couple of months ago, concluded that human-induced climate change contributed to low rain levels in East Africa in 2011, making global warming one of the causes of Somalia's famine and the tens of thousands of deaths that followed.
Then there's this: Ever heard of valley fever? I hadn't until recently. It's a relatively unknown and often misdiagnosed disease prevalent in arid regions of the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America. It can be contracted by breathing in fungus-laced spores from dust disturbed by wind or human or animal activity. Initial symptoms are often flu-like but the infection can spread from the lungs, leading to blindness, skin abscesses, lung failure, even death.
Between 1998 and 2011, cases in the US jumped 850 percent, with California and Arizona being the hardest hit.
Why is this relevant? Because the fungus is sensitive to environmental changes and a hotter, drier climate of the sort now being felt in the US southwest has increased the dust carrying the spores. In other words, global warming is causing this disease to spread.
And what about those wildfires out West? Are they related to global warming?
According to Thomas Tidwell, the head of the US Forest Service, the answer is yes. In Congressional testimony in June, Tidwell noted that large fires in excess of 10,000 acres are seven times more common today than four decades ago, and the fire season is two months longer. He said that agency scientists believe the problems they face are due to climate change.
And it's going to get worse. 2012 saw record snow melts, a dramatic spike in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland.
It also saw record-high sea levels, a harbinger of things to come, because a study published a month ago in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that climate change could literally sink more than 1,700 US coastal cities and towns before the century is out. Without a sharp and immediate curb in greenhouse gas emissions, at least 80 of those cities could be submerged within the next decade.
And for some places, it's already too late. For some places - the author of the study mentioned Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, and Hoboken, New Jersey - even if we dropped to zero greenhouse gas emissions today, right now, the heat already stored in the oceans will drive sea level rise enough to put those places under water and in many more places, a quarter of the population will be living below the high-water mark by 2100.
Those are the facts. That's the reality. That's what we're facing. Despite all this, despite the clear evidence of a desperate need for immediate, dramatic, even drastic, action, in at least four US states - Louisiana, Texas, South Dakota, and Tennessee - state law mandates teaching climate change denial in K-12 "science" education, based on a model bill produced by ALEC. It's hard to imagine they could be so blind and they are not stupid people, so it must be that they just don't give a damn about the future.
Footnote: At a House Science Committee hearing on climate change in June, climate change non-believer Rep. Dana Rohrabacher griped about a campaign against “climate deniers” in Congress, claiming that “climate denier” is akin to "Holocaust denier.” Yeah, well, he said it, I didn't. But if he's really that upset, maybe he'd prefer my term for people like him: nanny-nanny naysayer.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/08/20/climate-change-global-warming-ipcc-report/2678683/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/un-says-2012-was-9th-hottest-year_n_3200272.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/2012-climate-change-repor_n_3715258.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/somalia-famine-climate-change_n_2883088.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/is_climate_change_fueling_an_epidemic_partner/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/31/2312591/climate-change-wildfires/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/30/us-cities-sinking-climate-change_n_3676325.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-climate-change-denial-model-bill-passes-tennessee
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/house_goper_term_climate_denier_offensive_because_its_like_holocaust_denier/
Updated with a question: The hit count on this post is unusually
high for me, which makes we think someone linked to it - but I don't know who.
Anyone willing to leave a comment to let me know?I haven't talked about global warming in a while, so I thought I'd run down a few recent bits and pieces.
Let's start with the latest news. The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the world's preeminent climate science organization, is due out sometime this month. The latest draft of the report of the says that human-made global warming is "extremely likely," meaning the chances that humanity is the main reason for the warming are 95%. It also says that continuing greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will produce changes in climate unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years, with many of those changes persisting for "many centuries."
Worldwide, 2012 was the 8th or 9th warmest year on record, despite the cooling effect of it being a La Nina year. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record. It was the 27th year in a row the global average temperature surpassed the average of the 30-year period 1961-1990.
The World Meteorological Organization said in its annual climate report that the years from 2001 to 2012 were all among the top 13 warmest on record.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, says all 10 of the warmest years ever have been in the past 15 years.
We are already seeing human impacts: A study by climate scientists at Great Britain's national weather service, released a couple of months ago, concluded that human-induced climate change contributed to low rain levels in East Africa in 2011, making global warming one of the causes of Somalia's famine and the tens of thousands of deaths that followed.
Then there's this: Ever heard of valley fever? I hadn't until recently. It's a relatively unknown and often misdiagnosed disease prevalent in arid regions of the United States, Mexico, and Central and South America. It can be contracted by breathing in fungus-laced spores from dust disturbed by wind or human or animal activity. Initial symptoms are often flu-like but the infection can spread from the lungs, leading to blindness, skin abscesses, lung failure, even death.
Between 1998 and 2011, cases in the US jumped 850 percent, with California and Arizona being the hardest hit.
Why is this relevant? Because the fungus is sensitive to environmental changes and a hotter, drier climate of the sort now being felt in the US southwest has increased the dust carrying the spores. In other words, global warming is causing this disease to spread.
And what about those wildfires out West? Are they related to global warming?
According to Thomas Tidwell, the head of the US Forest Service, the answer is yes. In Congressional testimony in June, Tidwell noted that large fires in excess of 10,000 acres are seven times more common today than four decades ago, and the fire season is two months longer. He said that agency scientists believe the problems they face are due to climate change.And it's going to get worse. 2012 saw record snow melts, a dramatic spike in ocean heat content, a record melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer, and whopping temporary melts of ice in most of Greenland.
It also saw record-high sea levels, a harbinger of things to come, because a study published a month ago in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that climate change could literally sink more than 1,700 US coastal cities and towns before the century is out. Without a sharp and immediate curb in greenhouse gas emissions, at least 80 of those cities could be submerged within the next decade.
And for some places, it's already too late. For some places - the author of the study mentioned Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, and Hoboken, New Jersey - even if we dropped to zero greenhouse gas emissions today, right now, the heat already stored in the oceans will drive sea level rise enough to put those places under water and in many more places, a quarter of the population will be living below the high-water mark by 2100.
Those are the facts. That's the reality. That's what we're facing. Despite all this, despite the clear evidence of a desperate need for immediate, dramatic, even drastic, action, in at least four US states - Louisiana, Texas, South Dakota, and Tennessee - state law mandates teaching climate change denial in K-12 "science" education, based on a model bill produced by ALEC. It's hard to imagine they could be so blind and they are not stupid people, so it must be that they just don't give a damn about the future.
Footnote: At a House Science Committee hearing on climate change in June, climate change non-believer Rep. Dana Rohrabacher griped about a campaign against “climate deniers” in Congress, claiming that “climate denier” is akin to "Holocaust denier.” Yeah, well, he said it, I didn't. But if he's really that upset, maybe he'd prefer my term for people like him: nanny-nanny naysayer.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/08/20/climate-change-global-warming-ipcc-report/2678683/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/un-says-2012-was-9th-hottest-year_n_3200272.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/2012-climate-change-repor_n_3715258.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/somalia-famine-climate-change_n_2883088.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/is_climate_change_fueling_an_epidemic_partner/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/31/2312591/climate-change-wildfires/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/30/us-cities-sinking-climate-change_n_3676325.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-climate-change-denial-model-bill-passes-tennessee
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/house_goper_term_climate_denier_offensive_because_its_like_holocaust_denier/
124.6 - RIP David Frost
RIP David Frost
Just a brief RIP to note the passing of TV host and interviewer David Frost. He died last Saturday of a heart attack at the age of 74.
Frost is probably best known to American audiences for his post-Watergate interviews with former President Richard Nixon, where after letting Tricky Dick squirm away from him for the first hours of the interviews, Frost went after Nixon with pointed questions on Watergate until he broke him down and forced him to acknowledge that he had failed the American people.
But Frost was also a satirist, a game show host, and a serious political commentator who interviewed almost every British prime minister and US president who was in office during his career, which spanned five decades.
Where I first became aware of him was when he hosted the American version of a satirical news show called "That Was The Week That Was" in 1964-65. Besides Frost, who acted as host, the regular cast featured some names you might know, including Henry Morgan, Buck Henry, and Alan Alda, with Nancy Ames singing the opening song, which had new lyrics every week to reflect the news of the week. Many of the songs used on the show were written by Tom Lehrer.
However, I have to add - full disclosure - that I hated the show because my family wanted to watch it and I wanted to watch "The Twilight Zone," which was on opposite it.
Beside presidents and prime ministers, he also interviewed people ranging from Mikhail Gorbachev to Benazir Bhutto and from Orson Welles to the Beatles. Quite a career.
RIP, David Frost.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/david-frost-dead-dies_n_3851784.html?ir=Media
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&nixon_and_watergate_tmln_media_response=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_frost_nixon_interviews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Was_The_Week_That_Was
Just a brief RIP to note the passing of TV host and interviewer David Frost. He died last Saturday of a heart attack at the age of 74.Frost is probably best known to American audiences for his post-Watergate interviews with former President Richard Nixon, where after letting Tricky Dick squirm away from him for the first hours of the interviews, Frost went after Nixon with pointed questions on Watergate until he broke him down and forced him to acknowledge that he had failed the American people.
But Frost was also a satirist, a game show host, and a serious political commentator who interviewed almost every British prime minister and US president who was in office during his career, which spanned five decades.
Where I first became aware of him was when he hosted the American version of a satirical news show called "That Was The Week That Was" in 1964-65. Besides Frost, who acted as host, the regular cast featured some names you might know, including Henry Morgan, Buck Henry, and Alan Alda, with Nancy Ames singing the opening song, which had new lyrics every week to reflect the news of the week. Many of the songs used on the show were written by Tom Lehrer.
However, I have to add - full disclosure - that I hated the show because my family wanted to watch it and I wanted to watch "The Twilight Zone," which was on opposite it.
Beside presidents and prime ministers, he also interviewed people ranging from Mikhail Gorbachev to Benazir Bhutto and from Orson Welles to the Beatles. Quite a career.
RIP, David Frost.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/david-frost-dead-dies_n_3851784.html?ir=Media
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&nixon_and_watergate_tmln_media_response=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_frost_nixon_interviews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Was_The_Week_That_Was
124.5 - DOJ will not sue to to block Colorado, Washington laws legalizing pot; some cops freak out
DOJ will not sue to to block Colorado, Washington laws legalizing pot; some cops freak out
As I expect you know, a tiny beam of light recently penetrated the dark recesses of our "War on Drugs." On August 29, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that the feds would not challenge new state laws in Colorado and Washington that legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but a department memo to federal prosecutors tightened federal standards for prosecutions relating to marijuana, standards which essentially leave small-scale recreational users alone.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia now allow some legal use of marijuana; mostly that's for medical marijuana.
The fact is, the War on Drugs has been a colossal and budget-busting failure that has accomplished nothing except to triple the prison population. That is in large part because there has been a near-total disconnect between the attention and effort directed toward various drugs and the actual harm those same drugs represent. Both the public and government officials are increasingly admitting to the facts, including the fact that one of the drugs that has gotten the most attention is also one of the ones with the lowest potential for harm; that being, of course, marijuana. The result has been that, according to a recent Pew Research poll, a majority of Americans now say marijuana should be legal.
But some people just don't want to give it up. In response to Holder's announcement, a coalition of organizations of law enforcement officers wrote to Holder, slamming the decision in terms reminiscent of Reefer Madness. Marijuana, they declare, "can be directly tied to violent crime." It causes depression, suicidal thoughts, attention deficit issues; it's a "gateway drug" leading to "communities crippled by drug abuse and addiction," increasing crime, and more mayhem on the highways.
This makes law enforcement, they solemnly intone, "infinitely harder."
Actually, what it will make "infinitely harder" and I suspect the real reason for their spittle-flecked outrage, is padding their budgets by keeping a large portion of the assets they seize during drug raids, even if charges are never brought. It's called civil asset forfeiture and I've talked about it before. What's more, federal grants for drug war operations make up a sizable portion of local law enforcement funding, funding that has turned even small-city police forces into something more like militarized combat units complete with heavy body armor and sometimes, armored vehicles.
The shift from neighborhood police to paramilitary occupation force is another outgrowth of the war on drugs - and I strongly suspect that the cops and the others who were so outraged by Holder's announcement were more concerned about being kicked off the gravy train than about being faced with mythical hordes of violent, suicidal, hopheads.
Still, they are right about one thing: Holder's decision opens the door to other states to take steps toward legalization, looking to the same treatment as Washington and Colorado have gotten. Ten states are considered the most likely to make such moves. They make up an interesting collection of red and blue states. They are, alphabetically: Alaska, Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The war on drugs: another one that desperately calls for an exit strategy.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/doj-marijuana-guidelines_n_3838589.html
http://legalizationofmarijuana.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/04/legalize-it-poll-shows/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/police-eric-holder-marijuana-_n_3846518.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2FZgErvNTE
https://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/FINALLawEnforcementGroupLetteronDOJMarijuanaPolicy.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/marijuana-legalization-states_n_3838866.html
As I expect you know, a tiny beam of light recently penetrated the dark recesses of our "War on Drugs." On August 29, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that the feds would not challenge new state laws in Colorado and Washington that legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but a department memo to federal prosecutors tightened federal standards for prosecutions relating to marijuana, standards which essentially leave small-scale recreational users alone.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia now allow some legal use of marijuana; mostly that's for medical marijuana.The fact is, the War on Drugs has been a colossal and budget-busting failure that has accomplished nothing except to triple the prison population. That is in large part because there has been a near-total disconnect between the attention and effort directed toward various drugs and the actual harm those same drugs represent. Both the public and government officials are increasingly admitting to the facts, including the fact that one of the drugs that has gotten the most attention is also one of the ones with the lowest potential for harm; that being, of course, marijuana. The result has been that, according to a recent Pew Research poll, a majority of Americans now say marijuana should be legal.
But some people just don't want to give it up. In response to Holder's announcement, a coalition of organizations of law enforcement officers wrote to Holder, slamming the decision in terms reminiscent of Reefer Madness. Marijuana, they declare, "can be directly tied to violent crime." It causes depression, suicidal thoughts, attention deficit issues; it's a "gateway drug" leading to "communities crippled by drug abuse and addiction," increasing crime, and more mayhem on the highways.
This makes law enforcement, they solemnly intone, "infinitely harder."
Actually, what it will make "infinitely harder" and I suspect the real reason for their spittle-flecked outrage, is padding their budgets by keeping a large portion of the assets they seize during drug raids, even if charges are never brought. It's called civil asset forfeiture and I've talked about it before. What's more, federal grants for drug war operations make up a sizable portion of local law enforcement funding, funding that has turned even small-city police forces into something more like militarized combat units complete with heavy body armor and sometimes, armored vehicles. The shift from neighborhood police to paramilitary occupation force is another outgrowth of the war on drugs - and I strongly suspect that the cops and the others who were so outraged by Holder's announcement were more concerned about being kicked off the gravy train than about being faced with mythical hordes of violent, suicidal, hopheads.
Still, they are right about one thing: Holder's decision opens the door to other states to take steps toward legalization, looking to the same treatment as Washington and Colorado have gotten. Ten states are considered the most likely to make such moves. They make up an interesting collection of red and blue states. They are, alphabetically: Alaska, Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The war on drugs: another one that desperately calls for an exit strategy.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/doj-marijuana-guidelines_n_3838589.html
http://legalizationofmarijuana.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/04/legalize-it-poll-shows/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/police-eric-holder-marijuana-_n_3846518.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2FZgErvNTE
https://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/FINALLawEnforcementGroupLetteronDOJMarijuanaPolicy.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/marijuana-legalization-states_n_3838866.html
124.4 - Clown Award: NSA blocks sale of parody t-shirt
Clown Award: NSA blocks sale of parody t-shirt
Now for one of our regular weekly features, the Clown Award, given for meritorious stupidity.
This week the big red nose goes to that praiseworthy paragon of vigorous virtue, the National Security Agency, the NSA.
This does not involve something that just happened in the past week, but news of it spread at the end of August and it's just too good to let slip away.
It turns out that back in June, shortly after the first of Edward Snowden's revelations hit the media, a company known for parody t-shirts with slogans like "Santorum Happens" reacted to the news by producing a t-shirt with a reproduction of the official NSA seal, modified to read "Peeping While You're Sleeping," along with the caption, "The NSA. The Only Part of the Government That Actually Listens."
Liberty Maniacs, the company making the shirt, offered it for sale through a popular online market site called Zazzle. Within a couple of hours of the shirt going on sale, Zazzle told Liberty Maniacs that it was taking the shirt down from the site. An exchange of emails as to why produced the response that "legal representatives from the National Security Agency" had contacted Zazzle to say that the t-shirt "contained content which infringes upon the intellectual property rights" of the NSA and "at their request," that is, the NSA's request, the shirt would no longer be sold there.
Now, this shirt would seem to be a clear case of parody, which is, based on a long string of court decisions stretching back years and a tradition stretching back even further, a protected form of free speech under the First Amendment. But not as far as the NSA is concerned. It's humorless legal stuffed shirts cited Public Law 86-36, which says you can't use the initials "NSA," the words "National Security Agency," or the NSA seal without first acquiring written permission from the Director of the agency.
At the same time, the agency whined to The Daily Dot that it had not sent a cease and desist letter to Zazzle. Of course not. They just, y'know, "requested."
By the way, if this wasn't clownish enough, the law the NSA mouthpieces cited says you can't use "NSA," "National Security Agency," or the seal, quoting, "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed or authorized by the National Security Agency." As one commenter said,
Footnote: CafePress is selling the shirts; Zazzle has a wimped-out version without the NSA logo.
Sources:
http://www.dailydot.com/news/dni-nsa-email-metadata-tracking/
http://news.yahoo.com/parody-t-shirts-nsa-probably-doesnt-amusing-161947308.html
http://www.dailydot.com/news/nsa-trademark-infringement-liberty-maniacs/
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/78962042/the-nsa_tshirt
Now for one of our regular weekly features, the Clown Award, given for meritorious stupidity.This week the big red nose goes to that praiseworthy paragon of vigorous virtue, the National Security Agency, the NSA.
This does not involve something that just happened in the past week, but news of it spread at the end of August and it's just too good to let slip away.
It turns out that back in June, shortly after the first of Edward Snowden's revelations hit the media, a company known for parody t-shirts with slogans like "Santorum Happens" reacted to the news by producing a t-shirt with a reproduction of the official NSA seal, modified to read "Peeping While You're Sleeping," along with the caption, "The NSA. The Only Part of the Government That Actually Listens."
Liberty Maniacs, the company making the shirt, offered it for sale through a popular online market site called Zazzle. Within a couple of hours of the shirt going on sale, Zazzle told Liberty Maniacs that it was taking the shirt down from the site. An exchange of emails as to why produced the response that "legal representatives from the National Security Agency" had contacted Zazzle to say that the t-shirt "contained content which infringes upon the intellectual property rights" of the NSA and "at their request," that is, the NSA's request, the shirt would no longer be sold there.
Now, this shirt would seem to be a clear case of parody, which is, based on a long string of court decisions stretching back years and a tradition stretching back even further, a protected form of free speech under the First Amendment. But not as far as the NSA is concerned. It's humorless legal stuffed shirts cited Public Law 86-36, which says you can't use the initials "NSA," the words "National Security Agency," or the NSA seal without first acquiring written permission from the Director of the agency.At the same time, the agency whined to The Daily Dot that it had not sent a cease and desist letter to Zazzle. Of course not. They just, y'know, "requested."
By the way, if this wasn't clownish enough, the law the NSA mouthpieces cited says you can't use "NSA," "National Security Agency," or the seal, quoting, "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed or authorized by the National Security Agency." As one commenter said,
Only a complete moron would reasonably calculate that the NSA approved, endorsed, or authorized the shirts.A moron - or a clown.
Footnote: CafePress is selling the shirts; Zazzle has a wimped-out version without the NSA logo.
Sources:
http://www.dailydot.com/news/dni-nsa-email-metadata-tracking/
http://news.yahoo.com/parody-t-shirts-nsa-probably-doesnt-amusing-161947308.html
http://www.dailydot.com/news/nsa-trademark-infringement-liberty-maniacs/
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/78962042/the-nsa_tshirt
124.3 - Good News #3: Federal court recognizes "Do Not Fly" list raises Constitutional questions
Good News #3: Federal court recognizes "Do Not Fly" list raises Constitutional questions
One other bit of good news, a bit subtle this one, but still important. Remember the No-fly list? That secret list of suspected terrorists that would get you banned from getting on an airplane anywhere in the US, a secret list with no way to know if you were on it until you were barred from a plane, no way to know how you got on it, no way to know why you were on it, and essentially no way to ever get off it or even respond to the claims about you - which, again, were secret?
We've largely forgotten about it, other issues have taken up our attention, but the list still exists and there are still people, an estimated 20,000 people, who can't fly anywhere and have no idea why.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been fighting in court for over three years about this. It's representing 13 US citizens who are on the No Fly List with know way to know why or how to get off. A District Court had dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, but in July 2012, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court reversed and now the district court is considering the case on its merits.
The good news here is that last Wednesday, August 28, US District Judge Anna Brown dismissed the government's argument that air travel is "a mere convenience" and ruled that constitutional rights to due process are at stake when the government places Americans on the No Fly List. That doesn't sound like much, maybe, but in the words of ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, "For the first time, a federal court has recognized that when the government bans Americans from flying and smears them as suspected terrorists, it deprives them of constitutionally protected liberties, and they must have a fair process to clear their names."
This is not a final win, the case isn't over, but it does mean the government now is in the position of having to be able to prove either that it has offered due process - which rationally, it can't - or that it has some new way to guarantee it.
And so another part of our paranoid, unconstitutional, freedom-hating War on Terror is showing the strain. Good news indeed.
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit
One other bit of good news, a bit subtle this one, but still important. Remember the No-fly list? That secret list of suspected terrorists that would get you banned from getting on an airplane anywhere in the US, a secret list with no way to know if you were on it until you were barred from a plane, no way to know how you got on it, no way to know why you were on it, and essentially no way to ever get off it or even respond to the claims about you - which, again, were secret?We've largely forgotten about it, other issues have taken up our attention, but the list still exists and there are still people, an estimated 20,000 people, who can't fly anywhere and have no idea why.
The American Civil Liberties Union has been fighting in court for over three years about this. It's representing 13 US citizens who are on the No Fly List with know way to know why or how to get off. A District Court had dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, but in July 2012, the 9th Circuit Appeals Court reversed and now the district court is considering the case on its merits.
The good news here is that last Wednesday, August 28, US District Judge Anna Brown dismissed the government's argument that air travel is "a mere convenience" and ruled that constitutional rights to due process are at stake when the government places Americans on the No Fly List. That doesn't sound like much, maybe, but in the words of ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, "For the first time, a federal court has recognized that when the government bans Americans from flying and smears them as suspected terrorists, it deprives them of constitutionally protected liberties, and they must have a fair process to clear their names."This is not a final win, the case isn't over, but it does mean the government now is in the position of having to be able to prove either that it has offered due process - which rationally, it can't - or that it has some new way to guarantee it.
And so another part of our paranoid, unconstitutional, freedom-hating War on Terror is showing the strain. Good news indeed.
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit
124.2 - Good News #2: Federal court orders Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state
Good News #2: Federal court orders Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state
Here's another bit on that same topic of the impact of the rejection of the Defense of Marriage Act: For the second time in two months, US District Judge Timothy Black has issued an order requiring the state of Ohio to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a same-sex couple even though Ohio bans same-sex marriages.
Judge Black's order allowed David Michener to be listed as "spouse" on the death certificate of his husband, William Herbert Ives, who died last week. The couple was married in Delaware last summer.
In July, Judge Black had granted an order allowing James Obergefell the right to be listed as "spouse" on John Arthur's death certificate after Obergefell and Arthur were married in Maryland.
In both cases, Black cited the fact that key parts of DOMA had been struck down.
By the way, attitudes have apparently been changing in Ohio since 2004, when the state adopted a constitutional amendment definined marriage as one man and one women. A Quinnipiac University poll from this April found 48% of Ohio voters - and 68% of those between 18 and 34 - support same-sex marriage. There is a plan to bring a pro-same-sex marriage amendment to the state ballot in 2014.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html
Here's another bit on that same topic of the impact of the rejection of the Defense of Marriage Act: For the second time in two months, US District Judge Timothy Black has issued an order requiring the state of Ohio to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a same-sex couple even though Ohio bans same-sex marriages.Judge Black's order allowed David Michener to be listed as "spouse" on the death certificate of his husband, William Herbert Ives, who died last week. The couple was married in Delaware last summer.
In July, Judge Black had granted an order allowing James Obergefell the right to be listed as "spouse" on John Arthur's death certificate after Obergefell and Arthur were married in Maryland.In both cases, Black cited the fact that key parts of DOMA had been struck down.
By the way, attitudes have apparently been changing in Ohio since 2004, when the state adopted a constitutional amendment definined marriage as one man and one women. A Quinnipiac University poll from this April found 48% of Ohio voters - and 68% of those between 18 and 34 - support same-sex marriage. There is a plan to bring a pro-same-sex marriage amendment to the state ballot in 2014.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html
124.1 - Good News #1: IRS says legally-married same-sex couples are married no matter where they live
Good News #1: IRS says legally-married same-sex couples are married no matter where they live
The decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act is beginning to have a real and broadening impact on people's lives.
Last week, the Treasury Department issued a rule that if a same-sex couple legally married on one state moves to another state where such marriages are not recognized, for federal tax purposes the government will continue to recognize those marriages. That is, the state of celebration - where the wedding took place - defines is a couple is married, not the state of current residency.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said the ruling "provides certainty and clear, coherent guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide" and assures such couples "that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”
And this doesn't just affect income taxes and filing status. It affects employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, gift taxes, and estate taxes, among others. All federal tax purposes.
The Pentagon, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Social Security Administration had already moved to extend federal benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees and military personnel regardless of their states of residency. But the IRS has yet to issue guidance for how the court’s decision will affect its policies. Now, the IRS has acted as well.
Unfortunately, the policy only applies to married couples, not to domestic partnerships or civil unions. But it still is a step forward and another recognition of the reality and the rights of same-sex couples.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/19/cardin-irs-needs-to-quickly-address-tax-rules-for-same-sex-couples/
The decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act is beginning to have a real and broadening impact on people's lives.Last week, the Treasury Department issued a rule that if a same-sex couple legally married on one state moves to another state where such marriages are not recognized, for federal tax purposes the government will continue to recognize those marriages. That is, the state of celebration - where the wedding took place - defines is a couple is married, not the state of current residency.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said the ruling "provides certainty and clear, coherent guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide" and assures such couples "that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”
And this doesn't just affect income taxes and filing status. It affects employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, gift taxes, and estate taxes, among others. All federal tax purposes.The Pentagon, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Social Security Administration had already moved to extend federal benefits to same-sex spouses of federal employees and military personnel regardless of their states of residency. But the IRS has yet to issue guidance for how the court’s decision will affect its policies. Now, the IRS has acted as well.
Unfortunately, the policy only applies to married couples, not to domestic partnerships or civil unions. But it still is a step forward and another recognition of the reality and the rights of same-sex couples.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/19/cardin-irs-needs-to-quickly-address-tax-rules-for-same-sex-couples/
Left Side of the Aisle #124
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of September 5-11, 2013
This week:
Good News #1: IRS says legally-married same-sex couples are married no matter where they live
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/08/19/cardin-irs-needs-to-quickly-address-tax-rules-for-same-sex-couples/
Good News #2: Federal court orders Ohio to recognize same-sex marriage performed out of state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html
Good News #3: Federal court says "Do Not Fly" list raises Constitutional questions
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit
Clown Award: NSA blocks sale of parody t-shirt
http://www.dailydot.com/news/dni-nsa-email-metadata-tracking/
http://news.yahoo.com/parody-t-shirts-nsa-probably-doesnt-amusing-161947308.html
http://www.dailydot.com/news/nsa-trademark-infringement-liberty-maniacs/
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/78962042/the-nsa_tshirt
DOJ will not sue to to block Colorado, Washington laws legalizing pot; some cops freak out
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/doj-marijuana-guidelines_n_3838589.html
http://legalizationofmarijuana.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/04/legalize-it-poll-shows/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/police-eric-holder-marijuana-_n_3846518.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2FZgErvNTE
https://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/FINALLawEnforcementGroupLetteronDOJMarijuanaPolicy.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/marijuana-legalization-states_n_3838866.html
RIP David Frost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/david-frost-dead-dies_n_3851784.html?ir=Media
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&nixon_and_watergate_tmln_media_response=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_frost_nixon_interviews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Was_The_Week_That_Was
Recent news on global warming
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/08/20/climate-change-global-warming-ipcc-report/2678683/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/un-says-2012-was-9th-hottest-year_n_3200272.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/06/2012-climate-change-repor_n_3715258.html?ref=topbar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/somalia-famine-climate-change_n_2883088.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/13/is_climate_change_fueling_an_epidemic_partner/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/31/2312591/climate-change-wildfires/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/30/us-cities-sinking-climate-change_n_3676325.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-climate-change-denial-model-bill-passes-tennessee
http://www.desmogblog.com/alec-model-bill-behind-push-require-climate-denial-instruction-schools
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/house_goper_term_climate_denier_offensive_because_its_like_holocaust_denier/
Syria: More deaths are not an answer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/obama-congress-syria_n_3860126.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wave-of-bombings-kill-47-in-iraq.php?ref=fpb
http://news.yahoo.com/video/syrias-one-million-lost-children-153651080.html
http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/president-gassing-divisions.html
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52916809#52916809
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/following-pew-poll-abc-wapo-finds-even-larger?ref=fpb
Outrage of the Week: US intelligence knew Assad was to attack with chemical weapons, gave no warning
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-this-isnt.html
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched
Friday, August 30, 2013
Weekly reminder
As of August 27, at least 7,616 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 79 of them in Massachusetts.
123.6 - What the world needs now is some of the '60s
What the world needs now is some of the '60s
For the rest of the show I want to talk about something else, because all this talk about the March and whatnot, I have to admit it has got me thinking about the '60s. "The '60s." Because the March on Washington, in a lot of ways we don't seem to recognize, it was a spark, it was a foundation for, what we think of as "the '60s" - which really started about 1963 and ran to about 1972.
And I've been thinking that there are some ways in which I miss the '60s. Now, you have to understand, I'm not talking about nostalgia. I don't want to "go back to the '60s." There were a lot of things wrong in the '60s. For one thing, we have some technology now that - I'm not big on high-tech or having the latest and greatest technologies, but we have some technologies that I like that weren't available in the '60s and I wouldn't want to give those up easily.
For another, as we just talked about, there was more bigotry - it was worse in the '60s than it is now. And not just for blacks, for women, for gays and lesbians, for Hispanics, for still others.
Crime was actually a bigger issue in the '60s than it is now - or have we forgotten Richard Nixon running for office as the "law and order" president? Infant mortality - I mentioned the infant mortality rate was higher. The poverty rate was higher.
And, we tend to forget, there was a war. A big war. Not on the scale of World War II, but a big war. I have a notion that the time when people come to what I call political maturity, what's going on at that time, affects their view of the world and how they perceive later events. It influences their view of the world. And I came to political maturity during, as I have described it before, that brief and some would have it mythological time marked at one end by the Sgt. Pepper Summer and the other by Altamont - or, if you prefer a political description, by Flower Power and the Days of Rage.
But people now, in the last couple of decades, people who have come to political maturity during the Afghanistan War, during the Iraq War, I think some of them, when we talk about Vietnam, don't know what we're talking about. The total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined was about 6700; I forget the exact number. The number of American soldiers killed in the Indochina War was well over 50,000. There were over 50,000 American wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan combined; there were over 300,000 in Indochina. Peak troop strength in Iraq was about 140,000. In Vietnam, it was about 540,000. It was a massive war. We didn't measure the deaths by one here and one there and a few others somewhere else, we measured them by 300 a week. Total deaths in that war were well over a million, perhaps as many as three million, plus millions more refugeed.
I have no desire to go back to that. I have no desire to go back to the '60s. But I do have a desire to have some aspects of the '60s brought forward to the 20-teens.
For example, one thing I miss, something I do miss about the '60s is color. Think of any cliche image about the '60s you can imagine and I'm willing to bet that one aspect of that image is lots of color. I miss that. I miss the explosions of colors and the poster art - like Peter Max, for example - the poster art with the very bold, dramatic colors. I miss being surrounded by color.
Another thing I miss is the sense that music could matter. That music could matter. Not that all the music of the '60s mattered, there was a lot of schlock that was produced in the '60s. You know, sometimes you hear these shows about "the lost 45s" and you hear some of those songs and you think, "oh boy, that should have stayed lost." Remember "Laurie" by Dickie Lee? You know, "Last night at the dance I met Laurie." Remember that? What about "The Race is On" by Jack Jones? These are - wow.
And this also doesn't mean there isn't good music being produced now and it doesn't even mean there aren't protest songs being produced now. I just saw something recently about "the top 10 protest songs of the 21st century."
But the '60s had a sense, it was just a sense, that the music could matter, that music could make a difference, the music could change the world - we went a little over the top there, but still that was the sense that we had, that music could change the world. Music was more important to us. Music wasn't just entertainment, it wasn't just a way some people made a living. Music mattered.
The other thing that I miss, and this is the real point here, I miss that sense of solidarity. Back in the '60s, we talked about "the Movement." And it went in all sorts of different directions, all kinds of different subjects, all kinds of different topics, all sorts of different tactics, but the point is, we all thought "this is one Movement, we are all part of it."
Where I grew up, we had a military base - Fort Monmouth, New Jersey - and we used to have picket lines there on occasion, you know, maybe 10 to 20 people. That didn't matter: We were the same as the 150,000 who were out in San Francisco. And what's more, we were the same as the United Farm Workers. We were the same as the striking teachers in some other city. It was all the same thing. And that is something I don't see now.
I've talked about the Solidarity Sing Along in Wisconsin. And this is great, it's wonderful, it's a great thing, and people support that and endorse it - but we don't feel it's us. It's them doing that - it's not us, it's separate. Every battle is separate, every battle is a local battle, that we don't perceive emotionally as part of a whole thing.
This is one of the reasons, by the way, that the Occupy Movement had to be destroyed. Because when the Occupy Movement talked about the 99%, it hit that nerve: We are in this together, we are all linked and all of our different struggles do relate to each other.
Two reasons the Occupy Movement had to be destroyed. One, it was in your face. You couldn't ignore it. It was always there. The other reason, though, was the fact that all of these Occupy sites, they all thought of themselves as "Occupy." Whether you were in Boston or New York or Oshkosh or wherever, you know, you weren't just Oshkosh Occupy, you were Oshkosh Occupy. You were emotionally liked to all the others. Some local encampments focused on income inequality, some on student debt, some on foreclosures, some on supporting labor actions, some even on the arcane details of federal regulation of financial markets. It didn't matter. You were all part of the same thing. You were all Occupy. There was a solidarity there that I have not seen otherwise.
And I really, really miss that.
We need to be back on the streets. Because the one thing we need - the one thing those big marches that people say "oh, that's passe, that's old-fashioned" and all that, well, nonsense. Because the thing those marches did was they gave you that sense of solidarity, they gave you that sense that "this is all one thing; we are all linked; we are all part of the same thing."
We need to be back on the streets - and I don't mean just once, I mean over and over and over again. This is not something that's going to be done just this year or the year after, this is year after year after year after year. We have to be out on the streets, locally and nationally, to say "we are all one Movement, we are all one consideration."
And that one consideration is, again, justice.
Sources:
http://icasualties.org/
http://vietnamwar-database.blogspot.com/2010/11/vietnam-war-casualties.html
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
http://tropicalglen.com/
http://tropicalglen.com/Jukebox/1965Top/Channel1965.html
http://flavorwire.com/143568/the-10-most-powerful-protest-songs-of-the-21st-century
For the rest of the show I want to talk about something else, because all this talk about the March and whatnot, I have to admit it has got me thinking about the '60s. "The '60s." Because the March on Washington, in a lot of ways we don't seem to recognize, it was a spark, it was a foundation for, what we think of as "the '60s" - which really started about 1963 and ran to about 1972.
And I've been thinking that there are some ways in which I miss the '60s. Now, you have to understand, I'm not talking about nostalgia. I don't want to "go back to the '60s." There were a lot of things wrong in the '60s. For one thing, we have some technology now that - I'm not big on high-tech or having the latest and greatest technologies, but we have some technologies that I like that weren't available in the '60s and I wouldn't want to give those up easily.
For another, as we just talked about, there was more bigotry - it was worse in the '60s than it is now. And not just for blacks, for women, for gays and lesbians, for Hispanics, for still others.
Crime was actually a bigger issue in the '60s than it is now - or have we forgotten Richard Nixon running for office as the "law and order" president? Infant mortality - I mentioned the infant mortality rate was higher. The poverty rate was higher.
And, we tend to forget, there was a war. A big war. Not on the scale of World War II, but a big war. I have a notion that the time when people come to what I call political maturity, what's going on at that time, affects their view of the world and how they perceive later events. It influences their view of the world. And I came to political maturity during, as I have described it before, that brief and some would have it mythological time marked at one end by the Sgt. Pepper Summer and the other by Altamont - or, if you prefer a political description, by Flower Power and the Days of Rage.
But people now, in the last couple of decades, people who have come to political maturity during the Afghanistan War, during the Iraq War, I think some of them, when we talk about Vietnam, don't know what we're talking about. The total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined was about 6700; I forget the exact number. The number of American soldiers killed in the Indochina War was well over 50,000. There were over 50,000 American wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan combined; there were over 300,000 in Indochina. Peak troop strength in Iraq was about 140,000. In Vietnam, it was about 540,000. It was a massive war. We didn't measure the deaths by one here and one there and a few others somewhere else, we measured them by 300 a week. Total deaths in that war were well over a million, perhaps as many as three million, plus millions more refugeed.
I have no desire to go back to that. I have no desire to go back to the '60s. But I do have a desire to have some aspects of the '60s brought forward to the 20-teens.
For example, one thing I miss, something I do miss about the '60s is color. Think of any cliche image about the '60s you can imagine and I'm willing to bet that one aspect of that image is lots of color. I miss that. I miss the explosions of colors and the poster art - like Peter Max, for example - the poster art with the very bold, dramatic colors. I miss being surrounded by color.Another thing I miss is the sense that music could matter. That music could matter. Not that all the music of the '60s mattered, there was a lot of schlock that was produced in the '60s. You know, sometimes you hear these shows about "the lost 45s" and you hear some of those songs and you think, "oh boy, that should have stayed lost." Remember "Laurie" by Dickie Lee? You know, "Last night at the dance I met Laurie." Remember that? What about "The Race is On" by Jack Jones? These are - wow.
And this also doesn't mean there isn't good music being produced now and it doesn't even mean there aren't protest songs being produced now. I just saw something recently about "the top 10 protest songs of the 21st century."
But the '60s had a sense, it was just a sense, that the music could matter, that music could make a difference, the music could change the world - we went a little over the top there, but still that was the sense that we had, that music could change the world. Music was more important to us. Music wasn't just entertainment, it wasn't just a way some people made a living. Music mattered.The other thing that I miss, and this is the real point here, I miss that sense of solidarity. Back in the '60s, we talked about "the Movement." And it went in all sorts of different directions, all kinds of different subjects, all kinds of different topics, all sorts of different tactics, but the point is, we all thought "this is one Movement, we are all part of it."
Where I grew up, we had a military base - Fort Monmouth, New Jersey - and we used to have picket lines there on occasion, you know, maybe 10 to 20 people. That didn't matter: We were the same as the 150,000 who were out in San Francisco. And what's more, we were the same as the United Farm Workers. We were the same as the striking teachers in some other city. It was all the same thing. And that is something I don't see now.
I've talked about the Solidarity Sing Along in Wisconsin. And this is great, it's wonderful, it's a great thing, and people support that and endorse it - but we don't feel it's us. It's them doing that - it's not us, it's separate. Every battle is separate, every battle is a local battle, that we don't perceive emotionally as part of a whole thing.This is one of the reasons, by the way, that the Occupy Movement had to be destroyed. Because when the Occupy Movement talked about the 99%, it hit that nerve: We are in this together, we are all linked and all of our different struggles do relate to each other.
Two reasons the Occupy Movement had to be destroyed. One, it was in your face. You couldn't ignore it. It was always there. The other reason, though, was the fact that all of these Occupy sites, they all thought of themselves as "Occupy." Whether you were in Boston or New York or Oshkosh or wherever, you know, you weren't just Oshkosh Occupy, you were Oshkosh Occupy. You were emotionally liked to all the others. Some local encampments focused on income inequality, some on student debt, some on foreclosures, some on supporting labor actions, some even on the arcane details of federal regulation of financial markets. It didn't matter. You were all part of the same thing. You were all Occupy. There was a solidarity there that I have not seen otherwise.
And I really, really miss that.We need to be back on the streets. Because the one thing we need - the one thing those big marches that people say "oh, that's passe, that's old-fashioned" and all that, well, nonsense. Because the thing those marches did was they gave you that sense of solidarity, they gave you that sense that "this is all one thing; we are all linked; we are all part of the same thing."
We need to be back on the streets - and I don't mean just once, I mean over and over and over again. This is not something that's going to be done just this year or the year after, this is year after year after year after year. We have to be out on the streets, locally and nationally, to say "we are all one Movement, we are all one consideration."
And that one consideration is, again, justice.
Sources:
http://icasualties.org/
http://vietnamwar-database.blogspot.com/2010/11/vietnam-war-casualties.html
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
http://tropicalglen.com/
http://tropicalglen.com/Jukebox/1965Top/Channel1965.html
http://flavorwire.com/143568/the-10-most-powerful-protest-songs-of-the-21st-century
Thursday, August 29, 2013
123.5 - 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington: Are we closer to the dream?
50th Anniversary of the March on Washington: Are we closer to the dream?
I'm recording this on August 28 - the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which featured Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. In fact, I'm doing it almost at the same hour, which is totally irrelevant except to lovers of truly meaningless trivia.
But doing this on the anniversary makes it appropriate as a time to, as we do on anniversaries, look both back and forward.
This past Saturday, August 24, tens of thousands of people - probably about 100,000, based on a comparison of the size of the 1963 rally with this one - about 100,000 people gathered in Washington, DC, to remember that march and that speech and to ask how far we've come toward reaching that dream. The only possible answer - the only legitimate answer - is "part way. Only part way."
The numbers tell the story - or at least their part of it.
For one thing, the rates of poverty and unemployment among blacks are still nearly double the overall rate. One reason for that is that blacks continue to get paid less than whites: In 2011, the median wage for black women was $13.13; for black men, it was $14.26; for white women, $15.89; for white men, $19.76.
The overall income gap has shrunk: The median income for African-American households is still a shamefully low 2/3 that of that of all American families - but that's up from 1963, when that median income was just over half the national median. But despite that smaller gap in income, the gap in the rate of home ownership has actually grown over that time.
Whites still live longer than blacks - but again the gap has shrunk from 6-1/2 to 8 years to 3-1/2 to 5 years. But they still live longer.
The gap in infant mortality rates between whites and non-whites has actually grown since 1963 - but the overall rate has come down so far that the rate among non-whites is only a quarter of what it was in 1963 and that present rate is about half the infant mortality rate among whites in 1963.
As compared to 1963, the percentage of blacks who have completed high school has more than tripled; the number of black undergrads is now more than 10 times what it was then; and the percentage who have completed 4 years of college is nearly 6 times what it was.
So yes, there have been gains. Yes, it's better than it was. Yes, we have made some progress toward that dream of measuring someone only by the content of their character. But having progressed does not mean having arrived. Martin Luther King III, MLK's oldest son, said it well on Saturday:
Or maybe you'd prefer more aggressive slaps, such as the one delivered to University of Texas student Bryan Davis on August 21, when he was struck by a bleach-filled balloon while walking in a neighborhood populated by students at the University, another in a string of bleach attacks, all aimed at black or Asian students, stretching back to last summer.
Yes, things have improved, at least in some ways. Yes, we have made at least some progress, painfully slow, painfully limited, progress considering we're talking about a span of 50 years, but progress.
But again, advancing does not mean arriving, improvement does not mean cure, progress is not a cause for passivity. We have to keep on keepin' on. We have to keep being, as I have before called us to be, steely-eyed dreamers, people who know the hard work that is to be done but who never forget the dream that work is for, a dream that I say can be brought down to one word: justice.
As a footnote to this, I want to mention one area where we can see genuine progress since 1963: The chief organizer of the march was an African-American named Bayard Rustin. He was also a mentor to King and he helped found both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. But at the time of the 1963 march, his role in organizing it was played down, even concealed. Because in addition to being an unbowing advocate for civil rights who was significantly responsible for introducing Gandhian nonviolence into the civil rights movement, Rustin was gay. And in 1963 that was something better left unsaid.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/march-in-washington-dc_n_3808713.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/black-unemployment_n_3624725.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/march-on-washington-infographic_n_3794682.html
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/african-american-family-restaurant-denied-us-service-after-diner-felt-threatened/
http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/08/23/blacks-asked-to-leave-south-carolina-restaurant-because-white-customer-felt-threatened-video/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/24/2523051/minority-students-university-texas-attacked-epidemic-bleach-bombs/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-cops-probe-race-related-bleach-bombs-article-1.1176611
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/march-on-washington-bayard-rustin/2678505/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
I'm recording this on August 28 - the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which featured Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. In fact, I'm doing it almost at the same hour, which is totally irrelevant except to lovers of truly meaningless trivia.
But doing this on the anniversary makes it appropriate as a time to, as we do on anniversaries, look both back and forward.
This past Saturday, August 24, tens of thousands of people - probably about 100,000, based on a comparison of the size of the 1963 rally with this one - about 100,000 people gathered in Washington, DC, to remember that march and that speech and to ask how far we've come toward reaching that dream. The only possible answer - the only legitimate answer - is "part way. Only part way."The numbers tell the story - or at least their part of it.
For one thing, the rates of poverty and unemployment among blacks are still nearly double the overall rate. One reason for that is that blacks continue to get paid less than whites: In 2011, the median wage for black women was $13.13; for black men, it was $14.26; for white women, $15.89; for white men, $19.76.
The overall income gap has shrunk: The median income for African-American households is still a shamefully low 2/3 that of that of all American families - but that's up from 1963, when that median income was just over half the national median. But despite that smaller gap in income, the gap in the rate of home ownership has actually grown over that time.
Whites still live longer than blacks - but again the gap has shrunk from 6-1/2 to 8 years to 3-1/2 to 5 years. But they still live longer.
The gap in infant mortality rates between whites and non-whites has actually grown since 1963 - but the overall rate has come down so far that the rate among non-whites is only a quarter of what it was in 1963 and that present rate is about half the infant mortality rate among whites in 1963.
As compared to 1963, the percentage of blacks who have completed high school has more than tripled; the number of black undergrads is now more than 10 times what it was then; and the percentage who have completed 4 years of college is nearly 6 times what it was.So yes, there have been gains. Yes, it's better than it was. Yes, we have made some progress toward that dream of measuring someone only by the content of their character. But having progressed does not mean having arrived. Martin Luther King III, MLK's oldest son, said it well on Saturday:
This is not the time for nostalgic commemoration. Nor is this the time for self-congratulatory celebration. The task is not done. The journey is not complete. We can and we must do more.Very true. Especially when you consider the part of the story the numbers don't tell, and I don't even mean big things like the Trayvon Martin case, I mean the everyday slaps and slams, the everyday reminders that if you are African-American, you are still "other" in the eyes of too many. Such as the African-American family who recently went to a restaurant in Charleston, SC for a going-away party and after waiting two hours to get in, was almost immediately told to leave by the manager because one - count it, one - white woman customer said she felt "threatened" by the group.
Or maybe you'd prefer more aggressive slaps, such as the one delivered to University of Texas student Bryan Davis on August 21, when he was struck by a bleach-filled balloon while walking in a neighborhood populated by students at the University, another in a string of bleach attacks, all aimed at black or Asian students, stretching back to last summer.
Yes, things have improved, at least in some ways. Yes, we have made at least some progress, painfully slow, painfully limited, progress considering we're talking about a span of 50 years, but progress.
But again, advancing does not mean arriving, improvement does not mean cure, progress is not a cause for passivity. We have to keep on keepin' on. We have to keep being, as I have before called us to be, steely-eyed dreamers, people who know the hard work that is to be done but who never forget the dream that work is for, a dream that I say can be brought down to one word: justice.As a footnote to this, I want to mention one area where we can see genuine progress since 1963: The chief organizer of the march was an African-American named Bayard Rustin. He was also a mentor to King and he helped found both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. But at the time of the 1963 march, his role in organizing it was played down, even concealed. Because in addition to being an unbowing advocate for civil rights who was significantly responsible for introducing Gandhian nonviolence into the civil rights movement, Rustin was gay. And in 1963 that was something better left unsaid.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/march-in-washington-dc_n_3808713.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/black-unemployment_n_3624725.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/march-on-washington-infographic_n_3794682.html
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/african-american-family-restaurant-denied-us-service-after-diner-felt-threatened/
http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/08/23/blacks-asked-to-leave-south-carolina-restaurant-because-white-customer-felt-threatened-video/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/24/2523051/minority-students-university-texas-attacked-epidemic-bleach-bombs/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-cops-probe-race-related-bleach-bombs-article-1.1176611
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/march-on-washington-bayard-rustin/2678505/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
123.4 - Outrage of the Week: James Clapper tapped to establish panel to examine spying program
Outrage of the Week: James Clapper tapped to establish panel to examine spying program
So I haven't talked much about the monstrous policies and practices of the NSA in spying on Americans' phone calls, email, and internet use, nor on how the Obama gang has aided, abetted, advanced, and covered for the spooks.
I haven't largely because there has been so much about it, so much information, more revelations that anyone can keep up with, so many so fast that for the first time since 9/11, Americans are saying in polls that privacy concerns outweigh "fighting terrorism," that I am certain you have heard about it and while you may not know a lot of the details, you surely are aware of the overall thrust.
But this bit I have to tell you about. It’s the Outrage of the Week.
Just over a week ago, President Obama announced that he intended to arrange for the creation of an "independent group" of "outside experts" to assess and review the nation's intelligence gathering and surveillance technologies and programs.
And who has he picked to establish the group, to provide it with a formal existence? Who is the person who will help to, in the words of the Amazing Mr. O, "maintain the trust of the people" that there is "no abuse?"
Why, it's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper - the man who outright lied to Congress, the man who outright denied that the NSA collected any data on Americans, the man who outright lied to Congress about it, and who, when he was caught out, claimed he had "responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner." Which was another lie because the most truthful answer would have been to say "Yes, we do spy on Americans on American soil." Because you did and you do and you do it on a mind-bogglingly massive scale.
But no, really, he later insisted to Andrea Mitchell, no, the agency doesn't collect information about Americans - and he could say that because, he told her, he had his own definition of the word "collection" and no matter how much information they gather, store, collate, and organize, no matter how much they soak up, none of that, according to him, has been "collected" until and unless some agent actually looks at some specific record.
Oh, well, that makes it all better.
The NSA was quick to emphasize that Clapper will not be in charge of this group, he won't even be on it. The members will be picked by the White House, they say, apparently, we're supposed to think, without Clapper's input. He will merely consult with the group and assist it when it needs access to classified information or security clearances.
Which means the man who lied to Congress about the existence of domestic spying is the man who will control the access to classified information which this group would need to actually examine the issue of domestic spying. Which takes on added significance when you consider that Clapper's own statement on the formation of the group refers to "national security," "advancing our foreign policy," and "the risk of unauthorized disclosure" but does not mention the issue of abuses.
The whole spying is itself an enormous outrage itself, but to have James Clapper anywhere near any group that's supposed to review the whole apparatus of spying with any hope of, in Obama's words "maintaining the trust of the people" that there is "no abuse" is an outrage within an outrage - and frankly just flat out offensive to boot.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/james-clapper_n_3748431.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html
So I haven't talked much about the monstrous policies and practices of the NSA in spying on Americans' phone calls, email, and internet use, nor on how the Obama gang has aided, abetted, advanced, and covered for the spooks.I haven't largely because there has been so much about it, so much information, more revelations that anyone can keep up with, so many so fast that for the first time since 9/11, Americans are saying in polls that privacy concerns outweigh "fighting terrorism," that I am certain you have heard about it and while you may not know a lot of the details, you surely are aware of the overall thrust.
But this bit I have to tell you about. It’s the Outrage of the Week.
Just over a week ago, President Obama announced that he intended to arrange for the creation of an "independent group" of "outside experts" to assess and review the nation's intelligence gathering and surveillance technologies and programs.
And who has he picked to establish the group, to provide it with a formal existence? Who is the person who will help to, in the words of the Amazing Mr. O, "maintain the trust of the people" that there is "no abuse?"
Why, it's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper - the man who outright lied to Congress, the man who outright denied that the NSA collected any data on Americans, the man who outright lied to Congress about it, and who, when he was caught out, claimed he had "responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner." Which was another lie because the most truthful answer would have been to say "Yes, we do spy on Americans on American soil." Because you did and you do and you do it on a mind-bogglingly massive scale.
But no, really, he later insisted to Andrea Mitchell, no, the agency doesn't collect information about Americans - and he could say that because, he told her, he had his own definition of the word "collection" and no matter how much information they gather, store, collate, and organize, no matter how much they soak up, none of that, according to him, has been "collected" until and unless some agent actually looks at some specific record.
Oh, well, that makes it all better.
The NSA was quick to emphasize that Clapper will not be in charge of this group, he won't even be on it. The members will be picked by the White House, they say, apparently, we're supposed to think, without Clapper's input. He will merely consult with the group and assist it when it needs access to classified information or security clearances.Which means the man who lied to Congress about the existence of domestic spying is the man who will control the access to classified information which this group would need to actually examine the issue of domestic spying. Which takes on added significance when you consider that Clapper's own statement on the formation of the group refers to "national security," "advancing our foreign policy," and "the risk of unauthorized disclosure" but does not mention the issue of abuses.
The whole spying is itself an enormous outrage itself, but to have James Clapper anywhere near any group that's supposed to review the whole apparatus of spying with any hope of, in Obama's words "maintaining the trust of the people" that there is "no abuse" is an outrage within an outrage - and frankly just flat out offensive to boot.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/james-clapper_n_3748431.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html
123.3 - Clown Award: Colorado state Sen. Vicki Marble
Clown Award: Colorado state Sen. Vicki Marble
Now for one of our regular features, the Clown Award, given for meritorious stupidity.
This week to give away the big red nose we must go to the great state of Colorado where, on August 21, Colorado state Sen. Vicki Marble suggested that high poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics are connected to diets that include fried chicken and barbecue.
After declaring how she "loves" the barbecue chicken she had down South, she went on to say that, quoting,
Oh, yeah, them Mexicans and them blacks, they loves them some fried chicken and barbecue, doncha know.
What really made this stand out for its bigoted stupidity is that she said this during a meeting of the state legislature's Economic Opportunity Poverty Reduction Task Force, aimed at, at least in theory, finding ways to reduce poverty by expanding economic opportunities for the poor. Committee members were being presented with statistics about racial and ethnic disparities in poverty - and she proceeded to make it about eating chicken.
On the upside, another member of the committee later said “there was an audible gasp in the room” and Marble got immediate pushback from other members, one of who called the comments "racist" and "insensitive."
But apparently wanting to nail down her claim to the clown award, Marble later released a statement saying "My comments were not meant to be disparaging to any community. I am saddened they were taken in that regard." In other words, "I didn't do anything wrong. I'm just sad that you just can't understand - which makes me the sadly misunderstood victim here."
The Denver Post wasn't taken in. They called her original remarks "finger-lickin' stupid" and of her later statement about how "sad" she was, it said "We are saddened a state lawmaker can be this ignorant in 2013."
Ignorant - and a clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/vicki-marble-poverty-chicken_n_3794679.html
http://kdvr.com/2013/08/21/sparks-fly-after-sen-marbles-fried-chicken-comment-in-poverty-hearing/
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_23917367/sen-vicki-marbles-ignorance
Now for one of our regular features, the Clown Award, given for meritorious stupidity.This week to give away the big red nose we must go to the great state of Colorado where, on August 21, Colorado state Sen. Vicki Marble suggested that high poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics are connected to diets that include fried chicken and barbecue.
After declaring how she "loves" the barbecue chicken she had down South, she went on to say that, quoting,
The Mexican diet in Mexico with all of the fresh vegetables, and you go down there and they are much thinner than they are up here. They’ve changed their diet. I’ve read studies on that. Those things aren't good for you.
Oh, yeah, them Mexicans and them blacks, they loves them some fried chicken and barbecue, doncha know.
What really made this stand out for its bigoted stupidity is that she said this during a meeting of the state legislature's Economic Opportunity Poverty Reduction Task Force, aimed at, at least in theory, finding ways to reduce poverty by expanding economic opportunities for the poor. Committee members were being presented with statistics about racial and ethnic disparities in poverty - and she proceeded to make it about eating chicken.
On the upside, another member of the committee later said “there was an audible gasp in the room” and Marble got immediate pushback from other members, one of who called the comments "racist" and "insensitive."
But apparently wanting to nail down her claim to the clown award, Marble later released a statement saying "My comments were not meant to be disparaging to any community. I am saddened they were taken in that regard." In other words, "I didn't do anything wrong. I'm just sad that you just can't understand - which makes me the sadly misunderstood victim here."
The Denver Post wasn't taken in. They called her original remarks "finger-lickin' stupid" and of her later statement about how "sad" she was, it said "We are saddened a state lawmaker can be this ignorant in 2013."
Ignorant - and a clown.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/vicki-marble-poverty-chicken_n_3794679.html
http://kdvr.com/2013/08/21/sparks-fly-after-sen-marbles-fried-chicken-comment-in-poverty-hearing/
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_23917367/sen-vicki-marbles-ignorance
123.2 - Good News #2: Same-sex marriage rights spreading in New Mexico
Good News #2: Same-sex marriage rights spreading in New Mexico
The other bit of good news is that something a bit unusual is going on in New Mexico.
Judge Alan Malott of New Mexico's Second Judicial District ruled on August 26 that state law does not prohibit marriage between same-sex couples and ordered the Bernalillo County clerk to issue marriage licenses.
The ruling concerns a lawsuit filed on behalf of three lesbian couples who said the state constitution has no explicit ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples.
In his ruling, Malott said
So that's Bernalillo County. Meanwhile, just four days earlier, as a result of a lawsuit filed by two Santa Fe men, District Judge Sarah Singleton issued an order to Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples there, also finding that state law does not prohibit same-sex marriage.
And earlier in that same week, Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins began issuing licenses to same-sex couples after he said the state law doesn't prohibit it.
It appears that marriage justice is spreading in New Mexico - county by county.
After the Doña Ana clerk began issuing licenses, some Republican lawmakers said they would file a lawsuit because, they said, county clerks cannot make law. But of course, the answer is, the clerk is not making law, he's refusing to enforce a law which doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, neither Republican Gov. Susana Martinez nor Democratic Attorney General Gary King, who plans to run for governor next year, seem inclined to step in one way or the other - which is itself good news because how long ago would there have been even a question of a political risk in opposing same-sex marriage rights?
Sources:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234039/-Second-New-Mexico-judge-rules-that-counties-must-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples
http://livewire.koat.com/Event/Live_Video_Couples_sue_for_same-sex_marriage_rights#ixzz2d7JkYJ6O
The other bit of good news is that something a bit unusual is going on in New Mexico.Judge Alan Malott of New Mexico's Second Judicial District ruled on August 26 that state law does not prohibit marriage between same-sex couples and ordered the Bernalillo County clerk to issue marriage licenses.
The ruling concerns a lawsuit filed on behalf of three lesbian couples who said the state constitution has no explicit ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples.
In his ruling, Malott said
Gay and lesbian citizens of New Mexico have endured a long history of discrimination. Denial of the right to marry continues this unfortunate and intolerable pattern.Interestingly, he also refused to stay his order, finding there is "no benefit to the parties or the public interest" in waiting for the outcome of "a lengthy path of litigation" while basic rights "are being compromised or denied on a daily basis."
So that's Bernalillo County. Meanwhile, just four days earlier, as a result of a lawsuit filed by two Santa Fe men, District Judge Sarah Singleton issued an order to Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples there, also finding that state law does not prohibit same-sex marriage.And earlier in that same week, Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins began issuing licenses to same-sex couples after he said the state law doesn't prohibit it.
It appears that marriage justice is spreading in New Mexico - county by county.
After the Doña Ana clerk began issuing licenses, some Republican lawmakers said they would file a lawsuit because, they said, county clerks cannot make law. But of course, the answer is, the clerk is not making law, he's refusing to enforce a law which doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, neither Republican Gov. Susana Martinez nor Democratic Attorney General Gary King, who plans to run for governor next year, seem inclined to step in one way or the other - which is itself good news because how long ago would there have been even a question of a political risk in opposing same-sex marriage rights?
Sources:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234039/-Second-New-Mexico-judge-rules-that-counties-must-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples
http://livewire.koat.com/Event/Live_Video_Couples_sue_for_same-sex_marriage_rights#ixzz2d7JkYJ6O
123.1 - Good News #1: Arizona fails to bar Planned Parenthood from Medicaid program
Good News #1: Arizona fails to bar Planned Parenthood from Medicaid program
So we start the week, as I always do when I can, with good news. Two bits of good news, in fact, both from the southwest US.
First, in Arizona.
Last year, the state passed a law which would prohibit Medicaid patients from receiving any covered services at clinics that also provide abortion care. The law was clearly and directly aimed at Planned Parenthood. I still find it astonishing that Planned Parenthood - I mean, Planned Parenthood? - is now supposed to be a wildly controversial organization. It just shows how far to the wacko right some of our state legislatures have gone.
In response to this law, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU sued - and in February, a federal district court agreed,granting a summary judgment in favor of a permanent injunction.
The good news here is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that decision.
Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said the issue comes down to a simple fact: Federal law allows those enrolled in Medicaid to get the services from any qualified provider.
The state tried to claim that, well yeah, that's true, but the state is free to decide who is “qualified.” That argument got short shrift, considering that the federal law defines "qualified" as a provider “qualified to perform the service or services required.” Since the state has never claimed that Planned Parenthood staff doctors are unqualified to perform gynecological exams or STD testing, and in fact said that Planned Parenthood could continue to participate in the state's Medicaid program if it stopped providing abortions, the state's attempt at a defense of the law was - Judge Berzon didn't say this, obviously, but the meaning is clear enough - that defense was lame.
This was actually the second win for Planned Parenthood in the last month, as a similar law in Indiana got hit with a permanent injunction the end of July - the day after the state conceded in a settlement with Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky that the state cannot violate Medicaid’s “freedom of choice” provision.
Indiana hasn't given up yet, however: First, you need to know of Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486. It's the so-called "abortion pill," the "morning after pill," which provides a non-surgical means of providing abortion in the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy. Well, a new amendment to Indiana state law requires that any facility which provides Mifepristone must meet the same standards as clinics that offer surgical procedures, including separate procedure, recovery, and scrub rooms - even if there are no surgical procedures performed there. This amendment, it turns out, applies to precisely one facility: a Planned Parenthood clinic in Lafayette.
But Planned Parenthood and the ACLU haven't given up, either. They have filed suit, saying the amendments "are not reasonably related to any legitimate purpose," "irrationally and invidiously discriminate against" Planned Parenthood and impose "a significant and unnecessary burden" on the women affected.
So the fight goes on.
Sources:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/17/pro-choice-groups-file-lawsuit-over-arizona-law-defunding-planned-parenthood/
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/21/12-17558%20web.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/arizona-planned-parenthood_n_3804487.html
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/capitol_media_services/article_96a86f52-0b6e-11e3-8bc5-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130730/NEWS10/307300111/Planned-Parenthood-Indiana-reach-agreement-funding?gcheck=1
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mifepristone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/planned-parenthood-indiana-abortion-law_n_3805436.html?utm_hp_ref=huffpolitics-blog
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/aclu-and-planned-parenthood-file-anti-discrimination-lawsuit-against-indiana
So we start the week, as I always do when I can, with good news. Two bits of good news, in fact, both from the southwest US.First, in Arizona.
Last year, the state passed a law which would prohibit Medicaid patients from receiving any covered services at clinics that also provide abortion care. The law was clearly and directly aimed at Planned Parenthood. I still find it astonishing that Planned Parenthood - I mean, Planned Parenthood? - is now supposed to be a wildly controversial organization. It just shows how far to the wacko right some of our state legislatures have gone.
In response to this law, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU sued - and in February, a federal district court agreed,granting a summary judgment in favor of a permanent injunction.
The good news here is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that decision.
Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said the issue comes down to a simple fact: Federal law allows those enrolled in Medicaid to get the services from any qualified provider.
The state tried to claim that, well yeah, that's true, but the state is free to decide who is “qualified.” That argument got short shrift, considering that the federal law defines "qualified" as a provider “qualified to perform the service or services required.” Since the state has never claimed that Planned Parenthood staff doctors are unqualified to perform gynecological exams or STD testing, and in fact said that Planned Parenthood could continue to participate in the state's Medicaid program if it stopped providing abortions, the state's attempt at a defense of the law was - Judge Berzon didn't say this, obviously, but the meaning is clear enough - that defense was lame.
This was actually the second win for Planned Parenthood in the last month, as a similar law in Indiana got hit with a permanent injunction the end of July - the day after the state conceded in a settlement with Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky that the state cannot violate Medicaid’s “freedom of choice” provision.Indiana hasn't given up yet, however: First, you need to know of Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486. It's the so-called "abortion pill," the "morning after pill," which provides a non-surgical means of providing abortion in the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy. Well, a new amendment to Indiana state law requires that any facility which provides Mifepristone must meet the same standards as clinics that offer surgical procedures, including separate procedure, recovery, and scrub rooms - even if there are no surgical procedures performed there. This amendment, it turns out, applies to precisely one facility: a Planned Parenthood clinic in Lafayette.
But Planned Parenthood and the ACLU haven't given up, either. They have filed suit, saying the amendments "are not reasonably related to any legitimate purpose," "irrationally and invidiously discriminate against" Planned Parenthood and impose "a significant and unnecessary burden" on the women affected.
So the fight goes on.
Sources:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/17/pro-choice-groups-file-lawsuit-over-arizona-law-defunding-planned-parenthood/
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/21/12-17558%20web.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/arizona-planned-parenthood_n_3804487.html
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/capitol_media_services/article_96a86f52-0b6e-11e3-8bc5-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130730/NEWS10/307300111/Planned-Parenthood-Indiana-reach-agreement-funding?gcheck=1
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mifepristone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/planned-parenthood-indiana-abortion-law_n_3805436.html?utm_hp_ref=huffpolitics-blog
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/aclu-and-planned-parenthood-file-anti-discrimination-lawsuit-against-indiana
Left Side of the Aisle #123
Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of August 29 - September 4, 2013
This week:
Good News #1: Arizona fails to bar Planned Parenthood from Medicaid program
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/17/pro-choice-groups-file-lawsuit-over-arizona-law-defunding-planned-parenthood/
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/21/12-17558%20web.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/arizona-planned-parenthood_n_3804487.html
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/capitol_media_services/article_96a86f52-0b6e-11e3-8bc5-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130730/NEWS10/307300111/Planned-Parenthood-Indiana-reach-agreement-funding?gcheck=1
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mifepristone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/planned-parenthood-indiana-abortion-law_n_3805436.html?utm_hp_ref=huffpolitics-blog
https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/aclu-and-planned-parenthood-file-anti-discrimination-lawsuit-against-indiana
Good News #2: Same-sex marriage right spreading in New Mexico
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234039/-Second-New-Mexico-judge-rules-that-counties-must-issue-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples
http://livewire.koat.com/Event/Live_Video_Couples_sue_for_same-sex_marriage_rights#ixzz2d7JkYJ6O
Clown Award: Colorado state Sen. Vicki Marble
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/vicki-marble-poverty-chicken_n_3794679.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://kdvr.com/2013/08/21/sparks-fly-after-sen-marbles-fried-chicken-comment-in-poverty-hearing/
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_23917367/sen-vicki-marbles-ignorance
Outrage of the Week: James Clapper tapped to establish panel to examine spying program
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/james-clapper_n_3748431.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html
50th Anniversary of the March on Washington: Are we closer to the dream?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/march-in-washington-dc_n_3808713.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/black-unemployment_n_3624725.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/march-on-washington-infographic_n_3794682.html
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/african-american-family-restaurant-denied-us-service-after-diner-felt-threatened/
http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/08/23/blacks-asked-to-leave-south-carolina-restaurant-because-white-customer-felt-threatened-video/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/24/2523051/minority-students-university-texas-attacked-epidemic-bleach-bombs/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-cops-probe-race-related-bleach-bombs-article-1.1176611
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/march-on-washington-bayard-rustin/2678505/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
What the world needs now is some of the '60s
http://tropicalglen.com/
http://tropicalglen.com/Jukebox/1965Top/Channel1965.html
http://flavorwire.com/143568/the-10-most-powerful-protest-songs-of-the-21st-century
Friday, August 23, 2013
Weekly reminder
As of August 20, at least 7,397 people had been killed by gunfire in the US since Newtown, at least 75 of them in Massachusetts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
