Waiting for the Cease and Desist Order

The only good thing about being an obscure blog is that I can probably get away with things that others would be busted for, like posting copywrited material without paying for rights.

Having said that, my rationale is that I have been wanting to comment on the pathetic bottom that the McCain campaign has hit lately in their attacks on Obama, but it has gotten so bad that even some in the MSM are actually commenting on it, and I have a busy life.

So instead, I'm going to reprint a Calvin Trillin ditty from almost two years ago, when we got our first glimpse of the depths McCain was willing to sink to. And Trillin nails it. Though he was commenting on a long-forgotten whoring on McCain's part, it seems even more prescient today:

On John McCain's Willingness to Speak at Jerry Falwell's University

May 25, 2006

McCain was his own man, that's what was thought--
A man who spoke his mind, a man who'd fought
A war and suffered mightily, in fact,
But toughed it out. His honor was intact.
On certain issues, he would hold his ground
No matter where the party line was found.
This man seemed strong and fiercely independent,
And that's what caused his star to be ascendant.
As was his way, McCain displayed no fears
Replying to those Carolina smears."
An agent of intolerance" was what
He labeled Falwell, Karl Rove's favorite nut.
But now, discerning where his future lies,
He kowtows to this nut he must despise.
Yes, presidential fever's got him now.
To old McCain, alas, we must say ciao.
That independent man is gone for good.
What torture couldn't do ambition could.

By Calvin Trillin

This article appeared in the June 12, 2006 edition of The Nation.

Despicable

I have no words left that can adequately describe the depravity of the Bush administration. Everytime I think I can no longer be shocked, I am.

This is a must read from Kevin Drum, digging deeper into Seymour Hirsch's reporting on how intent Cheney is on starting a war with Iran. So intent that there was at least some consideration given to having U.S. soldiers kill other U.S. soldiers (themselves masquerading as Iranian gunboats) in order to gain U.S. public support for a strike. And the fact that they didn't go through with it is beside the point. That their minds could even conceive of it and discuss it as a plausible option tells us everything we need to know about how important it is that these people be held to some kind of accountability. They simply must not be allowed to populate the government ever again.

This Is Rich

It seems that some of our fearless leaders are outraged – outraged I tell you! – about the fact that China plans to do during the Olympics what they have enabled the Bush administration to do EVERY DAY, namely monitor the electronic and telecommunications of people attending the Beijing Olympics.

Earlier this year, the U.S. State Department issued a fact sheet warning travelers attending the Olympic games that "they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public or private locations" in China.

I must assume that the equivalent departments in other countries have already warned their citizens that they should make the same assumption when they are in the United States.

Great and Infamous Quotes

Have you noticed the latest feature? Look for it to your right.

Each week, this blog will feature at least one quote that is memorable. Sometimes I have to go looking for something appropriate. Sometimes one just drops into my lap.

Today was just such a day, and this one was so good I just added it to the original quote I had selected.

It comes from David Suskind's latest book, which appears to be full of "jaw dropping" information about Bush's reaction to the fateful warning that predicted the 911 tragedy -- right before he went fishing.

Department of INJustice

The big new today was the release of a report from the Department of Justice that – shock and surprise – concluded that several Bush appointees at the Department broke the law by favoring political considerations over qualifications in their hiring decisions.

At first blush, one’s reaction is “Duh… like we haven’t known this for awhile?" And that’s pretty much the way the MSM is covering it. But then Kevin Drum digs out this nugget about one of the first of Monica Goodling’s vetoes:

He was an experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General's Award
for Exceptional Service....Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the counterterrorism detail.

Sounds like a great guy. But there was a problem:

The candidate's wife was a prominent local Democrat elected official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran several Democratic congressional campaigns....Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely on the basis of his wife's political party affiliation.

This from an Administration that is/was willing to abrogate the constitution because it was SO IMPORTANT to pursue the war on terror….. unless, of course, it meant hiring someone whose wife was an active Democrat.

Obama in Germany

Let's see.......... Shall we elect another Republican whose gaffes embarass us all around the world? Or might it be nice for a change to have a President who makes us proud?

If you haven't seen more than the clips the networks chose to air, set aside the next 25 minutes to listen to Obama in Germany.

Weekend Baby Posting

Some bloggers have "Friday Cat Blogging", Aravosis has "orchid postings"...each a way to let readers know they are taking the day off.

For the next several weeks, you may expect weekend "my baby" postings, because being Nana is more important to me than anything I can do here.

Pathetic WATB

For your weekend amusement, here is a Greatest Hits list of all the crap the McCain campaign and the Repukes have leveled against Barack in the last week:

First of all, look for the themes in all the attacks against Obama. As usual, the Republicans bank on the stupidity of the American people (always a safe bet, I’m afraid) to let them have it both ways. It’s the old game of “heads I win; tails you lose”.

On Friday’s News Hour, for example, David Brooks, whose job of carrying water for the Republicans while continuing to masquerade as someone who is intellectually honest gets harder every day, criticized Obama for the lofty themes of his speech. Yet imagine if Barack had made a substantive policy speech…… while still a candidate……… on foreign shores. The Repukes would have had a field day.

And “Presumptuous” is the new politically-correct term for “uppity”.

McCain, who once called the media “his base” tantrums like a petulant first child about the new baby getting too much attention.

But this is closer to the truth. Not to mention this summary.

Playing “gotcha” when Obama actually pays attention to the rules, and to the suggestion from the Defense Department that his visit to the troops was an inappropriate campaign appearance.

And even Barack’s basketball game comes in for a hit.

These people are pathetic. Only in a nation full of the stupidest people in the world could this be effective. Are we really that?

God forbid we might elect a President that the rest of the world actually had some respect for.

Some Pigs are More Equal that Others

$25 Billion.



Suuuuckerrrrrrrrs!

Hear No Evil

It seems to me that two essential elements constitute a great democracy: The primacy of the rule of law and “free and fair” elections as an expression of the will of the people. Here in the United States, we are fond of saying that we are “the greatest democracy in the world” – in spite of the fact that there is growing evidence that our country is beginning to routinely fail to achieve either of these standards.

Is it the fault of the media? Or is it the fault of the American people that we simply refuse to acknowledge and react to this?

I am coming to believe that the fault is ours, and that the media are just like the rest of us in that way: We simply do not want the facts to contradict the lovely story we tell ourselves about ourselves.

Exhibit 1

I am in awe of the ability of Republicans to continue to harp upon “the rule of law” while consistently – through four of the last five Republican administrations – pardoning the highest-level lawbreakers. Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa, for god’s sake, who then went on to work on his re-election. (Sadly, Nixon’s own criminality now pails compared to that of Bush the Boy.) And although Nixon suffered impeachment hearings and a forced resignation for his crimes, he was saved from the rule of law by Ford’s pardon, which Ford – with a straight face – justified by claiming that Nixon would not be able to receive a fair trial in this country! Conventional wisdom says that the country has decided it was the right thing to do.

Bush the First pardoned all the Iran-Contra criminals from the Reagan administration, which – get this – also served to ensure that his own involvement in their actions was never explored, and we have already watched while the Boy Bush pardoned Scooter Libby for revealing classified information for political purposes.

Now get ready for some more wholesale pardoning as Bush prepares a getaway car for the many lawbreakers in his administration…It will be the most blatant expression for the rule of law in the nation’s history. And where is the media? Egging it on.

And thus we have arrived at a place where it is considered conventional wisdom that the American people are better off NOT knowing the full criminal corruption of their leaders.

Exhibit 2

The entire nation watched as the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to Bush – and did nothing. Instead the media and political class joined together to tell Gore to quit whining and move on.

So when the Republican Secretary of State manipulated voting in Ohio to produce a second victory for the Cowboy in Chief, we didn’t even blink.

Now fresh evidence has emerged – from a Republican – that the Republicans have been manipulating elections as far back as 2002. Have you heard a single story about this in the MSM?


Is this a conspiracy? I don’t think so. It is simply the collective behavior of people who willfully turn away from the truth because the truth is too painful. I have worked in social services for almost 25 years, and have seen the wreckage of dysfunctional families. The US electorate is one big dysfunctional family, and “see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil” (unless against Democrats) is our mantra.

The Lunatic Fringe

Wheeeeeeeeee! The wingnuts are busy scrambling for a way to take down Obama, and they just get weirder and weirder. The latest claim is that his birth certificate if forged, forged, I tell you -- and he wasn't born in Hawaii!

Somebody needs to get a hobby.

"Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president ."

There’s more!

Consider this your laugh for the day.

One last insult before they leave

The Bush Administration has drafted new rules that would force Planned Parenthood and other health care providers to hire people who disagree with their most basic mission. From Nancy Pelosi’s blog:

While current law allows health care providers and professionals to refuse to provide abortions based on their religious beliefs, this provision would threaten the funding of organizations and health facilities if they do not hire people who would refuse to provide birth control and defines abortion so broadly that it would include many types of birth control, including oral contraception.

So as they prepare to bring their “scorched earth” strategy vis-à-vis the federal government to a close, the Bushies want to ensure that family planning organizations are forced to hire some percentage of the loonies who picket them. Great idea.

I think I’ll put on my witchiest outfit and see if they will hire me at the local Catholic Archdiocese.

No Shame

All this time, as the Republicans have manipulated 911 to enter into adventures in democracy (a re-packaged pursuit of the free flow of oil,) the Democrats have refused to use the most obvious political weapon at their disposal.

911 happened on Republican watch. “Daddy” let us down. They controlled all three branches of the government and they let it happen.

Oh sure, they can and do whine that Clinton set them up, but it doesn’t change that essential fact that it happened on their watch. Democrats are, of course too essentially decent to call them on it – even as Republicans continue to threaten to hammer us on what they define as national security.

Maybe we should.

Suckers to the Rescue

As a writer, one of the things I like to explore is the way that the Republicans, marketing geniuses that they are, have so-often succeeded in framing and restricting the pubic discourse by controlling the language we use. It’s the relationship between language and social psychology that fascinates me.

The news of the last three days has been all about the crisis in the financial markets. Suddenly administration officials are having to work weekends trying to forestall a complete financial meltdown, triggered by the crisis in the mortgage market, as presumably evidenced by the fall in stock prices for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I am not an economist. But first when U.S. taxpayers were put on the hook to bail out Bear Stearns, and now with the latest proposals to rescue Fannie and Freddie, we see the full corruption of our current system at play.

David Wessel of The Wall Street Journal adopted the language of the right when he said on NPR yesterday that Congress would “stay away from the extremes of privatization or nationalization”. [emphasis added]

That’s how the Republicans like it: they take all the profit during times of market exuberance and success, and then when the excesses of capitalism finally take the entire thing off the rail, the U.S. taxpayer is expected to step in to assume the loss because the entire greedy enterprise has woven itself so deeply into the fabric of our economy that it cannot be allowed to fail.

Or so we are told.

When taxpayers were forced to assume the risks involved with bailing out Bear Stearns, we allowed the worst kind of corporate speculative and fraudulent behavior to evade the natural market consequences of its own behavior. What message was sent? You can be as irresponsible as you like in the pursuit of profit but if you do it on a big enough scale you can put the taxpayer on the hook in your stead.

We are doing this again with Fannie and Freddie, and you and I should be letting out a howl. Why is it out of the question to fully privatize Fannie and Freddie? Because Republicans call that an extreme solution? Fannie and Freddie have spent enormous amounts of money lobbying Congress to avoid any kind of regulation that might have prevented this from happening. Why NOT let their stockholders suffer the consequences?

Because, we are told, Fannie and Freddie hold more than half of all U.S. mortgages.

Then let’s nationalize them. Just because conservatives have made the words “socialized” and “nationalized” into dirty obscenities? If the government if going to buy shares, let’s buy them all – and not at some inflated price that cushions the blow for shareholders, but at their true worth which, today, is very little. Sure it would cost a fortune, but at least when it was done the taxpayer might get to realize some of the profits that have historically gone to provide some of the most obscene executive compensation on Wall Street.

Which bring us to the word the word of the day:

Oligarchy

Or would you prefer Plutocracy?

At first it appeared that this was going to be pushed through so quickly that there was no way to stop it, but apparently I am not the only one howling. Consideration of the proposals has been delayed, which gives you the chance to contact your Congressional representatives and tell them “No.” Nationalize it if necessary, but quit using us to bail out corporations and save them from their own mismanagement.

Watched

Are you on the list?

In some ways, this million-person watch list is the perfect symbol for an
administration whose strategy in fighting terrorism has always revolved around making everyone a suspect -- from data mining to ID cards to see-through body scanners. It is an approach based around trying to pick a one-in-a-billion terrorist out of the population, rather than doing the only thing that has ever really worked to stop attacks: following up competently on known terrorists and known leads and working outward from there to go directly to the terrorists.

All torture all the time

Jane Mayer’s new book, The Dark Side, is being previewed by the NY Times, and the most disturbing revelation is that the International Red Cross warned the C.I.A. over a year ago that the techniques being used were “categorically” torture, and that they could leave authorizing officials of the U.S. Government subject to prosecution in the International Courts.

A friend tipped me off to this clip from Countdown (with Rachel Maddow, not Olbermann, which is an improvement IMHO).

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley, whose money quote is at the end of a long clip:

“I never thought in my lifetime that we would say that, that we’ve become like Serbia, where an international tribunal has to come in to force us to apply the rule of law.

And I never thought I would see a Congress, a Democratic-led Congress, refuse to take actions, even with the pre-eminent institution of the Red Cross saying, this clearly is torture, and torture is a war crime, they are still refusing to take meaningful action.

So we’ve come to this ignoble moment, where we could be forced into a tribunal, and forced to face the rule of law that we have refused to apply to ourselves.”

The entire clip is below, but before you go, the next time you talk to someone who defends the use of torture with a “whatever it takes” defense, you can share with them a little known fact about this disaster in Iraq: It was justified with the use of false information provided under torture. Via Frank Rich today in the NYTimes, also a commentary on this book:

The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.”

That “something” was crucial in sending us into the quagmire that, five years later, has empowered Iran and compromised our ability to counter the very terrorists that torture was supposed to thwart.

And am I the only one who missed this last month?

The clip:

Another Media Failure

I spent literally hours of time looking for this information during the FISA battle, but it was nowhere to be found in the MSM. Nor did I feel qualified to conduct my own Opensource analysis. Thankfully, there are still journalists left, they're just on the web:

One for the History Books

I'm sure you've been waiting with your breath held for my reaction to the FISA sellout, but my daughters came for an unexpected visit and my priorities were elsewhere. I guess that's why I'll never get paid for this!

I actually started the post but didn't have time to finish it. And you'll have to wait for links to move forward as well, because it looks like someone has hacked the FDL site today.

My reaction: Every Senator who voted for this measure is a gutless, spineless coward, a traitor to our history and the rule of law in the United States.

As I listened to the debate streaming over C-span in my office that day, in the week after the 4th of July, I could not help but compare these pathetic excuses for leaders to our founding fathers, who risked all to declare that no one person had the right or power to decide what was legal and what was not.

Until now.

With the passage of FISA we have witnessed an assault on our constitution and the rule of law which, unless we continue to descend further into authoritarianism, will one day be a topic discussed in the history of this time: How a government could be so afraid that it gives away the very system it is charged to protect, and how a people could be so complacent that they stood by, watched, allowed and/or supported what was happening.

FISA was not about listening in on phone calls and other telecommunications. It was not about sueing the telecoms for damages and punishing them financially for having cooperated in violations of the law (which is called being an accomplice if you're not the CEO of a major corporation and can buy you some serious time.)

FISA was about whether we are a country of laws.

If we are failing our promise as a nation, it is because large swaths of the American people no longer believe in the system. That is why people don't vote, don't organize, don't demand more of their representation. Why bother? It's all for sale and people are broke. They see the no-bid contracts, the gross and blatant corruption of this government, and have simply become cynical.

Our criminal justice system has become an embarassment. While our jails fill up with the homeless and hopeless, who can domino into long stretches of time with a string of stupid mistakes, the Scooter Libby's of the world get a Get Out Of Jail Free card. We watch the government arrange a bail-out for Bear Stearns while neighbors and friends go bankrupt and lose their homes.

So now major corporations can get away with illegal behavior because they were "taking orders", and I would like to extend my personal apologies, to those Vietnam Vets and battered women who served time for doing the same thing.

So we need to quit giving our money to politicians who violate their oath of office and betray their responsibility to represent the American people and start giving it to those who are actually fighting on our behalf. Some good choices are:

The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have both filed lawsuits challenging the new FISA.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is another powerful voice in holding them accountable.

Christi at FDL has more, but as I said I can't link because the site is down.

FISA Today

Listen to Christy:

Because patriotism isn't just the words you spew in front of the camera for a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. It's what you do, each and every vote, each and every day, to actually uphold the principles contained therein.

New Energy on FISA

If the MSM hadn't completely abandoned their role as the 4th Estate, the on-going and upcoming FISA vote would be getting more play. As it is the coverage is there but it's thin, reduced to soundbites that are both simplistic and dishonest: "a battle over authorizing the government to spy on terrorists." No, FISA is not about allowing the President to spy on terrorists you gutless drones. Check your facts: that power always existed. FISA is about allowing the President to decide unilaterally to spy on YOU, or someone who looks like you, or doesn't look like you, or who could be related to someone you know. He doesn't have time to be picky, goddammit, he wants it all.

Everyday people actually "get" the FISA issue when the central tenents of the argument are explained. They get instantly how this is contrary to our system of government. If this issue were getting anywhere near a level of attention proportionate to its importance there would be no issue. People would not have it.

But since you can only understand the issue by seeking out information not provided by most of the MSM, we have to become a more effective mouthpiece on this issue. We need to take responsibility to actively promulgate more reaction.

The entire argument in favor of telecom immunity rests on one premise: That, because the President ordered them to do so, telecoms should not be held accountable for their unlawful invasion of the privacy of our communications. Period. End of argument. Not their fault.

I don't remember that argument playing very well for some Vietnam veterans, who were "ordered" to commit atrocities in the name of winning a war and spreading freedom. Those poor men, grunts in the field who were told they would live or die based on the judgment of their commanders were not let off the hook for obeying orders. They were held responsible to decide in the field whether an order given to them was legal. This was also a time of war. Right or wrong, our government held them accountable. This argument alone would assure the defeat of this bill in any system that didn't continue to play the little guys as suckers.

Glenn remembers also:

Even soldiers, for whom the President is actually the Commander-in-Chief, are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders.

That's the whole point of this Administration. The rules are for the suckers. No-bid contracts. Sweet deals for Administration-connected industries in the war machine. Leaks of classified information that would get a powerless person a prison sentence all pardoned away. The rules are for suckers. The Department of Justice of the United States has been completely politicized in direct violation of federal law -- and this Administration thumbs their nose at inquiry. They violate the Geneva Conventions and U.S military law because those were rules made for other people, not for them, and they simply dare someone to challenge them.

And where are the Democrats?

Where are we?

Fax and call time. Christy commands:

Tomorrow is the vote on the FISA bill. What say we welcome back Senators and
their staffs from the 4th of July holiday with a rousing bit of patriotic
support for the rule of law? Last week, Blue America launched a call tool to help you get in touch with Senators regarding
the FISA bill. We'd like you to put it to some serious use today. We are asking
Senators to vote IN FAVOR of the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy Amendment (S.A. 5064 to
H.R. 6304). We're asking for a NO vote on cloture, and a NO vote on the final
bill as well.

More 4th Inspiration

I'm just freaking out tonight on all this freedom and patriotism stuff! McJoan at Daily Kos reminds us today of someone who “got” what freedom really means, and the courage true patriotism entails:

In response to the revelations that a president had violated the 4th amendments stricture against "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," the first branch of government stood up to that president, led by Senator Frank Church:

Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution checks the power of Government for purposes of protecting the rights of individuals, in order that all our
citizens may live in a free and decent society. Unlike totalitarian states, we do not believe that any government has a monopoly on truth.

When government infringes those right instead of nurturing and protecting them, the injury spreads far beyond the particular citizens targeted to untold numbers of other Americans who may be intimidated...

The natural tendency of government is toward abuse of power. Men entrusted with power, even those aware of its dangers, tend, particularly when pressured, to slight liberty.

Our constitutional system guards against this tendency. It establishes many different checks upon power. It is those wise restraints which keep men free. In the field of intelligence those restraints have too often been ignored....

The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened.

Dissent is Patriotic

Stunning rebuke on FISA from James Galloway, in an editorial at McClatchy:

Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle — not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties — intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus — which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you — recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

[snip]

How dare they?

Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.

They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan..

Another Treat

I'll be back to work here Sunday, as we get ready for next week's FISA battle. I continue to believe that if we can shine enough light on what this administration has already done, we can keep this from moving forward.

But I digress...

I promised you a treat, and found this hysterical sight through Salon. Stuff White People Like. It's very tongue-in-cheek and ironic, not that the writer hasn't caught a lot of heat from people who have lost their sense of humor. A little taste:

From the complete list of things White People Like:

#2 Religions that their parents don't belong to.

White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. Which
usually means that they will believe any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.

Popular choices include Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabbalah and, to a lesser extent, Scientology. A few even dip into Islam, but it’s much more rare since you have to give stuff up and actually go to Mosque.

Mostly they are into religion that fits really well into their homes or wardrobe and doesn’t require them to do very much.

#19 Traveling

White person travelling can be broken into two categories - First World and Third World.

First world is Europe and Japan, and man, this travel is not only beloved but absolutely essential in their development as white people. Every white person takes at least one trip to Europe between the ages of 17-29. During this time they are likely to wear a back pack, stay at a hostel, meet someone from Ireland/Sweden/Italy with whom they have a memorable experience, get drunk, see some old churches and ride a train.

What’s amazing is that all white people have pretty much the same experience, but all of them believe theirs to be the first of its kind. So much so that they return to North America with ideas of writing novels and screenplays about their experience.

Upon returning home, they will also find an affinity for a particular beer or liquor from a country they visited. They use this as an excuse to mention their travels when at a bar. “Oh, I’ll have a Czechznlishiyush Pilsner. You see, that was my favorite beer when I was travelling through Slovenia and the Czech republic.”

The second type of white person travel is Third World. This is when they venture to Thailand, Africa or South America. Some do it so that they can one up the white people who only go to Europe.

But like with Europe, white people like to believe they are the first white people to make this trip. As such, they should be recognized as special and important individuals.

That’s right, by going to a country, riding around on a bus or train, staying at a hotel or hostel and eating - they are doing something important for the world.

If a white person shows up in your country, you can make them feel fantastic by saying how you’ve never seen a white person before, and that you are amazed by their iPod - “a device that plays many songs? impossible!”

They might give it to you, then you can sell it for profit. Repeat as necessary.

Your Holiday Treat

Courtesy of George Carlin. On Independence Day, enjoy a little independent thinking:

Carlin on Religion



On voting
\


On The American dream

Obama and FISA

After more than 17,000 people signed up in a just a few days, Senator Obama issued a response to the social network group against FISA today. (I’m a member, are you?) I don’t like the outcome, but the tone is perfect and – like his already-famous speech on race – an intelligent conversation between adults, not the parent to child hectoring most politicians adopt with their critics. On FISA, there are still approaches that can work, but more pressure on this candidate after this statement is almost wasted energy (although it will be interesting to see how much it moves on its own, virally.) Ironically, it is precisely because of the damage already done to his brand through this kind of reversal that he can’t afford to be seen as having given it to us! That is the kabuki of the screwed up politics of our time, but it is also the reality. Although I completely disagree with Obama on many substantive elements of his argument here, it is clearly a thoughtful statement from a man that has made up his mind.

So it’s time to turn to Reid – who can get this thing killed and out of the way for his candidate if he chooses to do so. We have to make him want to do so.

But I digress…

Giving our candidate his due, here is Obama on FISA. His complete statement.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable
too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

The Dark Night Ahead

I feel compelled from time to time to reassure the many Obama enthusiasts among my small audience that I, too, am moved by the promise. One would have to be both dead and embalmed not to be affected by the promise this man holds out... for a return to grace on the international stage, to the dominance of reason and intellect over bullying in foreign policy. I remember when he said that he rose out of Chicago politics and could handle the fight. I remember when he used to challenge the Republican framing of security-vs-civil rights.

I remember just six months ago when he said this (via FDL):

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . .

But I was just one of those bitter, old Hillary pragmatists who wanted to see some beef before we bought the sandwich.

Yet I digress...

This is a post about why -- even as I encourage you to take action to move him on FISA, I urge everyone to support his candidacy with all your might.

Evil simply cannot triumph in this case:

Because if Obama thought Hillary was rough, he ain’t seen nothin’ yet. This post from Ian Welsh at FDL is a must read.

Rove's students are now in charge of Obama's campaign.

Mr. Schmidt's elevation is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove's campaign efforts in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in the 2004 campaign and in his White House, has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with Mr. McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Mr. Rove's operation, has joined the McCain communications operation.

And finally, remembering a recent conversation with one of my best friends, who didn’t believe (at first) the story in which McCain publicly called his own wife a c*&t, I feel compelled to promote the latest-emerging evidence that John McCain is unstable.