No Countries No Religion

Quote Of Note - Barbara Ehrenreich

2009-06-05T10:23:00.001-04:00

“ What is this fixation on growth anyway? As a general rule of biological survival, any creature or entity that depends on perpetual growth is well worth avoiding, lest you be eaten alive. As Bill McKibben argues in his book Deep Economy, the "cult of growth" has led to global warming, ghastly levels of pollution, and diminishing resources. Tumors grow, at least until they kill their hosts; economies ought to be sustainable.” Barbara Ehrenreich

Say What?

2009-06-04T12:04:00.001-04:00

Once again I’m stealing from the current Say What? at the Doonesbury site (where do they find these things?):

"We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No."
-- actor Craig T. Nelson

Can actors think for themselves without writers?

I’m a hard-core liberal leftist. I’ve never been on welfare and/or food stamps. I’m going to assume that Craig T. Nelson is a conservative. What does all of this say about left/right stereotypes?

Can A Dick Be An Ass All At The Same Time?

2009-06-02T11:01:00.000-04:00

Why hasn’t Dick Cheney been investigated for crimes against humanity? At the very least, why hasn’t Dick Cheney been shamed into oblivion?

From the current Say What? at the Doonesbury site:

"You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it."
-- Dick Cheney, on Richard Clarke

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (5/3/01)

"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (5/26/01)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (6/23/01)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (6/25/01)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (6/30/01)

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (7/02/01)

-- subject lines of Richard Clarke emails to Bush Administration prior to 9/11/01

Quote Of Note - Howard Zinn

2009-06-02T10:17:00.000-04:00

“Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.” Howard Zinn

Divided We Fall

2009-06-01T11:49:00.001-04:00

From American Aparthood by Glenn W. Smith:

The Right believes humankind is sorted naturally upon a ladder. The Left believes we walk together upon a bridge.

For the Right, freedom means the recognition of a natural, hierarchical order. By "democracy" the Right means a system that makes sure the "poor and despised" do not usurp the power of those above them on the ladder. The Right says it does not seek to "eat up the poor," though the enforced euthanasia of our health care system puts the lie to that claim.

The Right's worldview is not just an ad hoc, cynical justification of selfishness. It is a meaningful, if destructive, worldview, a worldview that produces aparthood as a reasoned solution to the unpredictable dangers of our lives together in a hostile universe.

As we run up against the resource limits that betray the pacifying illusion of movement up their ladder of life, the Right is panicking.

Human sociality is full of ladders and bridges. The theoretical genius of American democracy lies in this recognition. The Right shares the Framers' skepticism of the masses, but rejects the Framers' much more alarmed skepticism of unchecked authority. The Framers understood that human nature was not an unchanging thing, that humans could not be fixed to permanent, isolated places on a ladder the powerful lower from above.

Disgusting Political Social Games

2009-05-28T09:56:00.001-04:00

From Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal by Nicholas D. Kristof:

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

Some evolutionary psychologists believe that disgust emerged as a protective mechanism against health risks, like feces, spoiled food or corpses. Later, many societies came to apply the same emotion to social “threats.” Humans appear to be the only species that registers disgust…

Conservatives systematically register more disgust than liberals.

It appears that we start with moral intuitions that our brains then find evidence to support. For example, one experiment involved hypnotizing subjects to expect a flash of disgust at the word “take.” They were then told about Dan, a student council president who “tries to take topics that appeal to both professors and students.”

The research subjects felt disgust but couldn’t find any good reason for it. So, in some cases, they concocted their own reasons, such as: “Dan is a popularity-seeking snob.”

So how do we discipline our brains to be more open-minded, more honest, more empirical? A start is to reach out to moderates on the other side — ideally eating meals with them, for that breaks down “us vs. them” battle lines that seem embedded in us. (In ancient times we divided into tribes; today, into political parties.) The Web site www.civilpolitics.org is an attempt to build this intuitive appreciation for the other side’s morality, even if it’s not our morality.

“Minds are very hard things to open, and the best way to open the mind is through the heart,” Professor Haidt says. “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.”

Jon And Kate

2009-05-27T09:43:00.001-04:00

I don’t know anything about Jon and Kate, and I don’t want to know anything about Jon and Kate. Please alert Matt Lauer to this pressing need for non-information.

The Newt Speaks, Must We Listen?

2009-05-27T09:36:00.003-04:00

From Gingrich: 'Absolute obligation' to investigate Pelosi:

Pelosi said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the CIA to release a full transcript of the briefing. She also accused Republicans of jumping on reports of the briefings to cause a distraction.

"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior," Gingrich also said in the blistering interview.

"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses," he continued.

The Newt thinks that Pelosi should be investigated, yet he has never called for an investigation of Bush and Cheney?

I’m not a big fan of Nancy Pelosi. Impeachment belonged on the table. Perhaps the Newt is right about her. However, let me share my thoughts on the Newt. Is he any better than Pelosi? He is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes. He dishonors the Congress by his behavior. He’s a big loser, because he either comes across as incompetent or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses for the Newt.

Newsflash!

2009-05-26T10:57:00.000-04:00

Colin Powell Still World's Biggest Asshole

Newburgh Four

2009-05-26T10:19:00.002-04:00

From How A Government Mole Won The Loyalty Of The Newburgh Four by Zachary Roth:

Reports last week suggested that the Newburgh four -- the men arrested Wednesday for plotting to bomb two New York synagogues -- perhaps weren't the swiftest ships in her majesty's fleet. But over the weekend, people close to the four came forward to describe how the government informant at the center of the case against them -- the man known to the suspects as Maqsood -- aggressively courted the men before luring them into an imagined jihad.

Here's what the New York Daily News, Post, and Times reported about how "Maqsood" (identified as a Pakistani immigrant named Shahed Hussain) won the men's loyalty:

Kathleen Baynes, the girlfriend of James Cromitie, described as the plot's ringleader, said Maqsood had given Cromitie cash, food, cameras, rent money, and marijuana. "Maqsood gave him a lot of marijuana," she said, adding: "Whenever we needed anything, Maqsood would help -- like financially -- he gave us money to pay rent." She also said Maqsood offered Cromitie $25,000 to join him, and promised a black Mercedes. And she said a friend told her Cromitie had said he was going to be getting $50,000.

Baynes also said that Maqsood aggressively kept after Cromitie. "Maqsood would keep ringing our doorbell, and James would hide behind the sofa." She continued: "He was very persistent, and every time he came for James, he took him away. They said they were going out to eat dinner." And: "He was just constantly around. It was like he was stalking him."

Elizabeth McWilliams, the mother of another of the accused plotters, David Wiliams, said that Maqsood had promised to help pay medical bills for Williams' sick brother, whom he had returned to Newburgh to help care for. "Maqsood said, 'Don't worry, brother, I am going to help with your brother's hospital bills.' This man did nothing but set these guys up."

Read the rest here.

From Isn’t This Just Damned Perfect? by Susie Madrak:

I hardly know what to say. What’s worse: A healthcare system where someone is so desperate, he’d blow up buildings to pay for his brother’s treatment, or homeland security that thinks nothing of setting people up so they can claim they caught some “terrorists”?

I Refuse To Live In Dickworld

2009-05-26T10:09:00.001-04:00

From Fresh Air Versus a Bunker by Eugene Robinson:

Which reality do you inhabit, Obama World or Cheney World? If it’s the latter, remember that storm clouds are always gathering. Don’t forget your umbrella.

In Obama World, it’s always morning. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping and the pollen count is low. In Cheney World, it’s perpetual twilight. Somewhere in the distance, a lone wolf howls at the rising moon.

In Obama World, human beings are flawed but essentially decent and rational. Most will behave in a way consistent with enlightened self-interest. In Cheney World, humanity’s defects are indelible and irredeemable. Absent evidence to the contrary, evil should be assumed to lurk in every heart. Better to do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.

Read the rest here.

Charlotte Allen

2009-05-26T09:59:00.001-04:00

From Why is Charlotte Allen so mad at atheists? by PZ Myers:

Charlotte Allen is very, very angry with us atheists -- that's the only conclusion that can be drawn from her furious broadside in The Times on May 17. She can't stand us; we're unpopular; we're a problem. What, exactly, is the greatest crime of modern atheists?

We're boring.

Read the rest here.

Made To Answer

2009-05-26T09:53:00.000-04:00

From To Paraphrase Howard Baker by Anglachel:

Yeah, I'm pissed at the cowards in Congress, too, and with the lack of backbone in the Democratic leadership. I'm pissed about both of those situations today and not just on the topic of torture.

The trouble is that the hoopla over Pelosi is doing the Republican's dirty work for them by implying that she has some responsibility for the policy of torture, rather than her true responsibility, which was reviewing, comprehending, and opposing such policy.

The crime lies first and foremost with the people responsible for authorizing the use of torture. Once they have been made to answer for their original crimes against humanity and the nation, then we can get around to the pissant Congress critters who may or may not have been informed fully and unequivocally about the use of torture.

Viral Incompetence

2009-05-26T09:45:00.001-04:00

Why are there so many ignorant “experts”? Why does incompetence greet us with more and more frequency?

Is incompetence like a virus? Does it spread like wildfire unless a strong logical defense is put in place? Or do we wait until it destroys everything except that which is immune to it?

Glen Greenwald asks Should a Brookings "expert" know what the presidential oath says?

Remember A Day

2009-05-25T10:26:00.000-04:00

Will the day ever come when we do not need to have a Memorial Day?

Bill Moyers Meditates On War

2009-05-24T16:40:00.001-04:00

Here is Bill Moyers from the May 22, 2009 edition of Bill Moyers Journal:

…my friend Louis Bickford spends his days, and often his nights, on the healing and prevention of atrocities and crimes against humanity. Cruelty, horror, and misery are part of his portfolio at the International Center for Transitional Justice, along with the power of memory.

On The Huffington Post, Louis has an essay in which he says that Memorial Day is meant to remind us of the hardship of war. But he goes on to ask, "What does it mean to choose how to remember?" What does it say about us, for example, if "...we choose to remember the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, more in terms of heroism than error..." This, he reminds us, is the "...tendency of all nations."

Louis got me to thinking that when we meditate on war this weekend - our recent wars that is - will we overlook the suicides? Sweep under history's rug the recent murder in Iraq of five American soldiers by a comrade who may have been driven mad by the horrors around him? Will we forget the death from friendly fire of a Pat Tillman and the shameful cover-up by the brass, including the role of the very general who now heads our operations in Afghanistan?

What of all those villagers killed by drones remotely fired in our name? Why aren't they part of the narrative we tell ourselves about war? Louis Bickford wonders if we'll ever remember, "...that there was a place called Abu Ghraib on the dusty outskirts of Baghdad, and that torture took place there, for which we were responsible?" After all, he says, it was the complicity of Republicans, Democrats, journalists and lawyers - some of them scholars - that allowed us to ignore international and American law prohibiting torture.

Over some 40 years now it has seemed to me that as time goes by we tend to remember wars, and the suffering they bring, as if they were inevitable, natural acts of history, rather than politically inspired choices. But war, as was famously said, is politics by another means - the lethal legacy of failed leadership, enabled, even ennobled, by propaganda, the partisan opiate of politics. It is good to be reminded, as my friend Louis so eloquently reminds us, that war is too important to forget, and that's one reason to observe Memorial Day. There is another - to hold before our face a mirror, so that we might see the images of war reflected in our own eyes.

Same As The Old Boss?

2009-05-24T16:34:00.001-04:00

From Tomgram: Noam Chomsky, Unexceptional Americans by Tom Engelhardt:

Murder, torture, abuse… and photos of the same. We've seen some of them, of course. Now, evidently under pressure from his top generals, President Obama has decided to fight the release of other grim photos from the dark side of the Bush years of offshore injustice -- on the grounds that their publication might inflame opinion in the Middle East and our various war zones (as if fighting to suppress their publication won't). In this way, just as the president is in the process of making Bush's wars his own, so he seems to be making much of the nightmare legacy of those years of crime, torture, and cover-up his, too.

Read the rest here.

"Aspirational" And "Fully Controlled"

2009-05-23T10:05:00.002-04:00

From Government Foils Government Plot by Jesse Walker:

Bill Anderson highlights the most salient fact about the Riverdale Temple bombing plot, quoting a passage from a New York Times report:
A federal law enforcement official described the plot as "aspirational" -- meaning that the suspects wanted to do something but had no weapons or explosives -- and described the operation as a sting with a cooperator within the group.

"It was fully controlled at all times," a law enforcement official said.
Such stings are not unusual. The equally "aspirational" Liberty City 6 scheme of 2006, for example, would not have congealed -- to the extent that it congealed at all -- without the government's helpful informants. In the days before 9/11, agents provocateurs infiltrated militia groups; back in the '60s, they invaded the New Left. I doubt such entrapment makes anyone safer. But it does make people scared.

All of the links make for interesting reading. Episiarch wrote a comment that I really liked:

Let's see: completely incompetent plan, and the government gets in there, helps them along, and busts them. 9/11: insanely simple plan, achieves more than expected, and the government has no fucking clue.

Yeah, the government does an excellent job. Really.

Waterboarding Is Not Torture, Unless It Happens To You?

2009-05-22T18:16:00.001-04:00

Can Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al, be next? Pretty please.

From Mancow Waterboarded, Admits It's Torture by Ryan Pollyea:

And so it went Friday morning when WLS radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to subject himself to the controversial practice of waterboarding live on his show.

Mancow decided to tackle the divisive issue head on -- actually it was head down, while restrained and reclining.

"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Last year, Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens endured the same experiment -- and came to a similar conclusion. The conservative writer said he found the treatment terrifying, and was haunted by it for months afterward.

Catapulting The Biblical Propaganda

2009-05-19T12:42:00.002-04:00

I really wish that I believed in the devil and hell when I hear news like this. Then at least I would have the satisfaction of believing that the entire Bush administration would eventually be burning for eternity. Alas, if only it were true!

From Iraq war briefings headlined with biblical quotes, reports US magazine by Daniel Nasaw:

One of the top planners of the US war in Iraq gave President George Bush secret intelligence briefs headlined with biblical quotations, in a bid to boost his standing with the deeply religious president but one that risked sparking a conflagration in the Muslim world if the papers leaked.

In the days surrounding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld prepared top secret briefing papers for the president adorned with triumphant images of US military personnel and adoring Iraqis, along with the quotes, according to a new article in GQ magazine.

Rumsfeld, said to be personally disinclined toward ostentatious displays of piety, included the quotes because he believed the religious message would appeal to Bush, whom he knew frequently to quote the Bible, journalist Robert Draper wrote.

Rumsfeld and other top military aides brushed aside complaints that the quotes were an inappropriate injection of religion into intelligence matters and ignored fears that if the documents leaked to the media, they would touch off worldwide fear that the US had embarked on an anti-Muslim crusade.

The previously unreleased documents are a shocking and unusual admixture of the two realms. The cover of one intelligence briefing shows US soldiers kneeling in prayer, headlined with a selection from the book of Isaiah: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?/ Here I am Lord, send me!" The same page is covered with the classification codes and handling instructions typical to secret US government documents.

Other cover sheets released by the magazine feature images of US military vehicles and troops trudging through desert landscapes, manning a machine gun emplacement, and US soldiers inside what appears to be a posh palace once belonging to Saddam Hussein. One shows an image of Saddam speaking into a television camera and quotes 1 Peter 2:15: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

I believe that I do some good. Why have I not silenced at least a small portion of the ignorant talk of the foolish men of the Bush administration?

So, it appears that while Bush was busy catapulting, that he himself was being catapulted. Again, I wish we could catapult them all to hell!

Neither Snow, Nor Rain…

2009-05-18T12:42:00.001-04:00

From Atheist preparing for the end of days:

A South Florida atheist is reaping the rewards of the coming apocalypse, charging “True Believers” for mail delivery to loved ones who get left behind in the aftermath of the “Day of Reckoning.”

Joshua Witter promises customers that he will suffer the plagues of Armageddon all in the name of a successful post-apocalyptic postal delivery.

“It’s too late for me,” Witter says. But, he adds, “I’ll do my best come hell or high water to deliver those letters.”

Redefining Truth

2009-05-18T12:22:00.004-04:00

From Redefining 'Wealthy' by Jim McTague:

WHO WILL BAIL OUT THE TAXPAYERS WHO are paying for all those bailout buckets? Contrary to fables told to gullible voters and journos by President Barack Obama and other Democrats, the rich didn't enjoy a virtual tax holiday under George W. Bush. To the contrary, the share of the tax burden paid by households in the top 20% of U.S. income distribution -- those with average pretax incomes of $248,400 -- increased significantly between 2000, Bill Clinton's last year as president, and 2006, the latest year for which reliable data is available. You will find this in an April report of the relatively neutral Congressional Budget Office. It was brought to our attention by Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The Obama administration is preparing to tax the upper-crusties even more, justifying it as a form of retribution for the big breaks they allegedly received from Bush at the expense of middle-class and poorer folks. Dubay's analysis of the CBO data finds that the top 20% of households in fact paid a record-high 86.3% of all taxes in 2006, versus 81.2% under Clinton.

If Democrats increase the tax burden, they risk killing the golden geese.

Is that so? I wonder how many of you who are willing to believe these numbers, also believed Bernie Madoff’s numbers at one time?

Dubay contends that shifting more of the tax burden onto high-income earners is dangerous. Those who pay little or no taxes don't feel the pain of the high cost of big government, and so they are more inclined than taxpayers to clamor for more public services. This demand for a nanny state in turn drains more money from the top 20%; it is impossible for government to go on funding itself this way indefinitely.

Those who pay little or no taxes feel the pain of having no job, nothing to eat, and nowhere to live. If the top 20% would stop hogging all the money and pay workers a decent wage, then maybe the bottom 20% would have more money to contribute to the tax base. As opposed to, like, you know, nothing.

Also, who has been on the receiving end of the bailout money? The top 20 per-centers or the bottom 20 per-centers?

More Peter King

2009-05-18T12:05:00.000-04:00

Representative Peter King thinks that there are too many mosques in the United States. I wonder if he thinks there are too many churches as well?

In This Together?

2009-05-18T11:49:00.003-04:00

Why would the ACLU want to attack itself?

On Face the Nation yesterday Peter King demonstrated the typical face of the Republican Party as of late. The face of a stupid, ignorant, name-calling bully. Would it have been too much for guest host Harry Smith to have pointed out to King that the ACLU consists of Americans? Just because members of the ACLU have different opinions than King does not mean that they are not Americans. This is what King is implying by saying that the American Civil Liberties Union is "tearing down the United States." Why does King need to resort to arrogance and insults? Is it because his arguments and knowledge of the facts are so weak? Why doesn’t King have faith in our system of justice? Also, why does King think that the only place the detainees can be tried is either New York or Virginia? What about an international court? What about the Hague?

From Rep. Peter King: ACLU Is "Tearing Down The United States" by Michelle Levi:

Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) said that by opposing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay and by advocating for the release of photographs of torture committed upon detainees, the American Civil Liberties Union is "tearing down the United States," during a heated debate with the ACLU's executive director, on Face the Nation Sunday.

The Obama administration's decision to go forward with the trials of terror suspects held at Gitmo, and to try to block the declassification of photographs of abuse, were flashpoints this week, with the president being accused by some of reneging on campaign promises to roll back the Bush administration's policies on interrogation and the shutdown of the American prison at Guantanamo Bay.

King admitted that "in every war there are going to be abuses," but added that he is not sure "what purpose the ACLU serves in constantly tearing down the United States, constantly attacking our government."

Anthony Romero makes so much sense to me. King claims Romero has “venom” for the President. I do not see it. The only venom I see is leaking from King, as if it is impossible for him to contain it. King says that there “is no CSI guy in Afghanistan” as if that is supposed to mean something. It is very hard for me to comprehend why so many dislike the ACLU so much.

No Offense?

2009-05-18T10:50:00.001-04:00

If Carrie Prejean really meant “no offense” then why has she aligned herself to a group with a board member who is calling for the criminalization of gays?