This insane statement about the US Military action in Afghanistan (where we blow $2 Billion/Week) was made by a senior adviser to Mitt Romney:
A senior adviser to Mitt Romney declined to provide more specific details on the presumptive GOP nominee's plan for Afghanistan on Thursday, saying it was a distraction from what "real Americans want to talk about."
We are definitely living in Orwellian times, based on the following article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which I am reprinting in its entirety (it is licensed by Creative Commons): EFF Challenges National Security Letter Statute in Landmark Lawsuit Since the first national security letter statute was passed in 1986, the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of such letters seeking private telecommunications and financial records of Americans without any prior approval from courts. Indeed, for the period between 2003 and 2006 alone, almost 200,000 requests for private customer information were sought pursuant to various NSL statutes. Prior to 2011, the constitutionality of this legal authority to investigate the records of Americans without court oversight had been challenged in court -- as far as we know -- exactly one time. EFF is today releasing FBI-redacted briefing from a major new ongoing case in which it is challenging one of the NSL statutes on behalf of a telecommunications company that received an NSL in 2011. Not only does this briefing show that the Department of Justice continues to strongly protect the FBI's NSL authority, it highlights a startlingly aggressive new tactic used by the Department of Justice: suing NSL recipients who challenge the FBI's authority, arguing that court challenges to such authority themselves amount to breaking the law. National security letter statutes -- five in all -- are controversial laws that allow the FBI to easily bypass courts and issue administrative letters on their own authority to telecommunications companies and financial institutions demanding information about their customers. The NSL statutes permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing the fact that the demand was made, preventing them from notifying either their customers or the public. While the statute has many deficiencies, one of the core constitutional issues (already recognized by one federal appeals court) is that it turns the First Amendment's procedural prior restraint doctrine on its head by allowing the FBI to issue a never-ending prior restraint on its own, then requiring the recipient service provider to undertake a legal challenge. Another fundamental problem with the NSL statutes is that courts are all but written out of any part of the process: the FBI can issue demands for records and gag provisions without court authorization, and recipient telecommunications and financial companies have no way to determine whether and how the government might be overreaching or otherwise abusing its authority. Not surprisingly, given these significant structural barriers, legal challenges are extraordinarily rare. EFF brought its challenge on behalf of its client in May of 2011, raising these and other fundamental due process and First Amendment concerns about the structure of these problematic statutes. In response, the Department of Justice promptly filed a civil complaint against the recipient, alleging that by "stat[ing] its objection to compliance with the provisions of" the NSL by "exercis[ing] its rights under" the NSL statute to challenge the NSL's legality, the recipient was "interfer[ing] with the United States' vindication of its sovereign interests in law enforcement, counterintelligence, and protecting national security." While it ultimately agreed to a stay, temporarily suspending its suit against the recipient, the government has moved to compel disclosure of the subscriber information and to uphold the gag. The petition to set aside the NSL is currently pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Whether the recipient will be permitted to speak out about its specific experiences -- and whether the FBI will be permitted to issue NSLs, at least in one district -- should soon be known.
Join EFF and the Public Participation Project in calling on Congress to support the PETITION Act, strong federal anti-SLAPP legislation. The concept is simple: when a blogger faces a legal threat for legitimate online content, she can file a motion to get the case dismissed quickly. If the case is found to be frivolous in court, she won't have to pay the legal fees." Here is discussion of a meritless suit against Matthew Inman that illustrates the need for such a law.
A recent experiment demonstrates that synchronous actions knit the social fabric:
The results were striking: the simple act of tapping one’s hands in synchrony with another caused our participants to report feeling more similar to their partners and to have greater compassion for their plight: it increased the number of people who helped their partner by 31 percent and increased the average time spent helping from one minute to more than seven. What these results suggest is that the compassion we feel for others is not solely a function of what befalls them: if our minds draw an association between a victim and ourselves — even a relatively trivial one — the compassion we feel for his or her suffering is amplified greatly.
Colin Beavan became made his mark as No Impact Man (and see here). That was his first grand experiment, and it taught me how threatening it is to most people to suggest that we should take concrete steps to live in a truly sustainable way. Now Beavan has begun his second grand experiment: to run for Congress as a member of the Green Party. Beavan is not a polished politician; rather he talks like you and me. He speaks from the heart and with thoughtfulness. He bemoans that Americans lack meaning and purpose. He notes that we've lost our ideals. He repeatedly points out that our warmongering country is run by the people who have most of the money and that they will do anything to keep it through the use of their financial resources and their lobbyists. Here is the question that haunts me. Assume that we didn't have a history of two main parties (Beavan calls them the "old-fashioned parties) running on corporate money and warmongering, and assume that it was NOT the case that one of those two parties invariably prevailed in Presidential elections. Assume, then, that you were asked to vote from one of the slick candidates with the heavy corporate ties, or for a thoughtful candidate who is not beholden to corporate money and who stands for the ideals listed below. In that case, it would be my belief that Colin would have a substantial chance to win the election based on his ideas and his utter lack of corruption and corporate ties. The problem is that he doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars or a slick party machine, and he is not buffeted along by that intractable American assumption that it is preordained that one of the old-fashioned party candidates will be the winner. Immediately below, you'll see Colin's 18-minute speech at the Green Party National Convention. Below that video, you'll see Beavan's main talking points, which he sent to me today in a mass emailing.
Here is the speech I made at the Green Party National Convention on Saturday. It's 20 minutes long so if you don't want to watch it but you want to know the themes: 1. Democracy works on the principle that wisdom is collected from a group in order to make decisions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number. 2. The two old-fashioned parties have betrayed that ideal and are so frightened by the crises that face us that they no longer trust the people. 3. Instead, they meet behind closed doors with their corporate campaign contributors and make decisions from there how our country should move forward. [More . . . ]