…Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others…

I got into a stupid flame was the other day on Facebook with a friend (and her commenters) She [A] posted the following to her wall:

If you think that putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and have the opening of the mosque on the anniversary of 9/11/11, is immoral, inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that perished on that day and their survivors & that politicians are doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families and the people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL
The first commenter followed with
[B] its digusting its even a thought in someones head.....
I saw this and saw yet another vile, right-wing sponsored attack on civil liberties. I am not religious, and abhor religion. I think it perpetuates an evil upon the world that does incalculable damage to current and future generations. However, I do support the rule of law, and the Cordoba House people have the right to build there.

Continue Reading…Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others…

Just a reminder…

...that we live in a country where it is necessary to draft legislation which would prevent the government from killing you without due process. H.R. 6010, introduced by Dennis Kucinich, would prohibit anyone (including the President) from the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. It includes this handy reminder of just how far we've come from our foundational principles:

Sec. 2. (1): due process of law is a fundamental principle in the United States Constitution, the United States has a commitment to the principles included in the Bill of Rights, and no United States citizen, regardless of location, can be ‘deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law’, as stated in Article XIV of the Constitution

Continue ReadingJust a reminder…

Big money causes President Obama to choke on net neutrality

Do you remember the way candidate Obama spoke out fervently in favor of net neutrality throughout his campaign? Check out this video compilation of some of his many pre-election pro-net-neutrality pronouncements. Guess what? Now that Google and Verizon have decided that a multi-tier non-neutral arrangement will help their profits statements, Obama is unwilling to fight back. Just as he failed to do regarding single payer health care. Just like he failed to do when Wall Street "reform" failed to address too-big-to-fail and failed to reinstate Glass-Steagall (and see here). Just like he did when the military-industrial complex insisted on ramping up U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Just like he fail to do as he continues to drag his feet on Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. Now Obama is unwilling to fight back in support of net neutrality: "President Obama campaigned on net neutrality, and yet the White House has been surprisingly quiet on the issue since the breakdown of FCC negotiations and in the wake of Google and Verizon's joint policy proposal." President Obama has lost his voice regarding net neutrality even though

Joel Kelsey, political advisor with nonprofit media-reform group Free Press, "said the proposal would create "tollbooths on the information superhighway." "It's a signed, sealed and delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers," he said in a statement.
In the midst of all of this hypocrisy, Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs unloaded on the "professional left," insisting that " “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.” How about this, Mr. Gibbs? Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he would rather have any sort of deal than a deal that achieves the principles Mr. Obama announced in his campaign speeches. Obama achieved some good things too, but how is anything mentioned at the top of this post differ from anything john McCain would have done? Except, perhaps, when he called the health care bill "reform" instead of calling it the "send gushers of tax money and forced clientele to the health insurance industry." The above-described failures didn't occur in a vacuum. We also seen his refusal to bring American torturers to justice. We've seen expansion of off-shore oil drilling. He's authorized remote-controlled drone attacks on Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, where these are conducted by the CIA, and in which numerous civilians have been killed, and we have good reason to believe that many other deaths of innocent people have been covered up. I voted for Barack Obama, but I'm sorely disappointed. Not that there was any other reasonable place to put my vote. From now one, though, I am going to judge Barack Obama solely by what he does, not by his elegant campaign speeches. For additional trustworthy information on the Google-Verizon deal, see this list of articles at Free Press.

Continue ReadingBig money causes President Obama to choke on net neutrality

Matt Taibbi: What Wall Street accomplished

Through his hard-charging and entertaining investigative pieces in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi has repeated snuffed out that little spark of hopefulness in me. His latest article in Rolling Stone was the most crushing of all: "Wall Street's Big Win: Finance reform won't stop the high-risk gambling that wrecked the economy - and Republicans aren't the only ones to blame." Taibbi proposes that the recent Wall Street "reform" fixed about 10% of the problem, and that it was designed primarily to cover up an uncomfortable political truth:

The huge profits that Wall Street earned in the past decade were driven in large part by a single, far-reaching scheme, one in which bankers, home lenders and other players exploited loopholes in the system to magically transform subprime home borrowers into AAA investments, sell them off to unsuspecting pension funds and foreign trade unions and other suckers, then multiply their score by leveraging their phony-baloney deals over and over. It was pure ­financial alchemy – turning ­manure into gold, then spinning it Rumpelstiltskin-style into vast profits using complex, mostly unregulated new instruments that almost no one outside of a few experts in the field really understood. With the government borrowing mountains of Chinese and Saudi cash to fight two crazy wars, and the domestic manufacturing base mostly vanished overseas, this massive fraud for all intents and purposes was the American economy in the 2000s; we were a nation subsisting on an elaborate check-­bouncing scheme. And it was all made possible by two major deregulatory moves from the Clinton era: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which allowed investment banks, insurance companies and commercial banks to merge, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which ­exempted the entire derivatives market from federal regulation. Together, these two laws transformed Wall Street into a giant casino, allowing commercial banks to act like high-risk hedge funds, with a whole new galaxy of derivative bets to lay action on. In fact, the laws made Wall Street even crazier than a casino, because in a casino you have to put up actual money to make bets. But thanks to deregulation, financial companies like AIG could bet billions, if not trillions, without having any money at all to back up their gambles.
The Republicans are to blame, right? That's only half right. Consider what happened to the "Volcker rule," a proposal designed to restore the firewall between investment houses and commercial banks. It never had a chance . . . [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi: What Wall Street accomplished

Afghanistan and the lack of truth

This presentation by Andrew Napolitano sums it up for me. Shame on the Obama Administration, for carrying on (and furthering) the policies of the Bush Administration. At the minimum, our government should level with us instead of giving us a constant stream of lies and squandering massive amounts of tax dollars that we could be using for energy independence. If the occupation of Afghanistan is such a great idea, let those who support the aggression pay for it. Let them go door to door and beg for the money. Even if every American citizen paid an equal share of this year's $30 Billion funding for the "war" in Afghanistan, every one of America's 300,000,000 citizens would pay $100. Let them go door to door and try to convince Americans to each fork over $100 for this years' Afghanistan war effort. Maybe then the citizens would demand to see progress and to be informed of the alleged objectives of this "war." Actually, if the citizens were told the truth, they'd be told that this war only benefits America's military-industrial complex, and that it's driven by the cognitive fallacy of sunk costs.

Continue ReadingAfghanistan and the lack of truth