Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize


Friends, family, and readers know I applaud Snowden's brave whistle blowing and feel he should be allowed to return to the United States, granted total clemency, and thanked for his service to the citizens of this country. So clearly, I'm very happy about this, via CNN:

Two Norwegian lawmakers have jointly nominated National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize, they said Wednesday on their party website. 
Snowden has "revealed the nature and technological prowess of modern surveillance," and by doing so has contributed to peace, said a joint statement by Bard Vegar Solhjell and Snorre Valen of the Socialist Left Party. 
Nominations for this year's Nobel Peace Prize -- whose previous winners include such figures as the late South African President Nelson Mandela, Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and President Barack Obama -- close on Saturday, with the winner announced in October.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

R.I.P. Pete Seeger, a great American


Arlo Guthrie:

I usually do a little meditation and prayer every night before I go to sleep - Just part of the routine. Last night, I decided to go visit Pete Seeger for a while, just to spend a little time together, it was around 9 PM. So I was sitting in my home in Florida, having a lovely chat with Pete, who was in a hospital in New York City. That's the great thing about thoughts and prayers- You can go or be anywhere. 
I simply wanted him to know that I loved him dearly, like a father in some ways, a mentor in others and just as a dear friend a lot of the time. I'd grown up that way - loving the Seegers - Pete; Toshi and all their family. 
I let him know I was having trouble writing his obituary (as I'd been asked) but it seemed just so silly and I couldn't think of anything that didn't sound trite or plain stupid. "They'll say something appropriate in the news," we agreed. We laughed, we talked, and I took my leave about 9:30 last night. 
"Arlo" he said, sounding just like the man I've known all of my life, "I guess I'll see ya later." I've always loved the rising and falling inflections in his voice. "Pete," I said. "I guess we will." 
I turned off the light and closed my eyes and fell asleep until very early this morning, about 3 AM when the texts and phone calls started coming in from friends telling me Pete had passed away. 
"Well, of course he passed away!" I'm telling everyone this morning. "But that doesn't mean he's gone."
Photo via John Nichols

Monday, January 27, 2014

Entitled, empowered, and indicted


Photo via.

Former First Lady of Virginia Maureen McDonnell, aka The Honorable Mrs. Governor Ultrasound, can't be faulted for merely fantasizing about swirling around the dance floor in an over-the-top-expensive Oscar de la Renta gown. I know I've entertained more than a few Walter Mitty reveries in which I'm a twirling princess or goddess or queen, my taffeta skirts swishing in the spotlight as I soak in all the admiration.

And then the light turns green and someone honks a horn.

Being empowered, being celebrated--whether one is a public servant, the spouse thereof, or even a vice-presidential nominee with a borrowed Neiman's card (ahem, Sarah Palin)--is not the same as being entitled.

But sometimes power-drunk people confuse real life with television.

In the HBO program Sex and the City, Sarah Jessica Parker's character got to live out an Oscar de la Renta fantasy. She was dating Mikhail Baryshnikov, and the day after reading aloud to him from that month's Vogue--describing a gown by the designer as "her poetry"--Baryshnikov presented her with the very dress she'd coveted. The episode's final scene shows the couple in a Manhattan McDonalds; Parker is wearing her fantasy dress, à la McDonnell, doing what one does while wearing an Oscar de la Renta: pirouetting on someone else's dime.

And other people's dimes are subject to wildly varying laws when it comes to gifts and goodies bestowed upon public servants by individuals and businesses. Then there are federal regulations. Clearly the intent is to maintain the illusion (if, sadly, little else) that public servants are there to serve the public--the people who vote them into office and pay their salaries--and not, as is all too often the case, to do the bidding of this billionaire or that foreign interest or those corporations.

Seemingly, there isn't much in the way of such laws in the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to the Washington Post, the state is one of ten that allows officeholders to accept gifts of virtually unlimited value. (There certainly are federal laws. To wit.)

Speaking of the word commonwealth, it comes from the late middle English commun welthe, the wealth of the people. It is the wealth of the people that paid Governor Bob McDonnell's salary, as it is with all American public servants and the families they support: it's the people's money.

In short, the spouses of public servants are supposed to buy their own dresses.

And really, there is no excuse for what Maureen McDonnell did. Oh, there are plenty of reasons for her behavior, with baldfaced greed topping the list.

(Yes, what Governor Bob McDonnell did is obviously far worse, because he was the one the people voted for and entrusted with all that power, but right now, we're talking about dress-greed, not megalomania, abuse of power, or for that matter, rank misogyny, all of which deserve long posts of their own.)

But there is no excuse because, hey, ever heard of regular old ready-to-wear? Forgive me, but other than its label, the blue dress in the picture is no different from those on racks in bridal and department stores all over Virginia. (Moreover, I can only imagine the state is home to countless gifted seamstresses, any one of whom could have whipped up a gown to rival Oscar's.)

And I don't for a moment buy the whole "We're under so much pressure to look nice, we simply had to get donors to spend tens of thousands of dollars on clothes for us" line, either.  Please. Professional American women with actual jobs manage to pull themselves together and stand in front of courts, cameras, and classrooms every single day.

It was about entitlement, pure and simple. We're the First Couple--we're entitled to fine watches, elegant holidays, and couture gowns!

And this from a so-called "conservative" couple! Who, when it comes to providing for the basic needs of the people who elected them, love nothing more than to preach the gospel of cutting spending, not living above one's means, tightening that belt, honey.

Learn to sew, Mrs. Governor Ultrasound. Perhaps you can replicate that gown--I hear orange is the new blue.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Welcome home, Scarface


It was past ten when we arrived home from holiday last night, and the resident muscle-men were kind enough to haul all the bags and boxes from the car to the kitchen.

All but one duffel: mine.

And I was damned if I wasn't going to have my favorite nightgown and the engrossing book I was reading, having just traveled for ten hours, through pounding rain, in a vehicle whose interior was dark enough to make reading said book impossible but light enough that I could see the ghost-whiteness of my knuckles.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to marry race-car drivers.

So I trudged out to the car, heaved my duffel's neck-breaking entirety onto one shoulder, yanked Ruby's pillow from the backseat, and wound my way in the dark through the family's various trucks and heavy machinery, back to the house.

The fever-steam we call Florida rain had ceased a while earlier, but water was still trickling and splatting everywhere. And then an enormous fan palm frond, its moorings weakened by God knows how many gallons of water and miles-per-hour of wind, tumbled from above, hitting me in the face--hard--and giving me a lovely diagonal gash on the bridge of my nose. I knew it was a gash because I immediately tasted the blood now coursing downward, ruining my camisole.

Oh joy.

I pounded on the much-closer back door, because Robert had locked it so the boys wouldn't go in and out and in and out the way they always seem compelled to do, letting mosquitoes in. Nothing. I pounded again, feeling more anger than pain at that point. Then I gave up, shifted the duffel (which was getting wetter by the minute) to my other shoulder, and traipsed, pack-mule-like, to the kitchen door, all the while trying to ignore the earsplitting din of the incessantly copulating tree-frogs who rarely have anything better to do on a Saturday night in rural Florida and who can fucking blame them.

My poor nose duly Neosporined and Band-aided, my tea made (with condensed milk, because the bloody milk had gone bad before its time--typical), I went to bed, looking forward to a good six hours of oblivion.

But I'd forgotten about the vicious, inconsiderate bastards who drive the Tropicana train along the lake at all hours of the night. In just a few hours, there they were again, blasting their house-rattling, dog-awakening horns.

There is nothing you can do to me that Florida has not already done.

Photo via.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

On Privacy

Here is why intruding on my privacy, and the privacy of millions of other people living in America, is wrong on its face: it is not that I have something to hide--it's that I have everything to lose.

And when the intruder is the State, with its ominous, full-on power to destroy any individual by accident or intent (because as said destroyed individual will tell you, the results are the same), that which an individual has to lose can be significant, and the results of his having lost it, life-altering.

The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" underpins our jurisprudence for a good reason. The burden of proof is not, and should never be, on me: I should not have to prove a negative, that I am not something bad, that I'm not doing something bad. I simply am. I exist.

Thus, if I am suspected of wrongdoing, well, prove it in court. Prove it in accordance with the laws that, however imperfect, have managed to convict and imprison serial killers, armed robbers, and terrorists alike (at least they did until the Patriot Act afforded the State an easy, lazy way to do an end-run around the Constitution).  But if I am simply existing, minding my own business, communicating with my family, friends, and business associates, the State should have no right to monitor my words--not the time when, or location where, they were written or spoken; not the frequency with which some recipients (as opposed to others) crop up on some concocted list of my associates; and certainly not the words themselves.

That is--or rather, was--the point of having warrants: to protect those who are merely existing from intrusion into their private, personal lives by the State. By setting forth very specific requirements, most saliently probable cause, that must be met before allowing intrusive evidence-gathering that disrupts an individual's security and privacy.

Proper warrants, too, not bullshit rubberstamped-anytime-anyplace-totally-unspecific-to-any-one-crime-applicable-to-countless-millions-of-citizens-FISA-warrants that are issued in secret.

The only reason all this is happening is this: we're allowing it.

The existence of secret courts with secret rulings--much like secret police--does not bode well for the health of our democracy. And when the death rattle kicks in, we will not be able to blame the terrorists. The government is us.  We are the ones who harvested, processed, and swallowed our own hemlock, because someone, somewhere, convinced us that the potion would protect us from all evil, and damn if he didn't make a pretty penny in so doing.

Monday, July 01, 2013

On Ed Snowden's "Oppressive Regime Tour"


For those who argue--ridiculously--that Edward Snowden should have "faced the music" and stayed in the US rather than "tour the oppressive, anti-human-rights regimes of the world", a little reminder: Neither Russia, nor Ecuador, nor Venezuela, nor Cuba executed anyone in 2011 (the most recent year for which statistics are available).

The United States? We put 43 human beings to death in 2011 alone.

That puts us behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, but ahead of every other nation in the world in terms of the state killing of citizens.

Torture?

Does it count when the US "renditions"--aka, has other cruel regimes do it for us, like Syria, Egypt, or Jordan? Because even if it doesn't, we're right up there at the top among the world's torturers.

Good grief, people. Take off the prima-donna sleep mask, open your eyes, and wake the hell up.

P.S. As for rendition, the U.S. is still at it, too--the only difference between then (under Bush) and now is that our government currently claims it is overseeing things so that when we do apprehend someone suspected of wrongdoing, throw a hood over his head, and haul him off to another country to be "interrogated", the questioning will not be accompanied by torture--at least, not as far as we know (because it is, after all, taking place in another country, and we can't completely control what goes on behind closed doors). Don't you feel better?

Image: Andy Warhol, Little Electric Chair (Green), 1964

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Cinnamon-Chocolate Bat Cookies


There are blue sugar crystals on that there bat.

Chocolate Bats: The Legend. The tale begins about eighteen years ago, when Son One was in Montessori, and I was in the mood to bake cookies for Hallowe'en. I played around with one of Martha Stewart's recipes, adding cinnamon to the mix at the behest of the lad, and cut them into bats: WELL, thought I, let me put on some strong coffee right this minute.

The following morning, I packed a couple of bats in the royal lunchbox, and then, on second thought, wrapped a half-dozen more and put them in too: If there are other kids at the table, voilà--everyone's happy.

Mistake.

At twelve-thirty, I received a call from the teacher: "Er...Mrs. Tornello,  I'm calling about those chocolate bat cookies."

Uh-oh.  Did the sharing go okay, I wondered. (We really were working on that stuff.)

"Your son came over to the teacher's table and gave each of us one of your chocolate bat cookies--such a lovely, thoughtful boy--and they were so good. Could you...possibly...would you mind making a big batch for the whole class?" (Note: she meant the whole school, since they all ate lunch together.)

I made a triple batch of the cookies that night and sent them in. They became a regular thing around here, too, and not just at Hallowe'en.  I still have the kitschy little black plastic bat cookie cutter, used to make the cookie in the photo; the boys--there are three of them now--are still capable of reducing the chocolate bats by half within an hour of baking. I made them last night, in fact. I think there might be one or two left. Sigh.

This unfrosted, mostly unadorned cookie is texturally akin to slightly-cakey sugar-cookie, that is, it combines the best qualities of a wafer, a sugar cookie, and a brownie.  It's deeply chocolatey but not overly sweet, especially if you go light on the sugar-sprinkling. At Hallowe'en, use orange sugar to make them sparkle and jump off the plate (as if they needed help).

Deborah's Chocolate Bats

3 cups all-purpose flour, sifted
1 1/4 cups best quality unsweetened cocoa
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 generous teaspoons ground cinnamon
3 sticks (3/4 cup) unsalted butter, softened
2 1/2 cups confectioner's sugar, sifted
2 large eggs, lightly whisked
1 1/2 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

Sift together the flour, cocoa, salt, and cinnamon. Set aside. In another bowl, with an electric mixer, cream the butter and sugar until fluffy; add the eggs and vanilla.

Switch to a wooden spoon and stir the flour mixture into the egg-butter-sugar mixture; combine thoroughly but don't over-mix. Divide the dough into two balls, wrap each in plastic, and flatten slightly so you've got two very thick chocolate frisbee-like shapes. Put in the fridge for an hour or so.

Heat your oven to 350º F (my oven can get a bit too hot, so I always bump this down to about 325º F and wait a bit longer--it's preferable to having them burn on the underside).

Cover your cookie sheets with parchment paper.

Using a rolling pin and a clean, lightly floured surface, roll the dough out carefully until it's about 1/8" thick--mine are often a tiny bit thicker, as the humidity this time of year makes it nearly impossible to work with very thin dough of any sort. Flouring both your rolling pin and hands will help keep the dough from sticking too much. (So will working with cooled dough, in a nice cool kitchen--lucky you--if you possibly can.)

With a bat-shaped cookie-cutter--or one that's any favorite shape, of course--cut out your cookies. A wafer-thin metal spatula will be useful in transferring them onto the cookie sheet. As with many things containing flour, the less you manhandle this dough, the more tender and melt-in-your-mouth the final result will be, so be gentle and take your time. You can put the bats fairly close together, as they don't tend to swell and spread the way some cookies do. Sprinkle them with a little sugar, either plain granulated, raw, or colorful.

Bake for 8-10 minutes. They're supposed to be juuust this side of crisp and not darkened at all.

I have to admit it: chocolate bats, when oven-warm, are quite gorgeous--more so when eaten while standing at the stove with a little cup of espresso in one hand, enjoying the peace that you know is as temporary as it gets: that deep chocolate-cinnamon aroma might just as well be a fifty-foot-wide bat signal.

Enjoy!

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Unwarranted email-snooping ruled unconstitutional in 2010

 
I was poking around in some 4th Amendment case law online and came across a relatively recent (2010) ruling (.pdf) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. It's a solidly pro-civil liberties ruling that seems tailor-made for the files of whoever wants to challenge the legality of the NSA's unwarranted domestic surveillance programs.

The case was United States. v. Warshak et. al., and it involved the prosecution of Steven and Harriet Warshak, owners of Enzyte (a herb-based "male enhancement" supplement). The court upheld Warshak's conviction, more-or-less, because of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule (whereby law enforcement is recognized to have been doing its job and following the law as it existed then).

(I will note here that I vehemently disagree with the so-called "good faith exception".)

However--and this is encouraging--the court ruled as unconstitutional the very statutes that enabled the prosecution's secret evidence-gathering.

Circuit Judge Keith, concurring (emphasis mine) (the last couple of lines are my favorites):

     Following NuVox’s policy, the provider would have destroyed Warshak’s old emails but for the government’s request that they maintain all current and prospective emails for almost a year without Warshak’s knowledge. In practice, the government used the statute as a means to monitor Warshak after the investigation started without his knowledge and without a warrant. Such a practice is no more than back-door wiretapping. I doubt that such actions, if contested directly in court, would withstand the muster of the Fourth Amendment. Email, much like telephone, provides individuals with a means to communicate in private. See Warshak v. United States , 490 F.3d 455, 469-70 (6th Cir. 2007), vacated , 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The government cannot use email collection as a means to monitor citizens without a warrant anymore than they can tap a telephone line to monitor citizens without a warrant. The purpose of § 2703, along with the Stored Communications Act as a whole, is to maintain the boundaries between a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy and crime prevention in light of quickly advancing technology. S. Rep. 99-541, at 4. To interpret § 2703(f) as having both a retroactive and prospective effect would be contrary to the purpose of the statute as a whole.

     While it was not the issue in today’s decision, a policy whereby the government requests emails prospectively without a warrant deeply concerns me. I am furthermore troubled by the majority’s willingness to disregard the current reading of § 2703(f) without concern for future analysis of this statute.

Thoughts?

Image via techpp.com.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Friday Frank: My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama and Willie The Pimp; Texas; 1984



After having spent years searching for live video of Maestro playing My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama (a sentimental favorite in our house), I do believe I've got it.

And for afters, another Zappa great: Willie the Pimp.

You're welcome.

[Frank wouldn't approve of me appending this post with the digital version of a warning label. So I won't.]

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Deborah's Kiss off, Chick-fil-A Lighter, Tastier, and Same-Sex-Marriage-Friendly Milkshake


I admit it: there was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when I was (operative word: was) an enthusiastic fan of Chick-fil-A's delicious, creamy milkshakes.

No more. Even though the store is three minutes from my place in St. Pete. Even though, on a miserably hot spring or summer Florida afternoon, their milkshakes are things of beauty.

Mainly, it's the fault of the company's homobigoted CEO, Dan Cathy, who pushed me away with statements like this:
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit."
(Presumably, then, he supports polygamy, selling daughters into slavery, and beating sons to death when they disappoint him. Oh, and no shrimp on their family dinner table. No cotton/poly blend tablecloth, either.)

Moreover, Chick-Fil-A is a generous financial backer of anti-equality and hate groups, having given them some $2 million in 2009 alone.

What a guy.

But to make all this even worse (as if that were possible), those milkshakes are horrifyingly calorie-dense, fat-laden, and sugar-saturated.

So I made my own milkshakes. I'm sure a lot of you are rolling your eyes--Really? Did she just figure out how to make shakes? Where did she come by that reputation for brains?--but I'm going to give you my "recipe", such as it is, just the same. Along with a breakdown of the nutrition data for each version. It should go without saying that my shake is much less expensive, too. Plus it will give you energy, as opposed to knocking you on your back with its artery-clogging throw-weight, and you needn't put on actual non-pajama clothes and leave your house in order to enjoy it, either.

Deborah's Kiss-Off, Chick-fil-A Strawberry Milkshake

1 1/2 cups whole frozen strawberries, organic if possible (make your own, or buy them in bags in the freezer section)

1 cup 1% low-fat milk (or low-fat soy milk)

3-4 packets of Stevia granules (my new favorite calorie-free sweetener)

A strong, powerful blender that doesn't jam up or get all squirrelly on you when you throw ice into it.
------

Put the frozen berries in the blender. Pour the milk over them. Sprinkle in the stevia. Hit the power button and pulse on-and-off, using a spoon to loosen the fruit mixture between pulses at first (if the surface of your milkshake isn't moving, you'll burn out the motor--trust me on this).

Once it's blended, crank it up a notch to get the shake looking really smooth. I like a very thick shake, one that's practically like semifreddo in consistency. You'll have the equivalent of one large or two small milkshakes. More or less.

(You can also make a gorgeous peach milkshake this way: substitute 1 1/2 cups frozen sliced peaches for the strawberries, and on top of the stevia, add a dash of cinnamon and a scant teaspoon of vanilla extract. If you really want to duplicate the Chick-fil-A experience, take a few extra slices of frozen peach, chop it into 1/4"-1/2" dice, and stir them into the shake when you've finished blending.)

Okay, the comparisons:

Deborah's Strawberry Milkshake
Calories: 185              
Fat:  2.5 g                                                
Carbohydrates:  31.5 g
Sugar:  25.5 g

Chick-Fil-A's Strawberry Milkshake
Calories: 750
Fat:  27 g
Carbohydrates:  115 g
Sugar: 104 g

HA! Take that, ye mean-spirited, hate-group-supporting, Old-Testament-misquoting promotors of obesity and diabetes.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The highest court takes the low road


Attention "Supremes": People are not experiments.

People's lives are not experiments. People's families are not experiments. People's homes and businesses and visitation rights and survivorship benefits and wills...are not experiments.

People's civil rights are not experiments.

When you sidestepped the Constitution and installed in the White House a sociopathic idiot-child dry-drunk with a God complex?

That was an experiment.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Washington Post "addresses" a few TSA matters


In a post today by the normally clear-eyed Jonathan Capehart -- and in The Washington Post, no less -- you will see plenty of admiration for the way the TSA handles children and the elderly (they get to keep their shoes and jackets on!) as well as cheery support for the some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others Pre-Check program:
Anyway, all I’m asking is that the TSA treat the rest of us the way it treats little kids and old folks. Since 2011, youngsters under age 12 have been allowed to keep their ubiquitous light-up shoes on. And those age 75 and older have been able to keep their footwear on since 2012.[. . .] 
But there is a way around the shoe rule and others that would transport you back to the golden days of air travel when you could breeze through security and go right to your gate. It’s called TSA Pre. If the agency approves you after you’ve undergone its voluntary risk assessment, you get to keep your shoes, belt, and jackets on, and your laptop and plastic goody bag of 3 oz. toiletries get to stay in your carry-on. 
Looks like I better sign up for this thing.
To Capehart and the TSA apologists alike (who, to my profound disappointment, are well represented in the article's comment section): I must remind you that just because the intrusive and often-painful gropings of sex organs (which in many instances are both abusive and, according to FBI definitions of sexual assault and rape, illegal), the needless and forced removal of prostheses and artificial limbs, or any one of countless debasements and offenses to human dignity have not happened to you personally, doesn't mean that they haven't happened to other people all over the United States.

Innocent people who merely want to get from Point A to Point B in their own country.

As we have said so many times we're feeling metaphorically hoarse -- as well as afflicted with serious writer's cramp --  the TSA is an agency rife with criminals, from thieves to child-porn aficionados to rapists to drug-smugglers to (yes) muderers and spouse-abusers.

On top of all that, the agency itself is an unjustifiable use of tax dollars. It should be disbanded.

Furthermore, TSA Apologists, although you may have "breezed through" what is rightly described as, and proven by security experts worldwide to be, pure Security Theatre, those of you who are in possession of a modicum of conscience and a decent level of sympathy toward your fellow human beings should take a moment or two and read about at least some the agency's victims . Click the tab at the top of  the TSA News page, where resides an ever-growing Master List of documented abuses and crimes.

Read it and realize that your tax dollars support an indefensible, ineffective, fascistic agency that violates your Constitutional rights and emphatically does not make us safe. Reinforced and locked cockpit doors; alert, non-compliant passengers; and good, solid police work on the ground -- long before a terrorist even gets near an airport -- are what protect us from that which is statistically speaking, an event so rare that one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning -- four times more likely, in fact-- than  being involved in a terrorist attack.

Crossposted at TSA News Blog.

(Photo: veggiefrog/Flickr Creative Commons)

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

The droning


There are actually people, in the blogosphere, on Facebook, and on Twitter, who argue--with a straight face--that the Constitution (specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process before execution) doesn't apply if acting in accordance with it and following its directives might be risky, dangerous, inconvenient, or politically inopportune.

The Constitution exists precisely for such circumstances, as opposed to just those times when upholding the cause of justice is a simple, straightforward, innoxious exercise. Period, full stop.

Yes, there is plenty of danger inherent in sending armed forces into another country to try to capture, and bring to justice, an American citizen suspected of crimes. And it is pretty well laid out in the Fifth Amendment that when the United States is at war with a country, American armed forces, military and navy, may--in accordance with the rule of law--do what is necessary to defend the nation.

And furthermore, who could argue that flying into Pakistan, under that country's radar and without its permission, and attempting a capture-or-kill of the leading and most-wanted terrorist of our time--Osama Bin Laden--was not fraught with risk and dangerous in the extreme?

Bin Laden was not even an American citizen, yet the children living with and around him were spared, as we were repeatedly reminded by the media in the days that followed. A cynic might call that politically opportune.

But the droning continues elsewhere, in the villages and homes and hideouts of terrorists less well-known and headline-worthy.  Innocents live there too, but they aren't as lucky as the ones who slept under Bin Laden's roof.

To drone apologists and the various incarnations of "all's fair in love and war" they keep repeating, I say this: We are not at war with Yemen.

Nor are we at war with Pakistan.

In the case of targeting an American citizen, living abroad, for execution, why is it regarded as "whining", "puristic", or "naïve" to call out these crimes against humanity and the law itself for what they are?  How can a thinking, moral person be fully satisfied that a suspect's right to due process isn't being abridged when he is summarily executed--blown to bits--without having been afforded the basic rights that are constitutionally guaranteed to citizens, whether here or abroad? Denied the rights to confront his accusers and make a case for his own defense even, or to simply stand in front of a judge and state how evil this country is--or indeed to say nothing whatsoever, but to at least be given the chance to do so instead of having that choice--to speak or not speak--made for him, and done so brutally, antiseptically, irreversibly, and with concurrent harm to others?

And even if one were thus satisfied (and I am emphatically not), one cannot deny that the United States has been sending missile-loaded drones into that which our government deems "enemy territory" but which, while very likely serving as home and refuge to suspected terrorists, happens to be home to countless innocents, too. Ordinary families, that is, with their children, their animals, their homes, their places of worship, and even their emergency personnel--those brave souls we call "first responders", the people who rush to the scene when an explosion occurs in order to offer aid. All killed, by either the first explosion, or by the followup bombing, as happens in the execrable "double-strike" attacks, which wipe out any stragglers and even neatly take care the first responders--the medical personnel--whose life's work it is to attempt to save lives, not extinguish them.

All these people are killed along with the terrorist suspects.

They are not merely the unintended damage occasioned by war, because, again, the United States is not at war with their country.  They are not, Heaven help me, collateral damage. (What a hideous euphemism that is.)

They are rows upon rows of sooty-faced children: always motionless but for any still-flowing blood; often with bits of their skulls missing. Children who are no less innocent--and no less beloved by parents, family, and friends--than the white, middle-class victims of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut for whom President Obama, and countless others, publicly shed tears.

And I can't countenance any of this. Neither the wanton disregard for the rule of law, nor the wanton disregard for innocent human life--wherever it exists, and whatever its nationality, faith, or skin color.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

They don't hate us for our freedom. Meddling, slaughtering, lies, and hubris...well, yeah.


MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, whom I generally admire--and who, to her endless credit, has pushed a lot of social issue envelopes on her show--recently occasioned and narrated a documentary called Hubris (you can watch all six parts here). Hubris was advanced as reporting on "how the Bush administration viewed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as an opportunity to remove Saddam Hussein from power", and promoted as a thorough analysis of:  the utterly false casus belli (the metal tubes, the mushroom cloud threat, etc.) for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003; the evidence presented to Congress (that would eventually be completely discredited); the use and abuse of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell by pushing him to make an under-informed and flawed case for war; and finally, the horrifically poor management of Iraq subsequent to the removal from power and execution of Saddam Hussein.

The same Saddam Hussein who, it must be noted (if not discussed too often, if ever, on MSNBC), was on the C.I.A. payroll since 1957 and to whose Ba`ath party the U.S. provided monetary and intelligence assistance--first in the coup of 1963, and again in that of 1968, about which David Morgan of Reuters wrote:
In 1968, Morris says, the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath party elements led by long-time Saddam mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who would turn over the reins of power to his ambitious protégé in 1979. “It’s a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States, and the (CIA’s) involvement there was really primary,” Morris says.
Thus would Hussein, in 1979 and with the blessing and backing of the United States, occupy Iraq's highest office. Come the 1990's, however, he was regarded as less and less useful for "America's national interests" (read: those of Big Oil).

All that said, you might conclude--correctly--that my opinion of Hubris is not a uniformly positive one. I felt a few extremely important concerns--the most important ones, in fact--were either skipped over during the writing process itself or, more likely, edited out of the narrative on the orders of higher-ups (but who can say?).

Anyway, in order to better express--and to augment--my own complaints, I'm going to share with you, dear readers, some luminous observations and criticisms of Hubris by two writers I deeply respect.

First: the following is a letter to Rachel Maddow and MSNBC by my friend Geoff Wheeler, a fellow Briton by birth as well as a retired merchant seaman. Geoff lives in Florida. (Published here with his permission.)
Subject: Letter to Rachel Maddow, MSNBC
Ms. Maddow: I was looking forward to your program ‘Hubris,’ which aired on MSNBC on Monday night, based on the book of the same name written by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, which I bought soon after it was published in 2006. I could ask why you waited so long, but I prefer to ask why you blew your chance to nail the Bush Gang in the very first minute by saying that Saddam kicked the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, which he never did. Your program was intended to indict Bush, yet right at the beginning you falsely indicted Saddam. In 1998 Richard Butler, head of the U.N. weapons inspectors, accused the Iraqis of obstructing their work, so Clinton said he would use air strikes, and out of concern for their safety Butler withdrew his team. I repeat: they withdrew voluntarily - Saddam did not kick them out. 
So you blew that, and then compounded your error by not mentioning that it was Bush who ordered Hans Blix and his team out of Iraq just before he invaded in 2003. As the reporter you think you are, how could you miss that? I saw and heard the bum on TV say that the reason he invaded was because Saddam would not let Blix and his team in, when they had been in the country for more than two months and had found nothing! Which of course was not what Bush and Cheney wanted, which was a reason to invade Iraq, so it was they who kicked the inspectors out, killed 60-80,000 Iraqi civilians a few days later with ‘Shock & Awe,’ which grew to untold thousands of Iraqi dead in the ensuing eight years, not to mention a trillion American dollars down the drain and our reputation mud around the world. Bush stated exactly the opposite of what actually happened, and you let him get away with it! 
You had a chance, Ms. Maddow, to educate the millions of viewers on Monday night who tuned in to your show, particularly those who lost loved ones in Iraq and continue to delude themselves that they died for this country and not for Iraq’s oil and the lying bastard (make that plural to include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and the rest of the gang) who sent them there. You will probably never get the chance again, leaving Bush-lovers to wallow in their selective ignorance of the facts, and for that you should be ashamed. 
R. G. Wheeler
---------

Second: Some notes on the documentary Hubris by Driftglass (he of the acuminous political lens that is his eponymously-titled blog), wittily live-tweeted for our edification (where witty = tear-evoking gallows humor):

  • Republicans watching "Hubris" 2night out of nostalgia 4 watching a dry-drunk war criminal trying to wrestle the word "nuclear" to the ground.
  • Except of course history did not begin until 01/20/09. All "events" before that are rumors created by Evil Liberals
  • Remember David Brooks' column calling people who opposed Wolfowitz antisemitic? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember David Brooks' columns mocking Liberals who opposed Iraq war as deluded Bush-deranged posers? No? That's the fucking problem
  • Remember David Brooks calling people cynical assholes who objected to Dubya's flightsuit tango? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when the collaborators at the NYT gave a fucking weekly column to Bloody Bill Kristol? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when David Brooks leveraged his Liberal bashing tripe into a column-for-life at the NYT? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember [* the late & brilliant blogger] Steve Gilliard? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when the wingnutosphere went nuts trying to discredit every alarming report out of Iraq? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when palette-trucks of shrink-wrapped taxpayer cash just fucking vanished into Iraq? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when everything that is now settled history was America-hating surrender-monkey treason? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when a gay hooker Conservative "reporter" w/ a fake name sat 100 ft away from Dubya for 2 yrs? No? That's the fucking problem
  • Remember when Halliburton made $$ selling American soldiers in Iraq toilet water? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when the GOP make "Fuck Reality" into American national policy? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when Phil Donahue got fired for telling the truth and Conservatives got promoted for lying? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember how the Cheney clans got really, really rich sending kids off to die for their lies? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when 60 million Americans re-elected these deficit-creating war criminals? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember the incompetent children of GOP campaign contributors were put in charge of governing Iraq? No? That's the fucking problem.
  • Remember when Fox News told soldiers rolling into battle to look into the camera and say "Fox Rocks!" No? That's the fucking problem.
Remember writing, thinking, speaking, marching, screaming against the coordinated, deafening roar of the Conservative hate machine and Beltway press?
Well, for what it's worth, Driftglass, I do.

I remember landing and disembarking in Vancouver that winter evening in early 2003, only to see a number of customs personnel thereabouts openly weeping; concerned--horrified, actually--I asked them what was going on, and they replied that that the U.S. had just started bombing Iraq, something they had hoped against hope would not happen. (Oh, those idealistic peace-loving Canadians!) I remember coming home later that week and writing what would be the first of innumerable letters to Florida's representatives in Congress, as well as the White House itself, exhorting them to put a stop to this war built on obvious lies. I remember screaming and crying, too.

I remember aging a lot in the years thereafter. I remember the hiding of flag-draped coffins at Dover; the smearing of bereaved mothers who dared to speak out against Bush and Cheney; the disgusting and widespread incidences of torture that came to light, like Abu Ghraib; and the horror stories about innocent young men of middle-Eastern descent being swept up from the streets and, along with actual terrorism suspects, being shipped to the shameful prison in Guantánamo, Cuba, where they would all languish, uncharged and untried, choking on the putrid fumes of some evil, gray-area incarnation of the law, for years to come (indeed, a great many are still there, as yet uncharged and untried.)

Hubris? More like Malefaction, the magnitude of which, in terms of treasure squandered and American and Iraqi blood spilled, is unprecedented in modern history.

[* Like Driftglass, I highly recommend reading the incredibly prescient writing of the late, great Steve Gilliard; here's an especially good post from August 2003.]

Thursday, February 21, 2013

TSA's non-apology


My colleague at TSA News, Lisa Simeone, reports that the TSA has "apologized" to Lucy Forcke and her parents. Lucy is the little girl in the wheelchair about whom I wrote here.

The TSA screeners on duty admitted they had specifically targeted the little girl in a wheelchair. Yet despite this admission, TSA management not only kept mum for three days, but the statement they have now offered goes like this: 
“TSA regrets inaccurate guidance was provided to this family during screening and offers its apology.” 
I don’t know about you, but that strikes me as pretty thin gruel.

Ah yes, The Book Of TSA Apologies.

Thinner, even, than The Directory of Honest Politicians, Simple Do-It-Yourself Computer Repairs, or Humble Business-School Graduates: A Field Guide.

With contents that are just as risibly disingenuous.

Monday, February 18, 2013

TSA assaults & traumatizes three-year-old girl in wheelchair



I wish I could say that this is a new low for the contemptible thugs in blue for whose equipment and "services" taxpayers pay billions of dollars every year.

Sadly, it isn't. It's just par for the course; another Day in Despotism here in the Land of the Meek, Home of the Afraid.

In case you couldn't bring yourself to watch this indisputable display of abuse -- this disgusting mistreatment of a little girl and her family about which her mother and father comment "look at her all dressing like a potential terrorist/drug trafficker; people who roll in on hot pink wheelchairs, wearing a gingerbread coat and clutching a stuffed baby lamb, are just begging to be harassed" -- let me itemize the violations and absurdities at hand (perhaps you can identify more; as a mother myself, I'm too upset by what I just watched to further research the laws, statutory and logical).

First, there is the obvious Fourth Amendment violation against unwarranted search and seizure. I don't care what kind of pretzel logic the TSA twists itself into parroting in order to justify groping a three-year-old in a wheelchair who's on her way to Disney World: it's a violation of her Constitutional rights. Period. Full stop.

And this should not stand. Not in the country that calls itself the United States of America. Citizens and residents who accept otherwise should not only be ashamed of themselves, but should, in my opinion, be constantly, and in strenuous terms, be made aware that they're engaging in a kind of treason against the very freedoms the nation's founders established (and countless fought for and died to protect), and thus, by extension, debasing the idea of America itself.

Second, travelers are indeed permitted to photograph and/or videotape the so-called "screening procedure" (more accurately, security theatre), including aggressive pat-downs that would be defined as sexual assault in any other context and nude photography of their bodies. The only subject matter exempt from passengers' freedom-to-document are the screening machines themselves. As shown in the above video, these TSA screeners try to claim otherwise and keep harping on their imagined rule that the passengers can't record the incident, even as the parents ask them to cite the actual law pertaining thereto.

Third, the tactics here are insensitive and unkind on their face, as well as pointless. Not only is this little girl so obviously terrified to the point of crying out loud, and desperately upset that her comfort toy -- her stuffed animal -- is being taken away, she is distraught that her parents' attempts to protect her are being summarily ignored. Imagine how frightening that must be. If indeed the child "alarmed," the screeners could have resolved the matter by allowing one of the cleared parents to carry her through the metal detector in their arms while they checked her wheelchair for hidden bombs, machetes, or fusilage-piercing grenade launchers.

What will it take for the American public to recognize how wrong this is, all of it, and demand that our so-called leaders put an end to it? Why are citizens not carrying out a full-on economic boycott of the airlines for all non-essential travel? What will it take, if not the unconstitutional persecution of a little child in a wheelchair?

Also at TSA News.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Christopher Dorner's amazing self-teleporting wallet

We know that both the LAPD and the San Bernardino PD have lied, egregiously, about certain facts pertaining to the manhunt and extrajudicial execution-by-fire of the fugitive ex-cop and murder suspect Christopher Dorner.

We witnessed "law enforcement officers", in this and other press conferences and interviews, flatly denying they started the extravagant, floor-melting fire in the San Bernardino cabin Tuesday night--the fire that either burned Dorner alive or occasioned his suicide by gunshot. 

Yet actual evidence strongly suggests the opposite is true: officers with one or more departments on the scene did indeed deliberately start the fire that completely destroyed the 80-year-old structure and everything inside it. And I can confirm, as journalist Max Blumenthal also confirms, in detail, that the PD scanner conversations were exactly as recorded in this YouTube video compiling them--and as heard in this raw footage shot inside one of the news helicopters hovering above the scene ("Burn that fucking house down" and then, repeatedly, "Burn that motherfucker out, burn that motherfucker out")--because along with numerous other bloggers and independent journalists that night who communicated with one another on Twitter, I was listening to the police/fire scanner feed, live and in real-time.

At least, I was until the feed abruptly stopped--either because the site crashed due to the number of people accessing it, or because everything was simply cut off. Reporters on the scene and in the sky happily allowed themselves to be cut off, too; that is, they meekly complied--without question or pause--when asked to back off with their helicopters and cameras.  To take their scrutiny, such as it was, far from the blazing cabin, and to cease tweeting about the siege, even though authorities already knew Dorner couldn't possibly have been following any media coverage because the cabin was unoccupied and had no cable or Internet services (indeed, it may not even have had its electricity turned on).

Even so, what we had already heard was sufficiently damning. (You can read Max's comprehensive Twitter timeline on Storify.)

And now we have another curious item to ponder: Christopher Dorner's Amazing Self-Teleporting Wallet.

The wallet, containing Dorner's identification, that authorities claimed showed up near the US/Mexican border last Thursday, February 7, as reported on Monday, February 11, in the L.A. Times:

After authorities interviewed the boat captain early Thursday, they found Dorner's wallet and identification cards "at the San Ysidro Point of Entry" near the U.S.-Mexico border. That same day, a guard at the Point Loma Naval Base told authorities he had spotted a man matching Dorner's description trying sneak onto the base, according to the court records.

Which is also the wallet, likewise containing Dorner's identification, that authorities claim was found in the burned-out cabin some five+ days later and 100 miles away, as reported on Wednesday, February 13, in USA Today:

Report: Dorner's wallet found in burned-out cabin

[...] The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office said charred human remains were found in the rubble where Christopher Dorner is said to have been cornered Tuesday. "We have reason to believe that it is him," sheriff's spokeswoman Cynthia Bachman said. 
A wallet with a California driver's license bearing the name Christopher Dorner also was found, the Associated Press reported, citing a law enforcement official who was briefed on the investigation but declined to be named because of the ongoing probe.

Is there a cobwebby ghost of a chance that anyone working within what Charlie Pierce calls The Courtier Press is paying attention and doing his or her job?

Anyone?

Sunday, February 10, 2013

The human face on which they stomped


We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. -- George Orwell

I read Christopher Jordan Dorner's entire, unedited manifesto (as it is called), which to my mind would be more accurately described as a vivid narrative--albeit one that's deterring in its length--or else an ethical and legal brief; an apology; an outreach; and, for the reader who will put the media chatter on pause and think for himself, an invitation to consider (if not completely understand, ever), the impetuses driving a broken man's embrace of violence and anarchy. Viewed thus--as both exposition and treatise, as opposed to mere expression of vengeance--Dorner's writing belies a rage driven by the constant thwarting of the basic human inclination toward equilibrium and logic, toward having the world around us make sense. It is also a rage fueled by the relentless frustration of his desire to see justice served, which desire, after all, might understandably be that much more powerfully felt by someone who served in law enforcement, and, before that, in the defense of his country.

Dorner's writings are therefore not so easily dismissed as the ramblings of a madman. And they paint--in harsh strokes, with raw pigment--a searing picture of the kind of rage that, let's face it, surely lies frighteningly close to the collective surface of an unknown number of aggrieved and oppressed souls among us.  It is even more terrifying to consider that said number surely climbs every year, as dignity, agency, autonomy, and even survival beyond the narrowest definition of the word elude the despondent many; as vaunted notions like freedom, hope, happiness, and political power are increasingly, exclusively, owned and controlled by the unaccountable few.

If I'm honest, I'll admit that Dorner's rage is in many ways understandable, even as the murders it engendered cannot be condoned, and it should go without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I don't condone them, or indeed any violence, in any shape or form.

The treatise is driven by Dorner's apposite disgust with the asymmetry of both the respect conferred and the dignity afforded a black man within the culture of his profession, as opposed to a white one--even today, even as a black man occupies the nation's highest office.  And it is laced throughout with righteous fury and unimaginable torment.

It is, at its core, the plea of a man who wants his identity and dignity back. Who accepts that if this does take place, ever, he won't be around to appreciate it. Who is simultaneously devoted to satisfying the former, and unconcerned with the inevitability of the latter.

Christopher Dorner is a man who, like the rest of us, lives in a world wherein war criminals, along with well-dressed, well-born sociopathic thieves, are held irreproachable and uncensured.  Meanwhile, ordinary human beings--their lives' trajectories generally preordained by culture; their quest for temporary escape more often than not compelled by abject circumstance (specifically, and especially, citizens who, like him, happen to be black or Latino)--languish, incarcerated, for years on end despite the trivial moral weight of their (usually drugs-related) transgressions; the invariably self-abusing and/or internecine nature of their crimes; and the comparatively hair's-breadth scope of the harm done thereby to the world at large.

This, in stark contrast to the far-reaching devastation wrought by the atrocities their powerful and well-placed betters commit, and commit unashamedly, unrelentingly, and without receiving as much as the smallest measure of punishment.  This, what a moral individual can only view as the desecration of justice itself and the incremental extinguishment thereby of the human spirit. This, yet another foul eruption of the gangrenous institutionalized contempt with which impervious authority regards our better angels and our natural hunger for fairness and dignity.

So, his conscience thus tortured, and his attempts to effect justice via officially sanctioned means thus thwarted and retaliated against, Dorner was at last bereft of options and defeated of spirit. That is, he could no longer reconcile the menaces of hypocrisy, noxious racism, and corrosive, unpunished evildoing swirling around him daily with the unblemished and marble-smooth contours of Justice, which paramount ideal he'd sworn to protect and uphold. Christopher Dorner then turned--tragically and to most, I'm sure, incomprehensibly--toward what must have seemed to him the only logical road ahead.  He decided that the cause of protecting and upholding justice--no matter how warped and ruinous others would regard his interpretation thereof--was more deserving of his energies and devotion than the very preservation of his own life.

As I said when I posted the link to his unedited writing on FaceBook, I strenuously disagree with those commenters asserting that Christopher Dorner's writings were edited, were somehow modified or augmented, by an outside party. These individuals apparently don't believe that a man who snaps this way--who kills, who terrorizes, who is mortally wounded and clearly, heartbreakingly mentally ill--can also be intelligent, reflective, erudite, empathetic, or just. I am angered--well, more like profoundly dismayed--by their reflexive avoidance of unsettling truths; their predictable retreat into the false comforts of boilerplate pop-culture narratives; and their apocryphal, self-satisfied pronouncements about mental illness in general, and nihilist desperation in particular, about which I have written before.

I loathe all kinds of violence, and by that I necessarily include the violence Christopher Dorner has unloosed against the community of the L.A.P.D. and, by extension, his city and country (even as those entities all too often visit their own kind of violence, metaphorical and real, on noble but moribund ideals, and on innocent lives).  I am shocked, but not surprised, at the staggering, ongoing malfeasance of a police force who, like far too many of their counterparts around the nation, oppress and abuse the members of the communities they are supposed to serve, violating their civil liberties and making a mockery of the jurisprudence underpinning the very idea of America.  Who pervert the most basic of moral ideas enshrined in the Constitution--who viciously, and without remorse, tear its blueprints for a just and civilized society into limp ribbons--when they take it upon themselves to shoot first, identify the target later.

I mourn all this loss of life. I also mourn the now-permanent annihilation of the dignity and name of this man, Christopher Dorner, who says quite plainly that it came down to that: to witnessing the destruction of his name, his identity. For this is a man who might well be any of us, were our own identities so forcefully, gleefully shaped--so glossily and appealingly built out--by the brute hands of corporatism, gender expectations, ever-fewer career options, and ever more plentiful and nefarious government needs--only to be dispassionately ablated (and sometimes demolished completely) by those same contemptible architects whenever morality raised its inconvenient head.

I'm able to do that--to hold those two ideas in tension. I ask of others: are you?

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Vice President Biden: It's my birthday. Kindly wipe the floor with that innumerate little Koch-up Paul Ryan tonight.


Dear Vice-President Biden:

Tonight, I'm asking you to demand that Paul Ryan explain how someone can live on the average Social Security check of about $1,200 a month--and remember, that has to cover food; rent or mortgage; insurance; utilities (including water, garbage collection, electricity, and heating and/or cooling your residencw); clothes; car payments and/or car maintenance (and insurance for that) and/or train or bus expenses; and--here's a big one--needed medicines and services that Medicare doesn't cover--and not go straight over a "fiscal cliff" all his own.

Then, as a follow-up, ask Paul Ryan if, given that his Social Security check was swallowed up and then some by the above-described expenses, he would be okay with having a guy like Paul Ryan telling him, Here you go, here's a voucher for USD$8,000. Go out and get your own health insurance, old dude. Good luck with those no-pre-existing-conditions clauses!

Then ask Paul Ryan if he has any idea how much a defibrillator costs, should he need one of those when he's in his late sixties.

Ask him how, given that with his generous eight-thousand-dollar voucher, he'd only be able to afford the World's Shittiest Insurance Policy With Massive Co-pays and Deductibles, he would propose to pay for heart surgery. Or brain surgery. Or cancer surgery and followup chemotherapy. Or hell, even an uncomplicated hernia-repair, meaning things went without a hitch and the hospital wasn't required to keep him longer than a half-hour post-op.

Ask him if he will support requiring that all Ryan-Plan-advocating sociopaths in Congress give back (opt out of) their gold-plated, taxpayer-funded healthcare and, in its place, receive vouchers for eight thousand bucks. Oh, and they must also try to live on $1,200 a month, not their generous Congressional salaries (the ones they keep voting to raise, I'll add. Convenient!) and make up any healthcare shortfalls out of that.

Ask Paul Ryan if he knows how much a tin of tunafish costs today. How about a jar of peanut butter, Congressman? Store-brand fish-sticks? Ramen noodles?

Ask Paul Ryan how often he buys himself a new winter coat. From Goodwill.

Ask Paul Ryan if he's familiar with basic mathematics concepts.  Ask Paul Ryan if he's ever actually added and subtracted things on his own--no fair using the iPhone calculator app.

Ask Paul Ryan: If you, Joe Biden, were to walk over and place a stethoscope against his sternum right now, would you be able to hear anything beating?

Anything at all?

Thanks, Mr. Vice-President. Break a leg (among other things).

All Best,
Deborah

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Bloggy thoughts

To anyone stopping by for the first time, Hello, and welcome.

I write about a lot of different things that interest me; my posts on national politics come from a viewpoint that's likely more leftward in orientation than that of many blogs you already read. If you're familiar with Northern Europe's successful social democracies, and you believe, as I do, as Albert Einstein did, that under the current system in the States:

There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

...or if, at the very least, you are interested in reading the thoughts and observations of someone whose worldview is thus--even as you may disagree with all or part of it--you'll appreciate at least some of what I write, and I'm glad you're here.

I sometimes swear. I rail against all manifestations of dishonesty, cruelty, fascist creep, police state drift, and institutional sociopathy. I adore Frank Zappa and think he was an American genius, one who received--and still receives--far too little acclaim in his own country.

All that said, if reading things here causes your eyes to bulge and your mouth to froth, you should probably go elsewhere. There are lots and lots of other blogs out there, and you can even start your own.

I don't accept any advertising and I derive no revenue from this blog whatsoever. It is, in short, a pastime. Other than notifying friends on Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus that I've posted something new, I don't consciously drive traffic here; if my observations or ideas have that result, it is certainly not by design--as I said, I don't work for anyone but myself, and I do not make any money from this blog. If the pageviews for any one day total ten or ten thousand, it makes no difference to me, financially or even in terms of puffing up my chronically undersized ego.

Where it does make a difference, though, is in my comment sections and the amount of vitriol that fills my in-box. I suppose I am just one of those people who, despite often disagreeing vehemently with something a right-wing blogger has written, has never felt the urge to name-call in comments, or, worse, to send hateful, sexist, threatening, and even obscene e-mails to someone. Someone I've never even met. I cannot, for the life of me, wrap my head around that mindset. (Good grief, what is wrong with some people?)

That's why I've been tweaking the comments policy a bit this weekend. Obviously, accepting comments from anonymous people is out of the question, now and forever. Yikes.  Even having Open ID registration has its bugs and, of course, it does nothing to constrain people from name-calling under whatever pseudonym they've chosen at that moment, for that comment.  I turned off comments altogether this weekend because I am visiting my injured mother as she recovers from an accident that left her with a broken arm and leg: I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with rude, nasty people who come here unbidden to beat up on the girl.

As I am wont to say, Fuck that noise.

Anyway, I've decided to try having comments open, but with moderation in place. I'd love to hear what you have to say, but for the love of crumb-cake, please play nice.  I'll approve and publish comments on a regular basis. Unless they are exceedingly mean-spirited, trollish, sexist, racist, or generally unacceptable.

And I get to decide what's mean-spirited, trollish, sexist, racist, and generally unacceptable.

I support free speech. Of course.  That said, this is not a government entity and therefore the First Amendment does not guarantee that you can say anything you want here and not realize any consequences for your words, including but not limited to having them altogether censored.  So don't even bother with that argument. I am, as I keep saying, a private, single-person, non-advertisement-accepting, non-revenue-generating blog that's been around since 2006.

One that's written by a human being, believe it or not.

Thank you.

XXX
DNT