I AM A DIASPORAL JEW OF THE ASHKENAZ TRIBE AND I HEREBY DECLARE BUELAHMAN AND LYNDA OF BUELAHMAN'S REDSTATE REVOLT TO BE ABSOLUTELY FREE OF ANTI-SEMITISM OF ANY KIND. THEIR VIEWS ON AMERICA'S ISRAEL POLICY IS THE SAME AS MINE. IT IS THE SAME AS WELL OVER 30% OF THE ISRAELI PEOPLE AND OVER 70% OF THE DIASPORAL ASHKENAZ COMMUNITY IN THE WORLD OUTSIDE BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.
I don’t pretend to understand Afghanistan, but I do know it’s a big, poor, backward Islamic country in Central Asia with all sorts of warring factions that have been at it for decades, or even centuries. I know that American soldiers have been fighting there for eight years and that the situation is still a huge mess.
And now President Barack Obama, after sending 21,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan in March, is set to announce next week that he’s going to send over another 30,000 or so, which will bring the total number of US troops in that big, poor, backward, bewildering, violent Islamic country to about 100,000.
I don’t know much about Afghanistan, but I’m pretty familiar with America, familiar enough to know that America is not up for this. I don’t know if it’s possible to pacify Afghanistan – or Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or anyplace else in the region. I don’t know if this can be done even with millions of American troops fighting for 100 years.
But I do know, as I think everyone knows or should know, that America is not ready to fight Islamism like it fought Nazism and Communism, which means that in its wars in the Middle East, America is destined to lose. The only question is how long these futile adventures will last.
Actually, America fought one war in the Middle East that was not seemingly futile, not at all – the one in 1991 against Iraq. That was a “necessary war,” to use Obama’s term for the mess in Afghanistan. Back then, Saddam Hussein invaded an American-allied country, he electrified the entire Middle East, he was bidding for control, direct or indirect, over two-thirds of the world’s oil – he had to be stopped and turned back.
So president George H.W. Bush set a very clear, reasonable goal – forcing Saddam out of Kuwait – then sent half a million soldiers to do the job, accomplished it in six weeks with minimal allied casualties, then brought the troops home, leaving Saddam and Saddamism in ruins. That was a so called “good war.” But Afghanistan? After 9/11, the Americans should have retaliated by carpet bombing select areas of that country, killing tens of thousands of people, terrorists and civilians both, to let al-Qaida, the Taliban and everyone in the Islamic world know that there is a terrible price to pay for attacking America and killing 3,000 innocents.
Instead, America decided to “transform” the region. The result is that another 5,000 Americans have been killed, soldiers this time, bombs are still going off every which way in Iraq, and now a new president, this one a liberal Democrat, not a Republican neocon, is driving deeper and deeper into Afghanistan.
And what about Pakistan? And Iran? Are they next? “All options are on the table,” says Obama.
AMERICA’S PROBLEM is that it still wants to be a military superpower but is no longer willing to pay the price in blood and money, so it tries to do it on the cheap and as painlessly as possible, and winds up fighting endless wars with impossible goals in distant, hellish places.
If the US were serious about taking on a military challenge of this scope, it would reinstate the draft. This isn’t Grenada they’re dealing with, this is an enemy with outposts across the Middle East, and parts of Africa too. And the US means to go to war against this enemy with a volunteer army that’s drawn from less than 1 percent of American families!
“The problem in this country with this issue [of Afghanistan],” said Democratic Congressman David Obey, “is that the only people who have to sacrifice are military families, and they’ve had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war.”
The American people won’t stand for a military draft; it’s a taboo subject . They won’t even stand for a war tax; that’s another taboo. But neither will they stand for the idea that America is not a military superpower anymore. And nobody in that country, not even the messiah of change, has the guts to tell them that they can’t have it both ways.
So the US pretends it can fight World War III like Grenada, its army is so far beyond overextended that there isn’t a word for it, the country spends more and more billions of dollars that it doesn’t have, and this has been going on now for almost a decade.
At this point, is anybody confident that if and when the US gets out of Iraq, after all these years of horror and devastation, it will leave behind a stable, decent, more or less pro-American country?
Is anybody confident of such a happy end to the war in Afghanistan?
I don’t think so. I think if America knew right after 9/11 what it knows now, there is no way on earth it would have started these wars.
But now Obama wants more – not because he believes he can salvage the situation in Afghanistan, but because he’s afraid of what will happen if he abandons it to the likes of al-Qaida and the Taliban. Which is a very legitimate worry. I worry about that too.
But the only way the US can salvage Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan, or Iran, or any country in the Muslim world, is to fight like it fought every other major war in its history – with a draft, with war taxes, with a clear, reasonable goal and the readiness to pursue it to the end.
Is America up for that today? No, it’s not, I’m happy to say, because, like I said, even millions of American soldiers fighting for 100 years might not be enough to neutralize the threat of Islamism.
It’s fight or flight, which means the only choice left is flight. The US is not a military superpower anymore, and it’s just hurting itself and a lot of other people by pretending.
The time has come for America to wrap up these endless, failed third world wars.
It’s not going to be easy. And the worst part is that after Obama deepens America’s commitment with 30,000 new soldiers, getting out is going to be even harder.
Facts
Thanksgiving Day is celebrated on the fourth Thursday in November in the United States.
By the fall of 1621 only half of the pilgrims, who had sailed on the Mayflower, survived. The survivors, thankful to be alive, decided to give a thanksgiving feast.
Thanksgiving Day is celebrated on the second Monday in October in Canada.
The Plymouth Pilgrims were the first to celebrate the Thanksgiving.
The pilgrims arrived in North America in December 1620.
The Pilgrims sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to reach North America.
The pilgrims sailed on the ship, which was known by the name of ‘Mayflower’.
They celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day in the fall of 1621.
They celebrated the first Thanksgiving Day at Plymouth, Massachusetts.
The drink that the Puritans brought with them in the Mayflower was the beer.
The Wampanoag Indians were the people who taught the Pilgrims how to cultivate the land.
The Pilgrim leader, Governor William Bradford, had organized the first Thanksgiving feast in the year 1621 and invited the neighboring Wampanoag Indians also to the feast.
The first Thanksgiving feast was held in the presence of around ninety Wampanoag Indians and the Wampanoag chief, Massasoit, was also invited there.
The first Thanksgiving celebration lasted three days.
President George Washington issued the first national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in the year 1789 and again in 1795.
The state of New York officially made Thanksgiving Day an annual custom in 1817.
Sarah Josepha Hale, an editor with a magazine, started a Thanksgiving campaign in 1827 and it was result of her efforts that in 1863 Thanksgiving was observed as a day for national thanksgiving and prayer.
Abraham Lincoln issued a ‘Thanksgiving Proclamation’ on third October 1863 and officially set aside the last Thursday of November as the national day for Thanksgiving. Whereas earlier the presidents used to make an annual proclamation to specify the day when Thanksgiving was to be held.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt restored Thursday before last of November as Thanksgiving Day in the year 1939. He did so to make the Christmas shopping season longer and hus stimulate the economy of the state.
Congress passed an official proclamation in 1941 and declared that now onwards Thanksgiving will be observed as a legal holiday on the fourth Thursday of November every year.
Over 30 years ago– I had read a small leather-bound book about the Shroud. I enjoyed the starting point that the researcher used . Art. It was amazing and thought provoking. Anyway– since then I have always found the research facinating. Of course I am lost when it comes to why no DNA research– but thats just me. lol
Sun, Nov. 22, 2009
Researcher says faint text proves shroud’s authenticity
By Ariel David
Associated Press
ROME – A Vatican researcher asserts that nearly invisible text on the Shroud of Turin proves that the artifact revered as Jesus’ burial cloth is authentic.
The assertion made by Barbara Frale in a book drew immediate skepticism from some scientists, who maintain the shroud is a medieval forgery.
Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, said Friday that she used computers to enhance images of faintly written words in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic scattered across the shroud.
She asserted that the words include the name “Jesus Nazarene” in Greek, proving that the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity.
The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ’s image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection.
The fragile artifact, owned by the Vatican, is kept locked in a special protective chamber in Turin’s cathedral and is rarely shown.
Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century.
While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them because of the test’s results, Frale said in an interview.
But when she cut out the words from photos of the shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century A.D. – Jesus’ time.
She believes the text was written on a document by a clerk and glued to the shroud over the face so the body could be identified by relatives and buried properly. Metals in the ink used at the time may have allowed the writing to transfer to the linen, Frale said.
“I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside,” Frale said. “What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place.”
Frale is noted in Italy for her research on the medieval order of the Knights Templar and her discovery of unpublished documents on the group in the Vatican’s archives.
Earlier this year she published a study contending the Templars at one time had the shroud in their possession. That raised eyebrows because the order was abolished in the early 14th century and the shroud is first recorded in history about 1360 in the hands of a French knight.
But her latest book, The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene, in Italian, raised doubts even among experts.
“People work on grainy photos and think they see things,” said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written books about the shroud. “It’s all the result of imagination and computer software.”
Lombatti also rejected the idea that authorities in the time of Jesus would officially return the body of a crucified man to relatives after filling out some paperwork. Victims of the most cruel punishment used by the Romans would usually be left on the cross or were disposed of in a dump to add to the execution’s deterring effect.
People are people everywhere we go aren’t they. I had prior looked into a company called ‘PLUG’ and it actually has stock– it is wave energy. Now listening to this I kept answering outloud… ” Hell we can’t get people to stop killing people and you want to change people into tree planters. Well and good but in a world gone mad… well, really… what are we doing??? and for heavens sake… Carbon Credits exchanged globally– and Carbon swopping??? Geeeeeeeeece
Accidentally last night, I watched a PBS documentary titled “How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin”. I cried so hard. I had no idea about this little known, to me, huge part of history. I Immediately flashed back to the time of my daughters and my reunion. It was filmed live-time in 1998 for The Learning Channel– and as a heart felt thank you, I will never ever forget or regret giving Boris [ the TLC Reunion cameraman-- from Moscow] my ‘Meet the Beatles’ album! I never fully understood his weeping when I gave it to him… not until now. I sincerely hope that you can watch this program . It is just Awesome, and above all just plain humbling. I never knew– I just never knew. Below are 6 links to the documentary that someone was awesome enough to post on youtube!!!
Brief::
Mon, November 9 | 9PM How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin
This is the extraordinary and untold story of how the Beatles punctured the Iron Curtain. In August 1962, award-winning director Leslie Woodhead made a two-minute film, in Liverpool’s Cavern Club, with a raw and unrecorded group of unknown rockers — the Beatles. Twenty-five years later, while making a series of films in Russia, Woodhead learned just how powerful Beatlemania was in the Soviet Union. Even though the Beatles never performed there, their music and rebellious style had soaked into the lives of a generation of Russian kids. This film features personal stories from members of Russia’s Beatles generation, who talk about how the Fab Four changed their lives, gave them hope and helped to undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. The music was the number one enemy of the State, and teens learned English, revolution and gained strength to over throw the Communist system by listening to underground recordings made using old x-ray film negatives called ‘bones’. To this day, the Beatles remain engrained in the life changed hearts of a once hostage entire youth of a nation .
Barack Obama was elected on 4 November 2008 after a campaign that promised change.
One year on, BBC’s Newsbeat traveled across the country to find out how people feel in Obama’s America.
In the first of five reports, Jonathan Blake travels to Tennessee where unemployment is highest among young people to see how he’s trying to fix the economy.
Many people who visit here don’t really know how to take the place. Supposedly a redneck from the south who is anti-corporate, anti-Republican (and anti-Democrat, for that matter) and who cannot idly accept what the minions in government tell us, when it is obvious that their purpose is money and protecting those that give it to them.
I have had links (on the side over there ——->) for various places that are truly Progressive (“Progressive” Does NOT Equal Democratic party, btw) and also linked to some Conservative blogs (“Conservative” Does NOT equal Republican party).
I also have linked and appreciate as much or more than any others, blogs that are written by Black folk, Latinos, Europeans, Canadians, Afghanis, Iraqis, and even by an American in Seoul. The reason for this (other than appreciating their work) is that it is my opinion that these “fringe” groups (as some would describe) are being played against each other and against the white establishment (which the establishment wants me and other rednecks to think we are a part of).
Fat, rich white people against the rest of humanity, to a certain degree and they don’t care what color you are.
Any sane, thinking redneck must understand that we aren’t any part of that elitist group. It is simply the divide and conquer game that the richest of the rich use to control us: keeping us attacking, even killing each other over bullshit that means so little in perspective of the truth, that it astonishes me that we still fall for it.
My buddy (and contributer here), kelso’s nuts, says often that it will be the Black Power activists, the Socialist Parties, and the Southern Christian libertarians and Town Hallers that will make change happen. Rednecks, black folk and other minorities must be able to connect, make amends, and devise a way forward that will eliminate the Corporate Control of the majority of politicians. It is truly these few groups that recognize that American Exceptionalism is BS. It will be the people that are raising the most hell about Obama’s lies and deceit that will eventually hold him (them) accountable.
There are but two sides: those who favor peace and freedom and those who don’t. The serious White Southern monetarists are very committed. The militant Black Power movement is really committed. The (real) socialist activist left is really committed. The world Green Parties are really committed.
It is this dance of the Republicrats and their blind hate and fear and perversion of Christianity and patriotism and the wealthy, indifferent, Big Government Liberals who are in lock-step to oppress.
It will NOT be those at the Huff Po, C&L, Daily Kos, etc. They are too invested in the system and Obama’s Ass (as in tonguing his ass). Too much clout, too much ability to rub elbows with power, and monetary gain from the very ones who perpetuate the shackling of us “peons”.
Nor will it be the Tea-baggers and the ravenous right-wing freaks whom only consider defeat of the “other party” as the goal. They are playing into and are likely a part of the mind games played on an American public who is scared to death about the future of this country and for their families.
I already know places that I want to highlight and you should get to know these folks, for truth is rampant at their blogs:
One of my newer Favs. 2truthy’s blog that addresses my favorite topics and is damned funny, as well. They, “are dedicated to drop-kicking truth and justice, laughers and screamers, strange and terribly real stories about living out the death of American civility and the hubris soaked perps who profit from it.”
Jay is a young black man who has his shit all together regarding the financial crisis we are in. His knowledge is impressive. Also note that if you are a redneck (like me), this may be a good place to begin to learn about Hip Hop (whether you like it or not isn’t the point). Understanding a culture that you have been brainwashed to fear is paramount to making this work. As an example, Hip Hop sells more to white folk than black folk.
Excellent assembly of writers (where I first read Kelso’s writing). The site is definitely NSFW (not suitable for work) and for some who have an aversion to porn, you may want to avoid it. However, the information presented here is well reported by quality, professional writers.
This man is a freaking genius. He posts about math (which goes over my head, at times), but posts even more about politics and the empire that reigns. Marijuana legalization is one of his key interests and is about to embark on a Sabbatical to help Marc emory’s case in Canada. One of my favorite sites on the entire web.
Torrance is absolutely brilliant. Depending on the particular post, he speaks in different voices (he can speak with a redneck, a politician, black folk or a king). He is one of the most insightful Professors, Authors, THINKERS that I have encountered. Well worth the visit.
Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberly and Bruce Dixon (among others, I believe) lay out the truth about African American politics, thought and action. A must read for any American.
One of the most impressive interviews I have seen lately was a Real News interview with Glen Ford:
Arthur Silber’s Blog. One of the better writers I have encountered on the web. Whether or not you agree with his point of view (I do, by and large), his posts are extremely well prepared, organized and informative.
Last, but not least featured today is a blog that has been very informative for me on a variety of topics, especially the financial mess. But all things “Imperialization” are addressed in a brilliant and well thought out manner. Great Blog!
This is just a small sampling of truly progressive sites that see the overall picture, much like I do (I link and visit many others, but they are not necessarily political in nature, so I haven’t featured them in this post… like one of my favorite women bloggers that addresses blogging in general, Roschelle at Inconsequential Logic). There are many others that you should visit, like, “After Downing Street; “A Tiny Revolution“; Sam Smith’s UnderNews (the blog for the Progressive Review); Glen Greenwald’s Blog (just a few among several you can click on over on the right panel). I have not formally set up Blog link exchanges with these, but they are a part of my daily read.
So here is what I am looking for. I want to expand on this by having you suggest similar sites, especially those that focus on the southern white portion that I have been discussing (I have a hard time finding them). I want to find sites that I can link to and share their ideas here that will help make this connection that is needed NOW, especially from that southern, white perspective.
It boils down to this: We MUST come together and fix this shit. We will never be whole until we take back the control. We will never be able to do that unless we work things out between us, without the diversions and horseshit divisional tactics that have worked for so very long.
And don’t be fooled by the name of a blog (like the “Pine Belt Progressive”, as an example). There is nothing “Progressive” about a site dedicated to ass-kissing the status quo and continuing the fake two-party divide.
And please don’t blow smoke up my ass. I can do that on my own:
He’s going home. The man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing of a Pam Am flight over the Scottish town in Lockerbie, has been released from prison on compassionate grounds. Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is already on his way home to Libya, where it is believed he will die of prostate cancer within three months.
In making his decision, the Scottish Justice Minister has brought earned the ire of plenty of people. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pleaded that it would be “absolutely wrong” to release him. Many American families of the victims agreed with her, and the White House has already issued a statement expressing ‘deep regret’.
But in Scotland, many of the victims’ families supported al-Megrahi’s release – generally because of widely held questions over the safety of his conviction.
Last week we talked about whether people convicted of serious crimes should ever be released on compassionate grounds. That’s still a very valid question to ask today, but his release also throws up other issues.
Libya sits on the largest oil reserves in Africa, oil reserves many companies are keen to have access too. Two years ago, then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair laid the foundations for Al-Megrahi’s release by agreeing a prisoner transfer deal with Libya. Just a few hours later British oil company BP announced a multi-million dollar deal to search for oil in the country.
Scotland says Al-Megrahi’s release was agreed only taking into account the law relating to compassion. But there are many who say it also has to do with improving ties with a potential major oil source.
Al-Megrahi’s freedom also throws back into the mix questions over the safety of his conviction, and whether he was indeed just a pawn in a bigger game designed to bring Libya back in from the cold.
“Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”
How many of you Obama Maniacs agree with this sentiment?
Even the Obama supporter, Keith Olbermann has taken the man to task over this obvious lie and coverup. Other favorite bloggers of mine, like Jonathon Turley have not cut Obama any slack whatsoever (deservedly so). Many others are awakening to the fact that Obama appears set on protecting the Bush Administration from their illegal activities (which is baffling to me, unless I accept the notion that he is carrying forth the bidding of others).
I must say that one of my other favorite bloggers made a comment that I am in total disagreement with (one of the few times in years of following him). Glenn Greenwald wrote:
There is an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially (“I like him”/”I don’t like him”; “I trust him/I don’t trust him”) rather than case-by-case judgments about his specific acts. “Like” and “trust” are sentiments appropriate for one’s friends and loved ones, not political leaders. A politician who does something horrible yesterday can do something praiseworthy tomorrow. Generally bad people can do good things (even if for ignoble reasons) and generally good people can do bad things. That’s why I care little about motives, which I think, in any event, are impossible to know. Regardless of motives, good acts (releasing the torture memos) should be praised, and bad acts (arguing against prosecutions) should be condemned.
I couldn’t disagree more about the “trust” thing. I believe that it is imperative that trust be held in our politicians, especially the POTUS. As a matter of fact, I believe it is near insane to think that trust is unimportant or only appropriate for friends. Trust and likeability have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and marrying those two “sentiments” together is a mistake.
My complaints about Obama have nothing to do with “liking” the guy. But it does have a tremendous amount to do with “trust”.
It is ludicrous to spend our time and energy with folks that we don’t trust to do what is right for this country, in my opinion. In this case, Glenn is way off base.
Also, contrary to Glenn’s article, motive couldn’t be more important. It is imperative that we understand motives of people, just as it is in police work or attorney work. It surprises me that Glenn, an attorney, would take such a view (but maybe I misunderstand where he is coming from). I see a bit of his point, but from my experience of watching pols for 40+ years, their every motivation appears to be self-protection or a scramble to keep the status quo. If particular powers have been grabbed, it is unsurprising that those are kept by the next administration (no sense losing powers already stolen by another).
Understanding the motives of the Bush Administration’s illegal torture activities; the rationale and lies used to take us into Iraq, and yes, even the motivation of why Barack Obama would cover up these atrocities is extremely important. I’m blown away that Glenn says this stuff.
Glenn continues:
In the United States, what Obama did yesterday is simply not done. American Presidents do not disseminate to the world documents which narrate in vivid, elaborate detail the dirty, illegal deeds done by the CIA, especially not when the actions are very recent, were approved and ordered by the President of the United States, and the CIA is aggressively demanding that the documents remain concealed and claiming that their release will harm national security. When is the last time a President did that?
Its simply “not done”? But why? To lie more? To cover up the atrocities?
Of course it is not done, but that doesn’t make it right. Nor does it give me any warm and fuzzies with Mr Obama, just because he did the “right” thing. Give me a break. What he did is what was legally obligated and what is needed for this country: complete openness. He deserves no extra slap on the back for doing what the other corrupt predecessors would not do.
He finishes with:
George Orwell mistakenly assumed that obfuscating language designed to glorify criminal acts would be invented and normalized by government. At least in the U.S., that function is outsourced to government’s most loyal and eager servants: establishment journalists. A principal reason why the government has been able to engage with impunity in the extremism and lawlessness of the last decade is because most journalists refuse even to describe it as what it is.
Of course these establishment “journalists” are carrying the water for whomever in in office. Even more reason to “trust” the guy they are reporting on, since we can’t trust them. The issue is that they are all corrupt and have agendas that do not have anything to do with helping me. They are protecting themselves and tearing apart our liberties and protections as American citizens.
Sorry, Glenn, but it has come to the point that without “trust” there can not be any real allegiance to him or anyone in government. To think otherwise is foolish.
Early on the Savior gave me hope. Back when he was campaigning lying to get your vote and all that online money:
“In an exclusive interview with The Post, members of the vaunted Triple O, Obama’s online operation, broke down the numbers: 3 million donors made a total of 6.5 million donations online adding up to more than $500 million. Of those 6.5 million donations, 6 million were in increments of $100 or less. The average online donation was $80, and the average Obama donor gave more than once.” (Washington Post)
So isn’t it amazing to you “online” folks how he has so little concern for your issues when it was your votes and online “get -out – the- vote” agenda (as blind as you were)? I mean, aren’t you pissed yet? Iraq war? Afghanistan growing. Pakistan coming (and maybe Iran and Russia)? As kelso put it, what has he NOT lied about?
Chycho has a great post up comparing then to now (and the fact that it was his “online audience” he dissed that gave him 1/2 a Billion Dollars). I wanted to share what he said in 2004 about marijuana and the drug laws.
“The war on drugs has been an utter failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.”
-Barack Obama
How sane and introspective (TO HIS COLLEGE AUDIENCE). He knows his audience as well as Clinton did. But he then giggles and changes his tune when he is elected. Thank goodness we have some sane folks like Senator Jim Webb who are speaking out openly and without regard to the coffers and powers that be who desire the status quo. From Glenn Greenwald:
Let’s start with a premise that I don’t think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have 5% of the world’s population; we have 25% of the world’s known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world’s greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice. . . .
The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%. The blue disks represent the numbers in 1980; the red disks represent the numbers in 2007 and a significant percentage of those incarcerated are for possession or nonviolent offenses stemming from drug addiction and those sorts of related behavioral issues. . . .
In many cases these issues involve people’s ability to have proper counsel and other issues, but there are stunning statistics with respect to drugs that we all must come to terms with. African-Americans are about 12% of our population; contrary to a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use rate in terms of frequent drug use rate is about the same as all other elements of our society, about 14%. But they end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us. . . .
Another piece of this issue that I hope we will address with this National Criminal Justice Commission is what happens inside our prisons. . . . We also have a situation in this country with respect to prison violence and sexual victimization that is off the charts and we must get our arms around this problem. We also have many people in our prisons who are among what are called the criminally ill, many suffering from hepatitis and HIV who are not getting the sorts of treatment they deserve.
Importantly, what are we going to do about drug policy – the whole area of drug policy in this country?
And how does that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives that we might look at?
And he did that entire thing without giggling once. Think of that. A sane, open and honest discussion about the facts… from a freaking US Senator, at that. It would seem that the Senator with even less senatorial experience that Obama may teach the POTUS a thing or two about honesty and real issues. This is from the prison perspective, which is still economic in nature because it is draining our resources and enriching people for bogus rationale.
Glenn explains this:
Webb added that ”America’s criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace” and “we are locking up too many people who do not belong in jail.”
It’s hard to overstate how politically thankless, and risky, is Webb’s pursuit of this issue — both in general and particularly for Webb. Though there has been some evolution of public opinion on some drug policy issues, there is virtually no meaningful organized constituency for prison reform. To the contrary, leaving oneself vulnerable to accusations of being “soft on crime” has, for decades, been one of the most toxic vulnerabilities a politician can suffer (ask Michael Dukakis). Moreover, the privatized Prison State is a booming and highly profitable industry, with an army of lobbyists, donations, and other well-funded weapons for targeting candidates who threaten its interests.
This is not some silly issue. It IS real and deserves a very close look for its economical, moral, and ethical rationale. It deserves a debate. A conversation without the snickering setup of belittlement.
Mr Obama lies so much and with a smile and straight face that I am unsure what to make of this. As Kelso’s Nuts pointed out in these comments, “Was there one thing Obama said during the campaign that wasn’t a lie?” Which can be extended to post election, as well.
I know you defenders of the Savior don’t think he “lied” per se, but said things that we “strategic” or had to “change” his philosophy because things on the ground changed, or that he had to say certain things to get elected, but he would be better than McCain and that it is all part of a “special plan”.
But an untruth is still a lie, intentional or not, purposeful or not, reactionary or not.
So, when I hear the words like in that video, yes, I have hope. But I also know that the man has lied a multitude of times about other issues (including foreign relations related issues) so, frankly, I don’t trust him to be telling me the truth totally in this video. There are a variety of reasons why he would make this video, but I must admit that I am intrigued by it and have to wonder if this will give “hope”, REAL hope to Iranians, Americans and all the rest of the world.
I don’t hold a lot of faith in him and this could simply be something that is a sleight of hand move to appease the likes of me (and other war on terror dissenters). But I “hope” it is a real outreaching to Iran and its leaders. A good indication would be for President Obama to admit that the Iranian president never threatened to wipe Israel off the map… that he has been made a monster because that is what the American leadership needs to keep their fear-mongering going. Did you pick up on that?
If Mr Obama is truly pursuing other avenues to this decades long assault, then he must admit the lies and deceit previously used. IF he were to do that, I believe that “hope” might be real. The fact is that we have been instigating shit like a school yard bully, but favoring one of the kids much more than the other. Even stepping in to train them and arm them.
So, there is a hypocritical ring to his description of Iran, since he basically described us and our actions when describing them. Maybe he could give America a history lesson on our meddling in their affairs for many decades and how, if the shoe were on the other foot, we would be pissed and yes, might revolt against the Empire’s aggression.
But other than that, this was an amazing change in procedure and had a ring of truth to it (but that is what makes Mr Obama so good: his ability to lie and smile you into believing it). It offers some hope, I just “hope” it is sincere. The next step is to take Israel and their neocon crazy war mongering fools who use our weapons and spy on us relentlessly (and may have been instrumental in the 9/11 attacks) to task and to stop the preferential treatment.
THEN we would have real hope. But are there any suckers out there willing to bet that is going to happen?a
It’s easy to dismiss and mock if that’s what one really wants to do. And the caveats and causes for skepticism are obvious (it’s just a video; there was nothing done about the war in Gaza; he just signed this last week, etc. etc.). But it’s inconceivable that anything like this video would have been possible at any point during the last eight years or even the couple of decades prior to that. The protests that the video will inevitably provoke by itself demonstrates that it is a political risk. Genuine expressions of respect, symbolic though they might be, can transform relations between previously hostile people and countries. Politically-motivated demonization (of the U.S. by Iranian hard-liners and of Iran by American and Israeli hard-liners) becomes more difficult when this is the tone that prevails and this is the face that is shown. And rapprochement, if it’s to happen, can only begin with steps like this.
It may be that the Obama administration wants a diplomatic solution with Iran out of necessity and it may be that this is just a fig leaf designed to placate various factions. Only time — and subsequent actions — will tell. But whatever else is true, it is a weak, decaying and insecure nation that beats its chest and relies on ugly threats to establish its “toughness” and “credibility” with the world, while the mark of a strong and confident nation is the willingness to take a first step like this one towards its adversaries:
In 2001, Portugal became the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, a distinction which continues through to the present. Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to research the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon). Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.
On April 3, at 12:00 noon, at the Cato Institute in Washington, I’ll be presenting the 50-page report I wrote for Cato, entitled Drug Decriminalization in Portugal. Following my presentation, a supporter of drug criminalization laws — Peter Reuter, a Professor in the University of Maryland’s Department of Criminology — will comment on the report (and I’ll be able to comment after that), and then there will be a Q-and-A session with the audience. The event is open to the public and free of charge. Details and registration are here at Cato’s site, where the event can also be watched live online (and, possibly, on C-SPAN).
There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the ”War on Drugs,” are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address. “Strictly on empirical grounds” means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.
Particularly in the U.S., there is still widespread support for criminalization approaches and even support for the most extreme and destructive aspects of the “War on Drugs,” but, for a variety of reasons, the debate over drug policy has become far more open than ever before. Portugal’s success with decriminalization is highly instructive, particularly since the impetus for it was their collective recognition in the 1990s that criminalization was failing to address — and was almost certainly exacerbating — their exploding, poverty-driven drug crisis. As a consensus in that country now recognizes, decriminalization is what enabled them to manage drug-related problems far more effectively than ever before, and the nightmare scenarios warned of by decriminalization opponents have, quite plainly, never materialized.
The counter-productive effects of drug criminalization are at least as evident now for the U.S. as they were for pre-decriminalization Portugal. Beyond one’s ideological beliefs regarding the legitimacy of criminalization, drug policy should be determined by objective, empirical assessments of what works and what does not work. It’s now been more than seven years since Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and dispassionately examining the effects of that decision provides a unique opportunity to assess questions of drug policy in the most rational and empirical manner possible.
And as a bonus, we have at least one of our leaders calling for it:
If you don’t think this video is appreciated by the American people, simply do a Google search on “Virg Bernero Fox” and see what results you get.
Now, as for the prick in a suit who was speaking with the Mayor, “What a piece of slimy, slippery, car-salesman-like attitude”
I wrote the mayor and thanked him for what he said.
Dear Mayor Bernero,
I saw a clip of your interview on Fox News (thanks for entering into the lion’s den). I normally don’t write folks like this, especially since I live in Tennessee, but I want to personally thank you for standing up to the hypocrisy that permeates our government and MSM.
You are a hero and should be told!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I wish you would too (just takes a second). We need more like him to step up and say what needs to be said.
Mayor Virg Bernero
9th Floor City Hall
124 W. Michigan , MI 48933
517.483.4141
517.483.6066 fax mayor@ci.lansing.mi.us
Flounder: While flounders have both eyes situated on one side of the head, they are not born this way. Their life involves metamorphosis. During metamorphosis, one eye migrates to the other side of the body so that both eyes are situated on the upward-facing side of its body.
Flounder are ambush predators…
Let me explain my analogy. A flounder is a mean assed fish. And it can do shit that changes its body right before your eyes (were you to look long enough). Israel is the same. It has changed itself, slowly, into a ravaging killing machine. What was first an amicable country just looking for a place to lay its head, now has turned into a bottom dwelling creature feeding from us and our scraps.
The bottom side is the only place to attack it, but it protects itself by lying on that side, with the two eyes looking upwards. Its hard to get at its weak side and most attempts are futile (much like the Hamas rockets). Yet, this fish is viscious.
Israel lives off of the fish we allow them to eat, for we are the giant shark swimming just over head. Whatever we don’t devour, we let them have it (or worse, let them eat the scraps that fall from the table). The entire group of congresspeople swim in a orchestrated school just waiting for any and every opportunity to discuss how the flounder needs to protect itself, so we make sure we have our school of sharks swimming around protecting this one-sided fish, for God Allah knows that this little flounder would have been killed and eaten long ago by the baracuda called Iran, or Egupt, or Palestine or (name any ME country that is sick of the USA fed Israeli domination).
The ocean is tainted by this bizarre fish called Israel, simply because it has allowed itself to metamorpise itself into a two faced predator that could not take care of itself with the really Big Fish without the Great Shark’s undying allegiance and aid.
Glenn Greenwald has written about the conflict in Gaza a few times and once focused on the American politician’s knee-jerk response, “Israel has a right to defend itself”. But surely there is a real rationale for this utterance. Or maybe there is a lot of media hype trying to brainwash the American public into going along with the carnage Israel has unleashed on an imprisoned population. In these few clips of an article Glenn did about Marty Perez (and the entire right-wing propaganda arm called the MSM) where he addresses the 800# gorilla that obviously reigns in the room but no one talks about:
Opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are so entrenched that any single outbreak of violence is automatically evaluated through a pre-existing lens, shaped by one’s typically immovable beliefs about which side bears most of the blame for the conflict generally or “who started it.” Still, any minimally decent human being — even those who view the world through the most blindingly pro-Israeli lens possible, the ones who justify anything and everything Israel does, and who discuss these events with a bottomless emphasis on the primitive (though dangerous) rockets lobbed by Hamas into Southern Israel but without even mentioning the ongoing four-decades brutal occupation or the recent, grotesquely inhumane blockade of Gaza — would find the slaughter of scores of innocent Palestinians to be a horrible and deeply lamentable event.
But not The New Republic’s Marty Peretz. Here is his uniquely despicable view of the events of the last couple of days:
So at 11:30 on Saturday morning, according to both the Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz, as well as the New York Times, 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters demolished some 40 to 50 sites in just about three minutes, maybe five. Message: do not fuck with the Jews.
“Do not fuck with the Jews.” And what of the several hundred Palestinian dead — including numerous children — and many hundreds more seriously wounded?
Israeli intelligence reported 225 people dead, mostly Hamas military leaders with some functionaries, besides, and perhaps 400 wounded. The Palestinians announced 300 dead, probably as a reflex in order to begin their whining about disproportionate Israeli acts of war. And 600 wounded.
Objections to the Israeli attack are just “whining.” Those are the words of a psychopath. And what to do now?
Frankly, I am up to my gullet with this reflex criticism of Israel as going beyond proportionality in its responses to war waged against its population with the undisguised intention of putting an end to the political expression of the Jewish nation. . . .
The current warfare will go on a bit longer. If there is a pause and if I were giving advice to the Israelis, this is what I would say to Hamas and to the people of Gaza: “If a rocket or missile is launched against us, if you take captive one of our soldiers (as you have held one for two and a half years), if you raise a new Intifada against us, there will be an immediate response. And it will be very disproportionate. Proportion does not work.”
This super-tough-guy warrior — whose prime accomplishment in life was marrying an heiress and then using her family’s money to buy himself The New Republic — beats his chest and threatens that even a single Palestinian act in response to this bombing campaign will provoke still more massive retaliation in the form of collective punishment (which, not that anyone cares, happens to be a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, as are Hamas’ far less harmful rocket attacks on Israeli civilians).
It may be true that, as Eric Alterman put it in his seminal article on Marty Pertez (quoting Ezra Klein), “Peretz is rarely held to account, largely because there’s an odd, tacit understanding that he’s a cartoonish character and everyone knows it.” But how unusual are Peretz’s views, revolting as they are, in the American political mainstream? He certainly expresses anti-Arab hatred and bigotry more bluntly than most, but this reflexive support for anything and everything Israel does is anything but unique in our political debates…
B’Man: To me, therein lies the problem. Those “cartoonish characters’, like Marty Perez, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et al are politely shrugged off as over-the-top many times, but in reality they are used to propel bogus propaganda (and Americans are gullible enough to swallow it). These people want that message out there. The more hatred and division the better, for then they can make claim that they are carrying out the American citizen’s will. (Do I have to list the many times their “sense” was wrong and that they were going AGAINST the will of the people?) And those who are or seek leadership poitions fall all over themselves trying to fit in with the meme that it is sickening…
Here, as but one illustrative example, is Caroline Kennedy — who, in order to win her Senate seat, is self-consciously trying to turn herself into a Barack Obama clone — responding recently to a question about Israel from Politico:
QUESTION 8:Do you think Israel should negotiate with Hamas? Do you agree with Israel’s Gaza Strip embargo? Would you support an Israeli airstrike on Iran if they felt Tehran’s nuclear program represented a threat to their survival?
ANSWER: “Caroline Kennedy strongly supports a safe and secure Israel. She believe Israel’s security decisions should be left to Israel.”
What could be more absurd than that? Apparently, not only should we continue to feed Israel billions of dollars a year of American taxpayer money and massive amounts of weapons — thereby ensuring that the world, quite accurately, perceives their actions as American actions — but we should then take the position that they are free to do anything they want with it, no matter how extreme or destructive to our interests, and our only view on all of it should be that we blindly support whatever they do. Or, as Clinton aide Ann Lewis put it during the primaries, in response to Obama’s observation that he needn’t have a “Likud view in order to be pro-Israel”:
The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.
Yesterday, the Bush administration applied this mindset, naturally, by expressing unequivocal support for Israel and heaped all blame on Hamas. And, needless to say, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed the administration’s view:
Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a statement concerning the Israeli operation in Gaza in which she wrote that “When Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally.”
According to Pelosi, “Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Hamas and its supporters must understand that Gaza cannot and will not be allowed to be a sanctuary for attacks on Israel.”
Not a word of condemnation of the Israeli blockade — which has caused extreme suffering and deprivation in Gaza — or of the massively disproportionate response or the ongoing and ever-expanding Israeli occupation. It is all one-sided support for whatever Israel does from our political class, and one-sided condemnation of Israel’s enemies (who are, ipso facto, American enemies) — all of it, as usual, sharply divergent from the consensus in much of the rest of the world.
It would be nice if U.S. citizens weren’t connected to and responsible for every Israeli military action, so that we really could and should take the attitude that what the Israeli Government does — or what is done to it — is not our responsibility. That’s how it should be.
Instead, since we fund a huge bulk of it and supply the weapons used for much of it and use our veto power at the U.N. to enable all of it, we are connected to it — intimately — and bear responsibility for all of Israel’s various wars, including the current overwhelming assault on Gaza, as much as Israelis themselves. Blind support for whatever they do — the consensus view in American political life in both parties — is therefore a total abdication of our responsibility.
It remains to be seen if Barack Obama intends to deviate even a small amount from what has been decades of excessively loyal U.S. support for Israel — which, over the last eight years, transformed into truly blind and absolute support for anything they do. It’s impossible to know for sure until Obama is inaugurated, but the bipartisan, purely “pro-Israel” statements issued by his allies — such as Caroline Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi — don’t bode well, nor do the statements which Obama himself made during the campaign, as compiled yesterday by Salon’s Mark Schone:
The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if — I don’t even care if I was a politician — if somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.
Can’t the exact same mentality be deployed to justify everything Hamas has done and is doing, to wit: “if a foreign power were brutally occupying my country for four decades — or blockading my country and denying my children medical needs and nutrition and the ability even to exit — I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Palestinians to do the same thing”? But the last thing that our political class ever extends is reciprocal, two-sided analysis to this dispute.
The suffocating bipartisan orthodoxies in the U.S. regarding Israel thus make virtually impossible what the new Jewish-American group, J Street — in condemning the attack (even while calling it “justifiable”) because it “will deepen the cycle of violence in the region” — urges: “immediate, strong diplomatic intervention by the United States, the Quartet and allies in the region to negotiate a resumption of the ceasefire.” Most of our political elites know enough to avoid the ugly language of Marty Peretz, but the ultimate policy positions aren’t much different.
B’Man: Personally, I don’t want a nickel of my tax money being sent to Israel for any purpose, much less for weaponry and supporting the invasion into Hamas. I DO recognize that the Gazan’s elected a body to represent them, in response to our prodding, btw, and that winner is now the enemy. They did what we asked and that isn’t good enough.
What will be good enough to stop the rocket attacks from Hamas? Stop the Israeli oppression of the Gazans.
It really IS that simple, but you would never know that from hearing our leadership. That is because they don’t want you to know WHY Hamas keeps rocket attacking Israel.
As Glenn asked, if ANY method is enough to protect a country from an offending force, then the rocket fire out of Gaza is fine with me… UNTIL Israel STOPS the blockade and gives the Gazans the land it is trying desperately to steal from them.
Plain and simple, Israel is commiting genocide by starving and now bombing them, when the Gazans are trying to stop the starvation.
Israel is not our friend. They are the flounder that will cause us all to live in more and more fear and will eventually turn its ungrateful head towards us.
BuelahMan
Lynda
kelsosnuts
