Hollywood's Monied Liberals And The President

It's a cliche, a stereotype that many folks love to trot out: Hollywood is full of liberal socialists, Democrats to the core, and their big money elitism has left them out of touch with the much more conservative American populace.

I can see where that image comes from. Of course it's full of holes. Big time actors/producers like Clint Eastwood, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, and many more are self-described conservative/Republicans. And the bottom line is still the bottom line - money rules Tinseltown, no matter what the political persuasion of the creators.

But Hollywood is made up of people, and people who have enthusiastically committed (and contributed) to a political candidate are loath to give up that support even when their standard-bearer has let them down. And by this point in his presidency, are there any progressive/liberal causes that Mr. Obama has not let down?

That's why this story, "Obama And Hollywood: State Of Their Union" from The Hollywood Reporter, is so interesting. The richest political progressives in Hollywood gathered recently to raise money for Mr. Obama. And while they still support him, many are disappointed. "He had an opportunity to show he's a different generation, and he hasn't done it," said on interviewee. Hollywood liberals are disappointed that war continues in the Middle East, concerned that health care and Wall Street reforms are toothless, and upset that gay rights are not high on the Administration's agenda.

But no one among the many folks interviewed here are ready to throw in the towel. Of course, none of these extremely creative, imaginative people - whose movies and tv shows often dazzle with their unique ideas - seem able to visualize an America with more than two political parties.

Maybe that's because every one of these Hollywood entertainment industry players is ultimately in the employ of, or partnered with, major media corporations. They know the difficulties artists encounter when their creativity challenges the money men. And we all know where corporate America stands when it comes to progressive change.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc175e55b8dcf6b2e3e

The Country Is Being Dragged - Kicking And Screaming - To The Left!

Is the government being dragged to the left? It's leaning decidedly to the right in this view. And that lady's sign is truth-telling at its best.

The absolute unwillingness, or refusal, to acknowledge the truth of what is right in front of our collective eyes is astounding, baffling, bewildering and mind-boggling. It gets dangerous when folks act on the belief that up is down, the world is flat, and that in Washington, the left is radical.

The political, governing left is not radical, it's not even remotely progressive. Just ask all those Goldman-Sachs folks appointed to high places. Or Arlen Specter.

That reaction comes after reading a story telling of a new conservative-centric web site - Ricochet - launching soon. Ricochet is designed as an "online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party." That's the goal, to show how the collective right is funny, thoughtful, engaging and doggone it, people like us! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37189215/ns/politics/

A statement in this article made me roll my eyes. It's attributed to Ricochet honcho Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (I'm sure he's been employed elsewhere the last couple of decades or so - but maybe this job is the best conservative credential he could produce): "At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back."

That statement beggars belief. America is being dragged to the left?! Conservatives must fight back?!? I can think of four major Obama Administration accomplishments - three with the assent of a allegedly-liberal Democratic majority Congress - that should please every conservative of every stripe. Why fight when you're already winning?

1. Congress mandated that every American purchase a broken private-sector product: health insurance. PURCHASE, as in spend money in a capitalist system, as in turn a profit for a company, as in no money, no service. A very conservative approach – everyone pays, cash on the barrel! Don't dare think about distributing a societal benefit equally, paid for by taxes – that would be left-leaning, wouldn't it?

2. Continuing to spend over $500 billion per year, every year, on the War Department - very liberal move there. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of private contractors on the taxpayer dime, in an illegal occupation of two foreign countries - if that's a left position, what would the right-wing stand be? Prolonging massive military actions and paying billions to for-profit companies to assist that process - a war to procure resources and a tidy private profit in one package! Which part don't conservatives like?

3. The President has offered an energy bill that advocates more offshore and inland oil drilling, more coal burning, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. And he’s apparently done little to get the Department of Interior to end its incredibly automatic rubber-stamp policy towards extraction industry regulation. Again, moves that most left-leaners have been advocating for years!

4. The President and Congress agree - civil rights are secondary, and the most privacy-invasive laws in American history must be maintained! So the alleged leftist Dems agree with the GOP - the Patriot Act must be extended, domestic surveillance must be maintained, and the government has the right to arrest anyone on the planet, anytime, on executive order alone. Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is smiling.

However, this statement from the article is absolutely true:

"In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he's taking America in..."

That he has. Only folks totally committed to blindered thinking could possibly look at the evidence and maintain that the Obama administration is liberal verging on socialist. (And it works both ways - the president has a lot of unblinking, unthinking supporters, as well.)

Or is this ridiculous position being advocated by those who see a way to gain more power and money by exploiting those who would rather yell than think? So who is funding Ricochet? The fellows quoted in the article are just the faces. Follow the money, and maybe we'll find a cozy relationship with Tea Party funders?

90 Obama Administration Accomplishments In Two Years?

I'm getting tired of this photo, but it has yet to go out of style.

I recently received a list originated by Dr. Robert Watson of Lynn University in November 2009, who has decided the media is overlooking the many "accomplishments" of the Obama Administration. His enumeration of "90 Accomplishments Of The Obama Administration In Two Years" is an interesting resume: a mix of random acts of kindness, some common-sense moves back to the political middle (which is still leaning decisively to the right) and many, many preparations for supposed future actions – studies, evaluations, reviews, plans.

But the next major campaign for President will begin next year, so there’s not much time for these learning sessions to turn into actions. You can see the list here: http://www.tellingthoughts.com/asides/obamas-90-accomplishments-email-list (open up a second tab so you can reference some of the points - no need to reprint the entire entry here).

As Mr. Watson points out, Mr. Obama has undoubtedly been active, but some things on this list are flat wrong.

Policy is one thing, but there has been no change yet to the actual tax code to punish corporate job outsourcing. See how India – a major destination for outsourced jobs – sees the situation (Accomplishment #48, a hint: they aren't worried: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=383970). The tax credits for many hybrid car purchasers are largely cut or already gone (#37, http://www.hybridcars.com/federal-incentives.html). Many veterans benefits upgrades started in 2008, (enacted by Congress in 2007), the new law is the Credit Card Reform Act of 2008 (#49, pre-Obama), and how do we know overseas secret prisons are being closed (#27) - weren't they "secret" to begin with? There has been little news since April 2010, when CIA Director Leon Panetta (a former member of British Petroleum's 'special advisory board' for government lobbying) said they were closed - cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die! But there are some exceptions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040902497.html.

For me, the bottom line on President Obama are his most expensive actions: his first two defense budgets have been among the largest in American history, over $660 billion per year. Hope and change? I cannot count expanding both wars (#81) and the military (#61) as “accomplishments.” Troops may be leaving Iraq (#4), but they are rotating to a new front (#81).

Shifting troops from Iraq to an intensified, expanding war in Afghanistan, increasing attacks by drone-piloted weapons in Pakistan, continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons research are some of the President's real accomplishments since his inauguration. The enormous costs of the USA’s aggressive military/industrial/legislative complex - financial, political, social, and spiritual - outweigh nearly every "accomplishment" on Dr. Watson's list. Our government uses our tax dollars for its major export: weapons and war.

Cutting the F-22 warplane funding (#13) and scrapping a missile program (#30) represents $2.15 billion out of a $660 billion military budget (2010) - much ado about relatively nothing. That’s $660 billion for one year – more than half of federal expenditures every year go to the military. More money is spent on the military by the USA - our tax dollars - than the rest of the planet combined!

Keep multiplying that $600 billion figure out for the last ten years and the next twenty, and then ask yourself: is this why we allegedly cannot pay for universal health care, infrastructure improvements, or education upgrades? And then ask why defense issues are seemingly never discussed - a taboo subject - when overheated rhetoric about out-of-control government spending comes spewing out of politicians.

The best part – the President said he would veto the entire defense budget if the suddenly controversial $1.75 billion for the F-22 remained! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/senate.f22/ Seriously? Is that a joke? Cut out social services, cut out regulatory oversight funding, cut out helping kids and seniors, but keep those bombs rolling! How has the President changed that landscape?

On the issues of open government and transparency…well, much like VP Dick Cheney’s closed-door energy meetings, the Obama White House banned public inspection of the guest books during the time that insurance/pharmaceutical companies were visiting the White House to cut their history-making deal. It was only after a Freedom of Information Act request was filed (#8) that the records were opened: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/see-the-white-houses-heal_n_277707.html . I guess it's called an "accomplishment" when a taxpayer-funded entity agrees to finally abide by the transparency thing.

On many other open government fronts however, the Obama Administration continues to fight lawsuits aimed at opening up its under-cover operations (#9) – on issues ranging from domestic surveillance/spying to “state secrets” to 9/11 photos to EPA hazard sites and more:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/17/transparency/#postid-updateA4.

No time to get into financial sector “reform”, bank bailouts, that crazy "we don't torture, but we reserve the right to" protocol (#28), and the implementation of the planet’s only exclusively-for-profit health care system. Or the assertion that Mr. Obama’s style is encouraging bi-partisanship (really?) and is not heavy-handed (just ask Dem legislators who the White House threatened to ignore in the next election cycle if they failed to vote for the Health Care reform: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html).

Ninety accomplishments? Dr. Watson's research is a little shaky in places, and his "three cheers for war!" listings don't ring as "accomplishments" for anyone interested in peace, diplomacy and using our country's immense wealth to help people instead of coercing and killing them. By now, even the most ardent Obama supporters must realize that he will not be ending our wars of occupation in the Middle East during his term - as Dr. Watson notes enthusiastically, the opposite is occurring.

Dr. Watson assails the media for biased reporting. The military and continuing promulgation of “state secrets” are just two of the major issues that the media fails to present to the American public about the Obama Administration on a regular, unbiased basis. Ever ask yourself why?

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire moves overtly and covertly: top, a map showing Turkey and Iran, both getting some bad publicity from the US government. Bottom, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who abandons his fight against the health insurance industry bailout bill supported by the President.

A one-two uppercut by the Empire in today's news is leaving many folks feeling sucker-punched. But that's how power works - by force.

First, the leading progressive among Democrats, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has decided to vote in favor of the current health care "reform" bill after spending months denouncing it. Even his statement revealing this remarkable turnaround cites the multiple misgivings he has about the measure: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/17-9 . But, in the end, "after careful discussions with the President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Elizabeth my wife and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."

It's a stunning reversal, and only one explanation makes sense - the Empire said vote yes and you will get to live to fight another day. Apparently it was made clear to Rep. Kucinich that he would be facing re-election in the fall without national Democratic Party resources (with the money going to a primary challenger, no presidential visits to the district, etc) should he continue to oppose the President's health insurance bailout - er, "reform" - plan. Plainly Kucinich decided not to fall on his sword over the health care reform issue, and take the support so he has the chance to continue his job. (Read a UK report on the President's strong-arm tactics here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html .)

But how much credibility has Kucinich lost with progressives by making this decision? Is it a compromise when you are threatened? Score this one a win for the Empire (and its corporate cronies).

On the international front, it's being reported today that the USA is pressuring erstwhile ally Turkey to get "on board" the anti-Iran bandwagon or face repercussions: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100304/POLITICS-US-TURKEY-USA/ . Ankara has recalled its ambassador to the US over the bill currently in Congress that condemns Turkey for perpetrating the massacre of Armenians in 1915, a very hot topic for Armenia and Turkey.

Ah, nothing like peer pressure from the Empire; Assistant Secretary Of State Phillip Gordon says Turkey should get in line to strengthen its credentials as "an important, responsible actor" in the Middle East - in other words, return the diplomats and back the Iranian sanctions. All actors need a script, and Ankara is improvising its lines - earning a frown from the stage managers in Washington. If the Obama Administration is going public with its threats against Turkey, imagine what's already been discussed between the governments behind the scenes.

There are geo-political energy issues swirling around the area - new pipelines crossing Turkey, Armenia, etc. taking natural gas to Europe are going to make gazillions in financial profits for many energy companies. Could it be the Turkish government is not going along with the corporatocracy? The Empire doesn't like that.

What really gave me a chortle was this statement: describing the ultimate fate of the Turkish massacre condemnation bill in Congress, Gordon said: "The Congress is an independent body and they're going to do what they decide to do." Really - they think independently? Resistant to influence?

Let's ask Dennis Kucinich.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

All together now, to the tune of "Barbara Ann," as popularized by John McCain. The bunker-busting Blu-110 and Blu-117 smart bombs are the middle and bottom respectively.

The Empire moves in mysterious ways...or it posts its military shipping manifests in public places. Since many duties formerly performed by the US military are now outsourced to private contractors, it's sometimes harder to shield activities from the public.

Unless you live in the United States, where you will be saved from learning about such details by our benevolent corporate media.

That's why this story from Scotland is so interesting. The Navy, according to public records, is shipping hundreds of bunker-busting smart bombs to a US military base in the Indian Ocean. Now which of our many terrorist enemies might have underground bunkers that need busting? Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Militants in Iraq? Those pesky Hamas leaders in Lebanon and Gaza? Not them?

How about Iran! The government in Tehran been raised as a specter of global doom for the last decade by the USA. Probably because they figured out that if they have a nuclear bomb, the USA won't attack them. So it appears that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has approved moving some heavy weaponry into place for another round of saber rattling. Or something more.

Now Mr. Obama is a smoother fellow than his predecessors, so he might not go public with the overt threats for a while. But rest assured that the Iranian government is aware that the big bombs are heading over for rapid deployment, should the situation arise. For the opinions of European observers following the developments, read all about it here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151

Good to see that yet another Bush-Cheney priority - using the military might of the Empire to cower those who don't want to play ball by our rules - is alive and well in the Obama Administration.

By "yet another", I'm thinking about the renewal of the Patriot Act, the refusal to totally to abolish torture as a tool, contract renewals for Blackwater - oops, I mean Xe - and expanding both the military and private contractor base in Afghanistan...well, I guess the USA didn't really change anything with the 2008 presidential election.

A different smiling face, and a little less bluster. The actions remain depressingly consistent.

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." - Michael Parenti (political scientist, author)

Who Needs A Warrant? We Just Want To See Your Cell Phone Records

The Obama Administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) is arguing in federal court to allow the government access to private citizen cell phone records without a warrant, without showing any probable cause.

Previous court decisions, during the Bush Administration, ruled against the government's case - but the current DOJ is moving ahead anyway. Government lawyers argue that private citizens have no Fourth Amendment protections when it comes to private telephone company records regarding cell phone usage, including Global Positioning System (GPS) information.

Sprint revealed that it received over 8 million information requests from government/law enforcement entities, and has over 110 employees assigned to process this activity. A Sprint spokesman also said that every telecom has such a team.

The ACLU and Electronic Frontiers Foundation have joined the legal battle.

Why does the government feel it is above the established rule of law? Why does the government feel it is imperative that no warrants and no probable cause evidence be presented to judges and courts? Why does the government want to further tie telecommunications corporations into its legal apparatus?

What do you think? Read more here:
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/obama-attorneys-argue-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking/

"My Country Has Been Hijacked" by Cynthia McKinney

Cynthia McKinney is a true American patriot. A former six-term member of the House Of Representatives representing Georgia as a Democrat, she left the party in 2007 to run as the Green Party candidate for President in 2008. McKinney is also an outspoken commentator on all things related to 9/11.

In short, Ms. McKinney does not mince words when it comes to politics and power. Here is a transcript of a speech she gave at a peace rally in Munich, Germany in February 2010.

Thank you for allowing me to come from the United States and participate in this rally for peace.

My country has been hijacked by a criminal cabal intent on using the hard-earned dollars of the American people for war, occupation, and empire.

As a result, the national leadership of my country, both Democratic and Republican, became complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

As a Member of Congress from the Democratic Party, I drafted Articles of Impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. Later, when Democrats voted to support more war rather than take care of the needs of the people, I declared my independence from them and all national leadership; the Green Party nominated me to run for President, which I did on a platform of truth, justice, peace, and dignity.

I watched as Candidate Barack Obama came here to Germany to speak. I saw tears on the faces of many in the crowd who believed that, finally, there was something worth believing in again. That America had turned a page from its evil playbook that had so outraged and disappointed the world. That good was finally about to triumph over evil.

I know that beleaguered people all over the world, victims of cruel and deadly military, economic, imperial policies finally could believe in hope and change. And America could be believed in again.

Everywhere I went all over the world there were pictures of Barack Obama, slogans “Yes, We Can,” and the words “Hope” and “Change” plastered everywhere.

And after eight years of George W. Bush, Barack Obama seemed to be the man the world was waiting for.

So when the Candidate became the President, we held our breath in anticipation.

That torture and rendition; spying on innocent, dissenting Americans; war and occupation; crimes against the U.S. Constitution and crimes against the peace would end and that the United States would finally join the community of nations.

Sadly, one year into the Presidency of Barack Obama, that is not the case.

On our front door step we have witnessed U.S. complicity in the overthrow of President Zalaya in Honduras and the hostile takeover of Haiti by 20,000 troops with guns sent in when the devastated people needed food, doctors, and heavy lifting equipment.

President Obama is expanding U.S. troop presence in Colombia, threatening the people’s gains in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

President Obama has drones killing innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. And Administration lawyers are trying to figure out how to legally kill U.S. citizens. You even have U.S. assassination teams on German soil!

Sadly, President Obama is guilty of every item I cited in my Articles of Impeachment against President Bush.

Both Tony Blair and President Obama justify war in Afghanistan by citing the tragedy of the September 11th attacks in New York and on the Pentagon. But my government has not told the truth about what really happened that day. Just like they lied to start a war against Iraq.

So what are we to do? Let us work together on behalf of truth, justice, peace, and dignity. I will struggle in the U.S. and I will struggle with you:

Not one more dime for war.

We can’t give in and we can’t give up. We must take our countries back.

Letters To Washington

A copy of a letter sent to Representative Ed Perlmutter, my congressional district representative, on 12/2/09:

Representative Perlmutter:

I urge you to help stop this madness of ever-escalating war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more soldiers have to die before you and your Congressional colleagues begin to shut down these wars of occupation?

How many more soldier's families have to suffer the loss or injury of a loved one? How many more innocent civilians have to die in Afghanistan? How much more money has to be spent, lining the pockets of multi-million dollar private contractors as they build the infrastructure to house the US military for a long-term presence in the region?

How can a Democratic majority, elected in 2006 to both houses with a mandate to end the wars, continue to vote to expand them instead? How can our country absorb the incredible financial, physical and psychological costs that endless wars bring? How do you think we'll manage it - I'm interested in your view, since you have repeatedly voted to continue these wars.

And as soon as someone in the government can tell me how Al-Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 - well, then maybe the other flimsy rationales offered by the President for expanding the wars will make sense.

Stand up and be counted on the side of sanity and peace, Mr. Perlmutter. The President's twisting of words to explain this "surge" is as dumbfounding and insulting as any mangling of the language used by Mr. Bush. Do not blindly support the President because he is a Democrat.

There are resolutions before the House now to stop funding this war - H.R. 3699 from Representative Barbara Lee is one such measure and I hope you will co-sign and champion it. The House has the power to stop the killing - please use it!

If not, I'd like to know how you sleep at night, knowing you have a direct hand in meting out unnecessary death and destruction that will affect - and haunt - generations of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis.

Same Old Story: But Now It's The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's Expanding The Wars

I would like to think I'll be able to retire this picture someday...but someday is not today.

I'm getting really tired of writing about the wars, but they keep going on, keep getting bigger, keep getting more and more of our tax dollars to pound down a Middle Eastern sinkhole. Except for the dollars that enrich the hundreds of thousands of private contractors and energy company operators.

That's why these wars will never end - too many people making too much money at the expense of soldiers and their families lives, and citizen tax dollars fuel the enterprise.

President Obama's speech on December 1st outlined his new plan to "surge" 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is fulfilling his campaign promise to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan and continue the wars. Will Congress fight back this time?

They did not fight back against the Bush Administration war machine, even though by 2006 the Congressional Democrats could have severely hindered if not outright stopped the free-flowing money spigot required for endless war. So if they wouldn't stop their Republican political opponents, does anyone think they will stop their own party's leader?

A colleague at work told me of a Thanksgiving holiday encounter with a military officer relative just returned from a lengthy tour of duty in Iraq. "He says it's a joke over there" was the quote, and he recounted several examples related to him of excessive resource waste, luxury building materials, and unrestricted budgets available for the officer's duties. I urged him to watch Robert Greenwald's movie "Iraq For Sale" to get even more details. (http://iraqforsale.org/)

I think most people have the idea things in Iraq and Afghanistan are much different than they are portrayed in the American media. More folks need to understand that, and start hounding their congressional representatives to stop this fiscal/military madness. It's the only way this particular folly of empire can be halted.

Some other notable reactions:

From Cindy Sheehan, pointedly dead-on in her analysis, as usual - "You Get What You Vote For": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

Blogger Arthur Silber expertly analyzes between the lines of the President's speech, pointing out that Obama has effectively gutted the anti-war movement, leaving an open field to continue the Bush Adminstration's war machine:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

And Representative Dennis Kucinich uses just a few words to skewer the President's war plan - "What part of 'get out' do we not understand?"
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=157597

Obama Says "More Transparency" - While Gates Says "Except When It Comes To Torture Evidence"

You cannot make this stuff up.

On the one hand, you've got the President, traveling to foreign lands and sounding that all-American call for transparency and open government. On the other hand, you've got the President's Department of Defense fighting for just the opposite - less visibility and blocking open government.

President Obama is visiting China and telling folks there that open communication and freedom of speech is a good thing. Meanwhile, back home in Washington, D.C., his administration is filing Supreme Court motions to block the publication of photos sought under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

President Obama's remarks at a "town hall" meeting in China, according to an Associated Press report, included a statement that said unfettered access to information "should be available to all people."

(The article also reports the President as saying "We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation." I'm wondering how the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are reacting to that statement?)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9C0GJ400

Unfortunately, unfettered access to information is just what the Defense Department does not want. Thanks to a compliant Congress and President Obama's signature - which passed a law circumventing the FOIA for just this circumstance - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has barred the release of 21 photos showing American soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/15/scotus.detainee.photos/index.html

According to press reports, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court late Friday supporting Gates' blocking the release of the photos. The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking publication of the photos, and promises to keep working towards that end.

President Obama had initially indicated he would not stop the release of the photos, many taken at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison by soldiers in charge of prisoners. But he later reversed course and supported suppression of the documents.

So Mr. President, which is it? Freedom of information for all citizens is good for the Chinese, but not so much for Americans? How can you urge other countries to practice transparency and open dissemination of information while simultaneously shielding documents proving evidence of government law-breaking from publication at home?

How do these guys stand up on the world stage and say this stuff with a straight face?

Read The Fine Print

An Associated Press story this morning says that President Obama is dissatisfied with the options given him for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and wants changes. But there's some fine print that didn't make the headlines.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.US.Afghanistan/

As usual, "the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations."

Unfortunately, these same officials were also the source of these remarks (the highlights are mine):

"Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort."

"The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options...though a substantial troop increase is still likely."

"The White House says Obama has not made a final (plan) choice...(but) he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than (General) McChrystal wants at the outset."

Make no mistake, it's a good thing to talk about dissatisfaction with the Afghan War, and it's good to have that story coming out of the White House. It would really be something to draw down troops and leave. That is obviously not happening. Read the fine print.

President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to expand the war in Afghanistan. Even as unnamed administration sources seek to paint a different picture.

Yes, the president is saying, we'll send more troops. But I will complain grumpily while signing the authorization. And yes, I'm in charge.

And finally, this statement:

"He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy - troops are just one component..."

The troops are also the component that is on the ground, shooting and returning fire, killing and dying. How many more Afghans and Americans will die as the USA "revamps" its destructive strategy? That fine print is deadly.

Talk is cheap. Scarring and ending thousands of lives carry the highest costs imaginable.

ACTA - More Control Over The Internet?

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an international treaty proposing global regulations on internet content, with a specific emphasis on new enforcement mechanisms pertaining to copyrighted materials. This has been a little under the radar for many (including myself), but there are lots of documents available on the web with info.

This is a news flash coming out of the latest round of apparently closed-door negotiations taking place in Seoul, South Korea this week. Was it just the opening salvo when music conglomerates started suing moms and college students for downloading? According to this article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it’s the punitive model of “three strikes and you’re out” for copyright infringement - to be enforced by internet providers:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and

EFF filed suit against the government, asking for release of papers/documents pertaining to US participation in ACTA – the Obama Administration cited “national security” concerns as the reason to deny public distribution, the judge ruled in the government’s favor and the lawsuit died:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/17

This May 2008 article from Intellectual Property Watch details some of the criticism of ACTA provisions from other countries:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/05/30/embattled-acta-negotiations-next-week-in-geneva-us-sees-signing-this-year/

From the Wiki article on ACTA: “Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies.”

"National security" and seeking out ways to circumvent legislators - what a world. I cannot predict how the U.S. Senate might vote on an ACTA treaty as outlined today. But given that august body's history on bowing down to corporate money, rest assured that it will take a concerted public effort to make sure any fairness in analysis is achieved.

President Obama: Trying To Make The Future Safe For More Guys Like This! Guys Who Can't Remember Things!

(Insert name of your favorite villain/evil-doer/boogeyman here)

While on the campaign trail, Senator Obama spoke eloquently and vigorously about the Bush Administration's use of dubious legal standards - including a wide-ranging "state secrets" blanket - to shield its activities from the press and public.

Unfortunately, President Obama's Department Of Justice has picked up defending these constitutional violations right where the Bush Administration left off. Various legal cases seeking to eliminate the veils of secrecy are being battled in court, and the current DOJ keeps fighting to maintain the Bush-era stances. You can read Glen Greenwald's cogent summation of the current situation here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/01/state_secrets/index.html

Okay, so using Dick Cheney's photo is a cheap way to sell this post - after all, Dick, W and their pals were the enemy many could agree on and hiss continually without fear.

Fortunately, verification that Cheney is indeed a bad guy keeps coming out. Apparently the memory portion of his brain contains holes like swiss cheese - he cannot remember things. Important things, like who was in a position to manipulate the press with fake Iraqi WMD claims, or who might have known the identity of a certain undercover CIA agent.

But now that a previously secret FBI interview summation has been made public - via court order - we can see that Mr. Cheney's memory lapses coincide remarkably with grand jury testimony from his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby. Libby verifies orders from his boss to divulge classified intelligence documents to a New York Times reporter; the then-Vice President cannot recollect any such discussion. Libby, under oath, recalls the time when Cheney told him the identity of a CIA agent who happened to be married to a man the VP characterized as "an aggravation"; Dick, pausing for a moment, tapping his fingers on a desk while his eyes scan the ceiling - sorry, he has no recollection. Okay, I used a little dramatic license there, but it's easy to imagine!

There's a lot more, and you can read it here: http://www.truthout.org/1031099.

Make sure and check out a scan of the actual FBI document, where you can see the numerous variations of "I cannot recall":
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091030%20-%20Cheney%20302%20(redacted).pdf.

It's a chilling read, understanding that this is but one episode in the lawless, power-hungry, and ultimately bloody actions of the Bush Administration.

These are the guys that the Obama Department of Justice is shielding in court today. It is the "legal" interpretations and precedents that these guys set in motion that the Obama Department of Justice is fighting to preserve.

Wonder why?

Sheehan On The Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Cindy Sheehan offers her thoughts on the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Check it out here:http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Visions-from-Stckholm-Sw-by-Cindy-Sheehan-091010-460.html

Speaking out is something Sheehan has done consistently for years now. She's been derided by many on both the left and the right at various times, but I urge you to go hear her talk if she comes to your town. Her willingness to stand up for what she believes in and speak truth to power is inspiring.

Obamacare: Good For What Ails Health Insurance Companies (Except They Are Not Sick - In Fact, They're Feeling Much Better!)

I did not watch President Obama's speech on September 9 - although hearing a congressman shout out "you lie!" would have been fun. I've often thought the British Parliament does it best. Get the Prime Minister in the same room on a regular basis with the representatives and everyone gets down to shouting. Here there is way too much decorum when it comes to the President.

Anyway, from news accounts I've perused, Mr. Obama did the expected thing and continued his retreat from his 2003 declaration of support for true universal health care in America. He indicated then that only one thing was necessary to enable the USA to join the rest of the industrialized world in the most efficient and inclusive health care system ever devised: a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

So here we are six years later, and those prerequisites have been fulfilled. So where is the single-payer solution? Dead as a doornail in the White House view. And now the president is backing away the extremely modest government-run public option in a proposal mainly designed to add millions of new customers to the bloated, inefficient and "uniquely American" for-profit corporate health insurance "industry". The plan advocates something that every conservative in America should be vocally opposing: a federal law requiring everyone to purchase some sort of private corporate insurance. Talk about restricting choice!

Let's repeat that: the government, run by public tax dollars, will require the citizens to purchase private corporate insurance. Whether it's through your employer or on your own, citizens will face a tax penalty if they cannot prove they are paying a for-profit corporation for health insurance. But there's more! Tax subsidies will be issued to those who cannot fully afford the legal requirement to buy insurance. The government will give public dollars to citizens to pass on to for-profit corporations. A bailout by another name? And these companies aren't failing financially!

At least a small public option would give the most economically disadvantaged Americans a recourse - a non-profit insurance group that would operate as a last resort. But the president has signaled that it's not essential. Instead, the for-profit system would have no competition or impetus to hold down costs/prices.

I could go on, but fortunately Matt Taibbi, writer and blogger at Rolling Stone, has effectively recapped the sordid history of the health care "reform" and analyzed the legislative loopholes that will continue to provide mega-millions in profits to companies who make money by denying care. And we will all suffer. Read his story, "Sick And Wrong" here:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong

P.S. You can find many videos of Mr. Obama promising on the campaign trail to sign a universal health care measure by the end of his first term. That gives him three more years and a couple of months - how does the current measure help advance that cause? Here he is advocating for single payer in 2003 - somehow, in six years, there's been a dramatic about face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Americans Don't Want War In Afghanistan, But Does It Really Matter What They Want?

Will the GOP become the anti-war party in 2010? They threatened an earlier war funding bill tghis year with their purely partisan opposition. Public support for the Democrat-led expansion of the Afghanistan occupation/war is dwindling, according to many reports released today. How will Democratic legislators explain their support for ongoing Middle East war after years of decrying the Bush/Republican invasion/occupation? Here's the CNN story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

And McClatchy News is reporting that a rift is developing between the military and the administration on expanding the war. How is this going to set with the energy companies that need their oil pipelines/infrastructure located in a politically friendly Afghanistan? More troops are required, but "the additional troops are 'only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,' said another senior military official."

Nice to see that American military lives are measured in terms of future payments for the profit of Big Oil. And that these same lives are a political football in Washington - that will be cold comfort for the mourning families of military men and women killed in the meantime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3303057

If President Obama really wants to create change, he could start by doing the morally correct thing - replace all those troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and capital for civic improvements like hospitals, schools and power/communications plants. Think that is an option that will be discussed in Washington?

Obama The Tyrant? No, Just The Current Team Captain

I recently had an interesting email exchange with a respected colleague who told me that I often failed to give the Obama Administration "credit" when it was due. Announcements about new Justice Department investigations, directives and "reforms" sparked that conversation.

There have been encouraging signs: modification of some of the worst Bush-era policies in the environmental area, and the recent Justice Department announcement about investigating CIA torture activities and revamping its Civil Rights Division. But as many have pointed out, rolling back extreme right policies to a new "center" that still tilts to the right is not progress; and the CIA torture investigation ground rules could ultimately lead to another round of "punish the little guys while the big guys go free" results that are the norm for these exercises.

Despite these positive moves, in the major arenas of government action - war, surveillance, assisting corporate dominance - Team American Empire (TAE) continues to roll down the field. First, an excerpt from one of the exchanges:

"...we could definitely have a conversation about the assertion that 'overall domestic surveillance and secret prisons are okay' with the current administration.

Obama has specifically reversed and rejected Bush-era interrogation policies that allow for secret prisons (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing), and before he was president he voted for a revised domestic surveillance program that put quite a few restrictions on what the government and private entities could and could not do (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing).

I just don’t buy this notion that Obama somehow has a personal agenda to spy on Americans, take away their liberties, oppress citizens of other countries, and give every major corporation a big payday so he can retire happy."

(Drum roll, please) My response:

I do not believe that Mr. Obama has tyrannical or dictatorial ambitions.

He is the temporary team captain placed at the head of Team American Empire, a loose-knit collective with a single purpose: market domination and stability for financial profit. Team American Empire moves inexorably forward towards its goals via the combined efforts of the business community, its (often well-paid) cohorts in Congress and the revolving employment doors of government regulatory agencies. Every empire in history has followed the basic contours of this model. We are not re-inventing the wheel here.

The latest round of candidates for interim Empire team captain - Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton – all had been vetted by the major monied class. Whatever their differences, none of that trio were proposing to shut down the biggest business projects of our day: armaments and oil. And all were oppositional or purposely vague on health care reform (although I would like to believe Mrs. Clinton would have pushed hardest for meaningful change).

The guy sitting in the Presidential seat now may have the best intentions in the world, but he got to that position by being a willing team player. The current occupant, in his first six months, has undoubtedly proved he can be counted on to lead Team American Empire.

So it matters little what Mr. Obama’s personal feelings on key issues might be. The actions have been taken. In the realm of unhindered domestic surveillance, he voted to extend FISA – call me reactionary, but why does the government need to screen every email in America? Make all the new “restrictions” on surveillance you want – private communications corporations are assisting the government effort to screen everything. Maintaining a domestic surveillance network is much more about political paranoia and retaining domestic power than identifying “terrorists”.

Secret prisons – for me, it’s common sense. The President says we’ll close them, and the CIA director says they will be decommissioned. But do you trust the guys in charge of government-sponsored secrecy? The CIA and President both stated they will continue to detain and hold people for questioning – are they going to put them up in hotels? The intelligence arms of the Empire are not being reined in – they are shutting down old facilities and setting up new storefronts, just like they have throughout the post-WWII period.

Even if I believed there is a “reform”, where’s the public accountability to prove these prisons are truly closed? There is no outside-the-government oversight. The mainstream media is manipulated by the government, who knows they will rarely (if ever) begin serious investigations of its pronouncements. So how am I assured that this chapter is closed – I have to trust the President? It is not up to citizens to seek out and prove this information – it is the government’s responsibility to prove accomplishment of its promises to the citizens.

The prime enterprise for Team American Empire today is total dominance - military and financial - of the Middle East. For all the talk of withdrawing troops, Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to expand the wars/occupation/financial subjugation in the Middle East. Again, he’s not a personal tyrant – just the guy currently in charge of the ongoing (for decades to come) TAE game plan to make Middle East oil a sure thing for big energy companies. McCain or Clinton would have followed this same playbook exactly. And in the next election cycle or two, if our current electoral system is still intact (any bets?), someone else who has been carefully screened and approved will take Obama's place to captain Team American Empire.

I think it boils down to who you choose to believe when it comes to "reforms." I do not accept the "trust us" security/intelligence “reforms” of a publicly-funded government that willfully engages in financially/spiritually corrupting illegal wars for private profit.

For me, this is a an all-or-nothing game. As long as Team American Empire captain Obama keeps getting plays from the owners of industry and money – and the expanding wars, massive domestic surveillance machine, and the fight to preserve health insurance industry profits all point to that reality – there’s little joy in the occasional instance of moving a case of extreme right practice back to the (rightward-drifting) center.

Pocketful Of Miracles?

I've lately been engaged in an energetic and interesting email dialogue with several friends, acquaintances and others concerning aspects of the health care "reform" proposals and debate. In the course of the discussion, other topics surfaced, including civil rights loss / domestic surveillance and the Obama administration.

One correspondent - a person with strong progressive leanings - penned a post reminding everyone that President Obama is "human" and not the "second coming," both very worthwhile points. The writer touched on the many challenging issues the current administration inherited from the Bush regime. Then things got interesting.

It was asserted that Congress should not take up time with "witch hunts" and chasing down potential/former torturers in the government employ. Keeping info on those potential perps and accomplices still around in Washington is valuable, and Obama can use it to help "sell" health care "reform." Revealing the President's file cabinet full of undisclosed and damaging info on his Republican opponents will convince (strong-arm) them into finally capitulating on health care. And then the writer said: "I think he has a bunch of stuff in his pocket that one after another will come out to show the opposition it will be worse to fight him on the straightforward stuff."

A pocketful of miracles? The post got me thinking, and that's why we started a blog...to think kind of out loud. Here's my response:

Yes, the President is human. You are absolutely correct that he is not the “second coming” and that is an important thing for his supporters to recognize.

Mr. Obama was also a well-marketed product. And despite the 2008 advertising claims about “change,” he has continued the major programs of the Bush Administration – the ones that account for the majority of the federal budget. War and military expansion, continued domestic surveillance practices and covert international prisons are the highlights there. Yes, he inherited some issues, but is this continuation of many of the policies of 2003 – 2008 even disputable? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on these counts?
(see details: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2009/08/just-few-billion-every-year-once.html)

A couple of your comments got me thinking. I’m not sure I understand “witch hunts.” If laws were broken in the Bush White House concerning surveillance and torture – and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that is the case – what does it say about our “nation of laws” that the next President wants to sweep it under the rug? The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law – what’s more important than enforcing the laws pertaining to national government?

The vision of a carrot and stick - secret files that might be used to influence/threaten legislators – is a Cheney strategy, although it is a time-honored political tactic. And not a pretty one, as it plays on people’s fears, secretive nature and back-room thumbscrews. Come to think of it, those are classic empire-building tools.

Finally, surmising that the President has a “bunch of stuff in his pocket” that is going to reveal his true liberal/progressive nature is what another writer called “faith-based” thinking, and belies your earlier observation on his humanity. The Obama administration has already taken on all the “straightforward stuff”, the big-ticket budget items – see above – and now they offer the last agenda item, a flimsy health care reform (complete with privately negotiated deals with pharma/insurance companies: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss ).

So what’s left? Will his administration suddenly – we don’t know the time – reverse course on Afghanistan, secrecy protocols, investigations and the rest? Mr. Obama is okay continuing and increasing the killing in the Middle East while waiting to play his trump cards at home?

Believe your eyes. What is happening in all these arenas – including ignoring Medicare-for-all - is approved by the President. This is who he is.

I am glad you are in favor of many progressive changes proposed for the USA, and I know you speak out for them. For me, it’s important to recognize this Administration for its acts, not its campaign rhetoric or its marketing genius or its potential for magic tricks. By their actions, I’m having a hard time distinguishing Mr. Obama and most Democrats from George Bush and the Republicans.

The President Takes On Congressional Liberals

In 2003, Mr. Obama proclaimed that a single payer health care system was the best option for America. In 2009, he declares that even a watered-down "public option" government program is just a "sliver" in the overall health care reform effort. And progressives don't like the about face.

What happened to change his mind so drastically in six years? No country on the planet that ever installed a single-payer system has ever dismantled it, and no country on the planet has ever adopted the "uniquely American" health care model, so it couldn't be that.

What changed Mr. Obama's stand?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-picks-public-option-fight-with-liberals-2009-08-16.html

Nader Was Right

"We owe Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party an apology. They were right. If a few million of us had had the temerity to stand behind our ideals rather than our illusions and the empty slogans peddled by the Obama campaign, we would have a platform. We forgot that social reform never comes from accommodating the power structure but from frightening it. "

I voted for Mr. Nader for President in 2008 and 2004, and had the privilege of hearing him speak twice. The second time, in October 2008 with the Obama campaign in the driver's seat, his talk included some of the topics he touches on in this interview.

Chris Hedges interviews Mr. Nader on why the Progessive/Liberal movement cannot count on the Democratic Party - their chance to exercise influence was lost when they rapturously embraced Obama with no questions asked:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090810_nader_was_right_liberals_are_going_nowhere_with_obama/