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)

The Creation Of Music - Depends On The Venue

Click on the post title, and you will be transported to www.davidbyrne.com, where you will find an excellent entry in his on-line Journals entitled "Valentine's Day." But the post is not about the greeting-card holiday.

Rather, it's about a talk the singer/songwriter/artist/all-around intriguing guy gave called "Creation In Reverse", a theory about music, delivered at a recent conference in California called TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design). His thesis: the creation of music is as dependent on the venue in which it is heard as much as any other internal/external forces at work.

As someone who has dabbled in writing music for over twenty years, I found it fascinating, both as an idea as well as a thumbnail history of the evolution of music. Check it out!

Unsolved Mysteries Are Usually Conspiracies - That's My Theory

Around the world - and increasingly in the USA - the official government story about the events of September 11, 2001, as issued by the 9/11 Commission is being questioned.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used as shorthand by establishment-types to identify wackos and nutjobs and others who might have a thinking brain able to form intelligent questions. However, there is little doubt that the attacks, explosions and demolitions in New York City and Washington, D.C. were not carried out by single assailants - a crew conspiring to do damage was organized, trained and deployed. That's my theory. The question is, who were the conspirators?

The 9/11 Commission was forbidden from investigating that particular aspect. Not that it's resulting slipshod inquiry would have uncovered anything substantial.

A recent article by Elizabeth Woodward, published online at Global Research, details media stories about 9/11 from around the world that have appeared in the last fifteen months. Her survey shows a shift is taking place: the official 9/11 story is openly debated and openly doubted. Go here and see this excellent summary of world news stories, including my favorite: from Focus Money, a German business magazine, an article plainly called "We Don't Believe You": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WOO20100214&articleId=17624

As mentioned in that overview, some American media outlets - including the mighty Time Warner conglomerate - have started to approach the subject less hysterically. TW's newly launched TruTV (formerly Court TV) includes a show called "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura." The former governor of Minnesota hosts weekly explorations of mysteries, and included a show called "9/11" in its first season (http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/mysterious_ways.html). Notable in this episode are the appearances of several top 9/11 independent researchers.

A series of acts on 9/11/01 have led the USA to spend trillions of dollars on war, eradicate traditional American civil liberties via the Patriot Act and other laws, and cemented America's reputation as a thuggish global emissary for violence and disaster capitalism. At the very least, the events of 9/11 deserve a new investigation - and voices around the world are turning up the volume on that initiative.

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.

Joe Walsh Vs Joe Walsh

Guitar maestro and talented singer/songwriter Joe Walsh issues the old cease-and-desist to a politico candidate in Illinois who happens to share his name. And who is illegally utilizing one of Joe's tunes as a campaign ditty.

It's funny to me that this kind of thing keeps happening over the years - Reagan using Springsteen, Tom Petty and Jackson Browne getting co-opted. Is it me, or are the offenders mainly conservative/Republicans?

In any case, life's been good to musician Joe Walsh and he's refusing to walk away, calling time out, becoming the bomber; stealing songs may be okay in Illinois, but it's not the Rocky Mountain way! What is this candidate Joe Walsh doing, living a life of illusion?

At a James Gang reunion show I saw a couple of summers ago, Joe mused on running for President. Why not a rock star musician in office? As former Texas gubernatorial candidate and singer/songwriter/author Kinky Friedman has famously said, "How hard can it be?"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/01/joe-walsh-vs-joe-walsh-the-rock-star-wrestles-with-a-tea-party-copyright-infringer.html

Howard Zinn 1922 - 2010

"From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble." - Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (1994).

It's hard to imagine a world without Howard Zinn, a singular human being and citizen of the planet. His penetrating and honest recounting of the hidden history of power in the USA and the world influenced millions. But now Zinn has died, in the fashion he lived much of his life - on the road, speaking and teaching.

The teacher has passed on, yet his lessons remain: imagining a better world was Zinn's message.

I never created the opportunity to hear him in person, something I now regret. This summer I read the graphic novel "A People's History Of American Empire," the latest iteration of themes first presented in Zinn's game-changing book "A People's History Of The United States." Highly recommended as an introduction to some real American history, with arresting visuals:

There will be hundreds of articles in the coming days, weeks and months reflecting on Zinn. Here's nice one from Fred Branfman at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html

The Only Rational Response

The only rational response to the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

Corporate Money Wins

Stunning news yesterday - the Supreme Court has opened the door for corporations to jump into political campaigns with both feet. Go here to read/watch a very clear explanation about the decision and the background of the case:http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

Going forward, it's legally possible for these "persons" (as corporations long ago gained many of the same legal rights/protections as individuals) to openly spend money in elections - oops, I mean exercise their right of free speech - just like any other "person."

Of course corporations already dominate the political/government landscape - but now they can forgo those pesky rules about PACs, corporate money bundling, and other contributory efforts.

Individual citizens are still face a dollar limit on contributions to any single federal campaign. Corporate "citizens" - probably not.

I guess the "equal-opportunity" of the American system provides a solution: the interested citizens can set up a corporate entities to increase their electoral spending power - oops, I mean amplify their message. That seems simple enough! Then those citizens can successfully compete with messages being sent by their fellow citizens, named Goldman-Sachs, Haliburton, etc.

"Swift boat"-style ads are where corporations may now indulge freely. The overall effect on hearing both sides of an issue in the media - already a massive challenge - will be chilling. Writer/legal consultant Richard Goldberg on the tattered state of regulating money and elections:

As many have noted, this amounts to a significant gutting of our already tepid campaign finance laws, and it will allow corporations like Aetna—if they can find a political issue about which they feel strongly (can anyone think of one?)—to use corporate funds, derived from success in the economic marketplace, to defeat candidates in the political marketplace. That political marketplace, which was once called the "marketplace of ideas," may henceforth be called the "marketplace of whichever corporation can buy the most ads." This money will be spent nearly without regulation.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/17055/can-anything-fix-our-broken-campaign-finance-system-part-i

Journalist Greg Palast weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling. He explores some scenarios and analyzes the potential real-life results of the decision. His assertion that the Obama campaign of 2008 was majority-funded by individual citizen contributions has been proven wrong, but he raises pertinent issues - like the potential that foreign governments/mega-corporations, with a registered U.S. corporate arms (gotta love Joe Biden's Delaware, home of the corps), could spend without restriction on political campaigns.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens United case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. (Ted) Olson (arguing in favor of the plaintiff) offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

Wow, really? It's a bad idea to restrict foreign interests from participating financially in our electoral system?

If that's the case, our system is broken. The two-party system of government "by the people, for the people" has been purchased by business interests - and one of the last see-through curtains shielding us from that reality has been removed.

Corporations are organizations of people - a small minority of our population with a majority of the money. Time for the majority population to figure out how to exercise influence. It won't be through a Democrat or Republican political party, although we can scare them into some action.

It's best to seek another path - let's think seriously about reforming the entire system so it benefits people, not companies, and creates safety and wealth benefits for all - not the minority.

Speaking The Truth - On The State Of The Democrat Party

"We have to be more defined as being on the side of the people and not on the side of interest groups that are so entrenched. And we can't do that by playing patty-cake with Wall Street, by caving into the demands of big banks, by playing footsie with insurance companies and by jumping in bed with the pharmaceutical industry." - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) on his political party.

Speaking the truth, usually unvarnished and clear-eyed, is Representative Dennis Kucinich's stock-in-trade. Thankfully, the voters of his Cleveland district keep returning him to Congress.

Rep. Kucinich, in this interview, outlines his view on the state of the Democratic Party - essential reading.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/exclusive-kucinich-shreds-democrats/