ThinkFast: July 1, 2008
ThinkFast: July 1, 2008
Senior Pentagon officials are concerned about the “increasing likelihood” that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.”
The Iraqi government announced Monday that “it was opening six key oil production fields to more than 30 foreign companies, while delaying an announcement on a series of no-bid consulting contracts with a handful of Western oil companies.” Critics in the Arab world and abroad cite the oil deals as reason to believe “the United States-led invasion was at least partly about access to Iraq’s oil.”
This past month was “the worst June for the S&P 500 and the Dow industrials since the Great Depression, amid rocketing oil prices and ongoing financial market woes. … The S&P 500 lost 8.6% in June, the worst monthly performance since September 2002 when it lost 11%, and the worst June performance since 1930, when it slumped 16.5%.”
A former CIA agent contends that CIA officials “ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.” The agent, who sued the agency in 2004 after being fired, filed a motion on Friday requesting that the government “declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.”
On the trail today: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will be in Indianapolis to speak at the National Sheriffs’ Association’s 68th Annual Conference. This afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) plans to go to Zanesville in eastern Ohio to visit a church program that provides food, clothing and emergency assistance to needy families.
Reaching out to evangelical voters, Obama is “announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups” and support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Militants “killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month,” underscoring the Taliban’s “growing strength.” A Pentagon report last week “forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the Pakistan border.”
The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. criticized the administration for claiming its arguments about a Gitmo detainee should be accepted because they were repeated in three secret documents. The court compared that to the “absurd declaration” of a Lewis Carroll poem: “What I tell you three times is true.” “This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” it said.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Syrian citizen who was detained at Kennedy airport and then sent to Syria and tortured under extraordinary rendition. The court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
And finally: Yesterday was the last day of freedom for former Alaska state congressman Vic Kohring, who was found guilty of accepting bribes. Kohring had been preparing for his 3 1/2-year prison sentence by googling the Southern California facility. Kohring said he plans to write an autobiography — called “Absolutely Innocent” — and read a lot. “It’s almost like going away on a vacation. A…Government sponsored vacation,” he said.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
A Blind Eye on Soldiers’ Suicides
“Support the troops” is an American lie. This nation is grievously and knowingly failing the young men and women who wear the uniform of its military services, and nothing demonstrates that more powerfully than the suicides of soldiers. According to the Army’s own figures, the rate of suicide among active duty personnel nearly doubled between 2001 and 2006. The number then grew even higher in 2007, when suicide ranked third as the cause of death among members of the National Guard.
Veterans, too, are in trouble. In May, the head of the National Institute of Mental Health warned of “a gathering storm.” Thomas Insel told the American Psychiatric Association that one in five of the 1.6 million soldiers who have been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan (or more than 300,000) suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome or depression. In Insel’s words, of “suicides and psychological mortality trumping combat deaths;” each one who commits suicide, or attempts to (more than 2,000 last year), shows this.
These acts of self-destruction lay bare some difficult truths. They arrive in the war zone with every intention of protecting an innocent population from the enemy, only to discover that the enemy and the population are indistinguishable. “Insurgents” often turn out to be, not ideologues, much less “terrorists,” but only cousins of those already killed. Harsh to say, but the American military cares nothing for the individuals who comprise it, only for the mission those individuals can accomplish. Hence the shameful exploitation of troops in disabling redeployments, and the resulting abuse of their families.
Suicide is always a tragedy, and, whether accompanied by a note, always a message – one that survivors must read. In the case of soldier suicides, we Americans are all their next of kin. Their despair demands our attention. What are they telling us?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9976/
They are telling us that their human spirit has been broken. That the destruction, violence, and death that they witnessed is more than they could bare. The guilt erodes away a part of them with each act of violence they bore witness to. Then this vicious cycle of multiple deployments adds to the growing negative feelings that they are trapped in a war with no end in sight. Suicide seems to be the only answer left to stop the guilt and the nightmares that become their constant companions. This is why wars should be avoided at all costs. There is no prosthetic for an “Amputated Spirit”.
AFSC launched the Eyes Wide Open Exhibit, touring exhibit that displays empty white combat boots to represent the Iraq War suicide deaths, alongside black boots to represent combat deaths and civilian shoes for Iraqis killed. http://www.afsc.org/ Bush and Cheney should pay dearly for these crimes.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:02 amThis past month was “the worst June for the S&P 500 and the Dow industrials since the Great Depression, amid rocketing oil prices and ongoing financial market woes.”
___________________________________________________
And I’m sure all the economists are still quibbling about whether or not this is a recession. Meanwhile, Joe and Jane Citizen are trying to figure out if they can afford to drive to the grocery store, and once there, if they can afford to buy groceries. They might be able to squeak such a trip out of their budget — provided nobody in the family gets sick…
July 1st, 2008 at 9:05 amThis action would be the final sop to the mega oil companies which own lock, stock and oil barrel this admin. Remember Exxon, Chevron and the usual suspects own a lot of oil in the ground, not only abroad but right here at home. Another doubling in price would be just fine with them, we the people be damned.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:08 amGood morning, campers.
Ah, Lewis Carroll. The Hunting of A Snark.
A-snarking we will go, a snarking we will go,
hi-ho, a merry-o, a snarking we will go.
hee, hee, hee, hee
______________________________________________________________
with that little hilarity out of the way,
If this administration gets us into a war with Iran, it will make Iraq look like a sunny walk in the park.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:11 amSenior Pentagon officials are concerned about the “increasing likelihood” that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.”
And this is exactly what the Bush Admin wants them to do. Because Iran will retaliate and then we will have to go attack Iran to protect Israel. If we had a President who wasn’t hell bent to get us into another conflict in the middle east, the President could tell Israel that if they attack Iran, there will be no more financial aid coming from the US. I suspect it’s more likely that the US has promised Israel more financial aid if they start the fight with Iran.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:12 amIt’s not “critics in the Arab world,” it’s anyone with half a working cerebrum. Jeez, the protofascisti laid it out for all to see in PNAC’s purpose statement in the 90’s, not that any TV-watching/sedated American would know. Screw the corporate propaganda machine known as MSM.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:13 amCritics in the Arab world and abroad cite the oil deals as reason to believe “the United States-led invasion was at least partly about access to Iraq’s oil.”
Critics in the Arab world KNOW that invading Iraq was all about oil. It’s going to be pretty funny if, in the end, everyone BUT the US ends us with oil contracts in Iraq.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:14 amReaching out to evangelical voters, Obama is “announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.”
This move to the middle has never worked and will never work. Using our tax dollars to support religious groups is not only controversial but what about the violations of the separation between church and state? I certainly don’t want my tax dollars spent this way.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:15 amReaching out to evangelical voters, Obama is “announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups” and support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
____________________________________________________________
Obama is right when he says that religious groups are in an excellent position to provide charity to those who need it, and that we should find some way to take advantage of this. He is also right when he says that religious texts and proselytizing have no place in any system where government money is involved.
That said, I think he is onto a good idea, but one that should be handled very, very carefully. Blurring the lines between church and state may make the evangelicals giddy, but it also opens a whole can of worms we really don’t want.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:15 amUntil today’s ThinkFast, I thought TP was actually in support of Barack.
We never heard ANYTHING disparaging about Billary, did we TP even when she was at her lowest-lying moments????
Your true agenda has never changed has it? Seems like some people never get tired of sucking Bill’s dick.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:16 amReaching out to evangelical voters, Obama is “announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups” and support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Ok, why doesn’t Obama just announce that he is becoming a Republican? What in the hell is happening to him? In his move right he is going to lose his base and then end up in losing the election.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:16 amBig Oil has laid waste to Iraq. It will never be rebuilt as a civilized nation, only as an industrial complex. Security bases interspersed across the oil fields will be needed to control the populace and protect the petroleum infrastructure.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:20 amThe ecological devastation will slowly eat away at the ability of the people of Iraq to feed themselves, the disadvantaged will starve, get sick from toxic and radiological pollution, and die.
Those willing to work for the oil companies will eke out an existence within a walled and barbed wired apartheid.
The corporatists think they will be able to do the same to Iran.
The court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
And this is exactly why the Bush Administration had the program for rendition. We can do anything we want to those people because we kept them out of the US and therefore out from under US law. So, I would like to ask this Judge, exactly what laws do apply to this case? It is positively disgusting what our country has become.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
That said, I think he is onto a good idea, but one that should be handled very, very carefully. Blurring the lines between church and state may make the evangelicals giddy, but it also opens a whole can of worms we really don’t want.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
_______
It’s also nothing new. Religious groups received funding under the Clinton administration, too, to provide services and implement programs at home and overseas. All Bush did with the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives initiative is take what was already happening and turn it into a pandering opportunity. All the religious groups that had been writing very secular proposals for government grants suddenly began to write more spiritual proposals for government grants.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:22 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
That said, I think he is onto a good idea, but one that should be handled very, very carefully. Blurring the lines between church and state may make the evangelicals giddy, but it also opens a whole can of worms we really don’t want.
I think it is a terrible idea. It is already being done under Bush’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives. And everything I have read about the program is that it’s one giant boondoggle and a waste of money.
Missmolly…do you approve of this hard right turn Obama is taking? I am beginning to feel like we have been sold a bill of goods in Obama.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:25 amFreedom Rebel Says
July 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
This move to the middle has never worked and will never work. Using our tax dollars to support religious groups is not only controversial but what about the violations of the separation between church and state? I certainly don’t want my tax dollars spent this way.
__________________________________________________________
I agree that using tax dollars to support religious groups in their non-religious charitable missions can be a slippery slope, and my support for it comes with about a gazillion conditions.
My church has been part of Interfaith Hospitality, a group of churches who provide overnight sleeping facilities for the homeless on a rotation basis. The people we help are not subjected to any preaching — no sermons, no religious texts, no religious “sales” of any kind. There is no hiring or firing, as everybody who works on this is a volunteer (and when somebody volunteers to make beds for homeless people, we don’t question how they worship). But we depend on donations for sheets, pillows, food, towels, soap, etc.
I would have no problem with a government handout for this kind of activity (or a soup kitchen, or a shelter for battered women), provided it was strictly used for this activity and not for the church in general.
It can be done. But it would have to be done so carefully that there are probably many churches who would find it worth it to take money with this many strings attached.
I’m not quite ready to condemn Obama for this idea yet, as I think it can work. But it bears watching.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:31 amMr Arar, second to last item, is a Canadian citizen. He was abducted by US agents at JFK, held in the US for a time before being shipped to Syria. The argument that he wasn’t technically in the US is absurd.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am#11 Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Ok, why doesn’t Obama just announce that he is becoming a Republican? What in the hell is happening to him? In his move right he is going to lose his base and then end up in losing the election.
Good Morning Bilbo :)
July 1st, 2008 at 9:34 amIt has been rumored that the Hillary campaign people that he hired are pushing this move to the middle. I’m not saying that is true, but if this is what is happening don’t they realize that it didn’t work for her? I agree with you Bilbo, I don’t like what we are seeing. He is going to alienate the very liberals and progressives that have heavily supported him.
Freedom Rebel Says:
He is going to alienate the very liberals and progressives that have heavily supported him.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
_______
Perhaps, but alienate them to what extent? Enough that they vote for McCain? Enough that they vote for Ralph Nader? Enough that they stay home on Election Day?
It’s a calculated risk – there are a whole lot more voters at the peak of the bell curve than in the tail.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:37 amFreedom Rebel Says:
Good Morning Bilbo :)
It has been rumored that the Hillary campaign people that he hired are pushing this move to the middle. I’m not saying that is true, but if this is what is happening don’t they realize that it didn’t work for her? I agree with you Bilbo, I don’t like what we are seeing. He is going to alienate the very liberals and progressives that have heavily supported him.
I wonder what Obama is going to do when his 1.5 million net roots supporters are no longer supporting him financially? He has turned down public financing so his only recourse will be to go to the big money donors he is supposed to disdain.
I am sooooo disappointed in Obama. He is becoming another pandering mealy mouthed politician. What has happened to the good instincts that won him the primary? If this is the result of the Hillary people he has hired, he needs to get rid of them immediately.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:39 amThe Bush Mantra:
1. Lie
July 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am2. Obfuscate
3. Misspeak
4. Rinse and repeat 1-3
hussein toasterhead Says:
Perhaps, but alienate them to what extent? Enough that they vote for McCain? Enough that they vote for Ralph Nader? Enough that they stay home on Election Day?
It’s a calculated risk – there are a whole lot more voters at the peak of the bell curve than in the tail.
Alienate them to the extent that they stop supporting him financially. That’s how he won the primary, with the money that his net roots supporters sent him. I’m sure they (including me) won’t vote for McCain, but we sure have lost our enthusiasm for his candidacy. He will lose financial and volunteer support and then be forced to become just another big money, corporation run politician. And the sad thing is that it isn’t necessary. People liked him where he was in the primaries. He doesn’t need to take a hard right turn to win. As a matter of fact, his hard right turn may just lose him the race if he turns off his base to the extent where they just don’t vote or vote for Nader as a protest.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 amThe revolting repugnicans are aghast that Clark said that getting shot down and captured does not qualify one for the presidency. There was a leading question that prompted his reply, but nonetheless, Clark is right – and that does not disparage the service of McCain.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:44 amWhere was the repugnican outrage when Max Cleland was denigrated – where was the outrage when the swiftboaters were given hour after hour to mock John Kerry’s service – was it outrage that caused repugnicans at their convention to paste bandaids on their cheeks in mockery of Kerry’s purple heart?
IOKIYAR – again?
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says
July 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Missmolly…do you approve of this hard right turn Obama is taking? I am beginning to feel like we have been sold a bill of goods in Obama.
________________________________________________
I am not alarmed to the point of planning to vote third party. Yet. Obama has always been up front about his Christian faith, so this step doesn’t really surprise me. As long as he keeps the line drawn between church and state, I can go along with it.
What alarms me more than this is his apparent softening of his Iraq stance and his pandering to Israel, even though I know that any candidate who doesn’t suck up to Israel bigtime doesn’t have any hope of getting elected. I have also been disappointed in his not wanting to impeach (or even hold accountable) the criminals of the current administration. I predict that his inauguration speech will be all about “moving forward” and Bushco will fade away without any payment for their crimes. This is a terrible message to send!
So — short answer: I have a few disappointments with Obama, but I probably would with anyone. I still think that Obama is basically staying true to his core beliefs and isn’t flip-flopping all over the place like a certain other candidate. And I believe it’s vital that McCain NOT get elected.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:44 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Missmolly…do you approve of this hard right turn Obama is taking? I am beginning to feel like we have been sold a bill of goods in Obama.
Personally, I don’t buy your characterization of a “hard right turn.” For one thing, Obama has made no secret of the fact that he’s a religious man, far more so than phonies like Bush, and it has been a part of his entire appeal as an inspirational speaker. Second, the Left has been claiming for a long time, with very little credibility, that it is not hostile to religion and specifically not hostile to Christianity.
There are a great many faith-based organizations that are not boondoggles, and are uniquely positioned to help people in ways that government agencies cannot or does not. Would you support funding for an organization like this? I’ve helped them repair homes that were then made available to purchase by the very poor — just one anecdotal reference.
If you believed that Obama was way over on the Left, as many of us are, I think the mistake was yours to make.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:47 amIran-Contra’s ‘Lost Chapter’
by Robert Parry
As historians ponder George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency, they may wonder how Republicans perfected a propaganda system that could fool tens of millions of Americans, intimidate Democrats, and transform the vaunted Washington press corps from watchdogs to lapdogs.
To understand this extraordinary development, historians might want to look back at the 1980s and examine the Iran-Contra scandal’s “lost chapter,” a narrative describing how Ronald Reagan’s administration brought CIA tactics to bear domestically to reshape the way Americans perceived the world.
That chapter — which we are publishing here for the first time — was “lost” because Republicans on the congressional Iran-Contra investigation waged a rear-guard fight that traded elimination of the chapter’s key findings for the votes of three moderate GOP senators, giving the final report a patina of bipartisanship.
Under that compromise, a few segments of the draft chapter were inserted in the final report’s Executive Summary and in another section on White House private fundraising, but the chapter’s conclusions and its detailed account of how the “perception management” operation worked ended up on the editing room floor.
The American people thus were spared the chapter’s troubling finding: that the Reagan administration had built a domestic covert propaganda apparatus managed by a CIA propaganda and disinformation specialist working out of the National Security Council.
“One of the CIA’s most senior covert action operators was sent to the NSC in 1983 by CIA Director [William] Casey where he participated in the creation of an inter-agency public diplomacy mechanism that included the use of seasoned intelligence specialists,” the chapter’s conclusion stated.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9992/
**So much of what we are learning about how the neocons have influenced policy and propaganda has been going on for so long now it’s scary. I realize hat the excuse du jour for the Dems not pursuing investigations (at the very LEAST) is that we need to concentrate on winning the election. I am appalled at much of the information coming out with little response or reaction from the Dems. We will be lucky to have an election this fall at this rate.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am“Obama is “announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups”
From the details provided by the linked article, this news raises my hackles.
The Catholic Church gets away with instituionalized sex abuse of minors by paying fines only—that;s not how it works for the citizen.
The evangelical ministries are businesses first and foremost but pay little or no taxes and constantly rip-off their own congregants.
It’s not the poor who are benefitting from the “faith-based” programs, its the religious organizations who are being given welfare without accountability.
Obama’s religiosity was the one thing that really bothered me in trying to choose a candidate.
This doesn’t sound like a move designed to re-assure the religious demographic to maximize support and gain some traditional Republican territory, instead it appears to be a very specific plan, a full-blown policy. I am pissed-off.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:54 amgummitch Says:
Personally, I don’t buy your characterization of a “hard right turn.” For one thing, Obama has made no secret of the fact that he’s a religious man, far more so than phonies like Bush, and it has been a part of his entire appeal as an inspirational speaker. Second, the Left has been claiming for a long time, with very little credibility, that it is not hostile to religion and specifically not hostile to Christianity.
My complaint isn’t strictly on this religious issue, even though I think that we need to keep religion the hell out of government. He’s taking a hard right turn on FISA, Iraq, Iran and finally accountability by the current administration. The man I thought was principled and courageous enough to stand up for what he thought was right seems to have disappeared.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:54 amHistory shows that the initial aggressors in any war don’t fair too well. It’s ghastly and ghoulish that our only response to our economic problems will be to start WWIII. So much for Judeo/Christian values.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am“The Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. criticized the administration for claiming its arguments about a Gitmo detainee should be accepted because they were repeated in three secret documents.”
_____________________________________________________
Proof that Bushco hasn’t bought ALL the judges yet. There’s hope.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:56 amSen. Barack Obama (D-IL) plans to go to Zanesville in eastern Ohio to visit a church program that provides food, clothing and emergency assistance to needy families.
Providing, of course, those folks don’t mind their phones being illegally tapped.
I’m furious with Obama’s craven capitulation over the telecoms, though his being the recipient of thousands..topping 200 GRAND by now..of telecom
payoffscontributions means he’s just doing what he got paid to do: Screw us! We’re being boned again by the media’s anointed darling. (that alone should disqualify both Hillary and Obama…) As has been said at this link c/o Michael Collins over at Smirking Chimp:That’s the reason Karl Rove was correct when he declared that the conservatives would retain power after the ‘06 elections: Impeachment off the table, continued funding for the illegal war, telecom immunity, no, NO investigations into anything…why do I feel like the dems won the toss but we were the ones that got flipped?
Time to light the torches and hoist the frankenstein rakes. Obama’s a fraud. Thank God for Kucinich, Wexler, Dodd and Feingold. Those individuals get it. They are the few dems deserving of their jobs and warranting the votes that put them in office. The rest, like Macaca jr. Webb, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, etc. should be tarred and feathered (with shredded $100 bills from their lobbyists) and run out of office.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:57 am#16 Misshusseinmolly
I agree that using tax dollars to support religious groups in their non-religious charitable missions can be a slippery slope, and my support for it comes with about a gazillion conditions.
My church has been part of Interfaith Hospitality, a group of churches who provide overnight sleeping facilities for the homeless on a rotation basis. The people we help are not subjected to any preaching — no sermons, no religious texts, no religious “sales” of any kind. There is no hiring or firing, as everybody who works on this is a volunteer (and when somebody volunteers to make beds for homeless people, we don’t question how they worship). But we depend on donations for sheets, pillows, food, towels, soap, etc.
I would have no problem with a government handout for this kind of activity (or a soup kitchen, or a shelter for battered women), provided it was strictly used for this activity and not for the church in general.
It can be done. But it would have to be done so carefully that there are probably many churches who would find it worth it to take money with this many strings attached.
I’m not quite ready to condemn Obama for this idea yet, as I think it can work. But it bears watching.
Good Morning MissMolly :) always good to read your posts…
But consider this, how much monitoring or oversight have we ever seen the government do on any bill or legisilation that is passed? Not much is the problem and this partical one is going to be very hard to enforce.
I agree that much good comes out of certain programs, but “voluntary” prayer in some programs will put undue pressure on children to conform. They don’t know to ask for an after-school program that is non-religious.
Plus these religious groups are exempt from civil rights laws in their discrimination of hiring and firing based on religious beliefs. Now if they are going to except federal money they should not be exempt from civil right laws.
Also, this means that a recipient of government aid can easily be exposed to worship, that is not fair nor does it respect the right of the individual if they are an Athiest for example.
These are just my opinions of why I don’t believe in this. Have a good day Misshusseinmolly :)
July 1st, 2008 at 9:58 amYo Ho: In the Preface to “The Hunting of the Snark” Carroll wrote:
This also seems a fitting occasion to notice the other hard works in that poem. Humpty-Dumpty’s theory, of two meanings packed into one word like a portmanteau, seems to me the right explanation for all.
For instance, take the two words “fuming” and “furious.” Make up your mind that you will say both words, but leave it unsettled which you will say first. Now open your mouth and speak. If your thoughts incline ever so little towards ” fuming,” you will say “fuming-furious;” if they turn, by even a hair’s breadth, towards “furious,” you will say “furious-fuming;” but if you have the rarest of gifts, a perfectly balanced mind, you will say “frumious.”
This reminds me of Stephen Colbert’s word plays that began with his “Truthiness”. Is there a chance that Stephen, in his efforts to maintain the same level of standards as his hero Billo, has “borrowed” Carroll’s idea, repackaged it and now enjoys a level of notoriety, lexicographically speaking? Does that make Stephen a “lexirietor”?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:01 amBHB: “If this is the result of the Hillary people he has hired, he needs to get rid of them immediately”
You really think whatever former Hillary staff have joined with the Obama staff have been able to develop that much influence in the space of a few weeks? FISA, the DC gun decsion and now this religious initiative? Sounds like a stretch to me.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 amSaint Augustine; see: Frumious Bandersnatch- a good psychadelic 60s band.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:05 amgummitch Says:
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
All religion is equally phony.
If Obama refuses to block the FISA legislation, I’ll vote for McCain. Hell, I’ll vote a straight (R) ticket (and I can’t stand the Republicans). Why? Because it’s the hardest blow I can deliver to Obama and the feckless, wussie Dems (this group does not include Kucinich, Finegold, and a couple of others). Electing McCain wouldn’t be so bad anyway, as the next President is in for a world of trouble – might as well be McCain who gets blamed for Bush’s mess.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:06 amThis is exactly the pandering kind of decisions that got Bush elected and resulted in religious beliefs being a key factor for businesses spending millions of our tax dollars to “do good.” It is why we have our current, we’ll play both sides of an issue and attempt to gain support of the big lobby contributors Democratic congress no matter what we promised.
When a candidate attempts to appeal to every group, even if it is counter to the Constituion or the beliefs of a majority of the voters, we end up with a crazy mix of players on the national scene carving out their portion of our tax and borrowed dollars to meet their personal agendas.
If the public believes religious groups can better serve our commuinities, then support will follow. But many of these groups are simply promoting their own brand of beliefs or lining their pockets. I certainly hope Obama plans to actually have a qualification process and oversight of how religious groups spend our money. But, since he obviously wants to be loved by everyone, I doubt that he will build in accountability.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:11 amThe court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
So then he couldn’t possibly be legally detained by US government personnel because there’s no legal jurisdiction between customs and the plane. Genius!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am#19 hussein toasterhead Says:
Freedom Rebel Says:
He is going to alienate the very liberals and progressives that have heavily supported him.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
_______
Perhaps, but alienate them to what extent? Enough that they vote for McCain? Enough that they vote for Ralph Nader? Enough that they stay home on Election Day?
It’s a calculated risk – there are a whole lot more voters at the peak of the bell curve than in the tail.
I have talked to many people, some are going to write in candidates. Some are going to vote for the Libertarian Party. Myself, I wouldn’t go that far. I send him emails when I don’t like what he is doing.
It is impossible to make everyone happy, when you try what you do is sacrifice your core principles. That is what is upsetting people and myself included. Whatever happened to standing up for what you believe in no matter what the cost is? Taking the path for truth and justice and upholding the constitution shouldn’t be something that are just words in a speech. The founding fathers fought to hard for them to be trivialized. I don’t like politicians using our constitution rights as bargaining chips in a game either.
I can only express how I feel about what he is doing, but I will still vote for him. My only hope is that he will go back and look at the speeches he made and really think about the direction he is headed.
have a good day hussein toasterhead :)
July 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am#31
July 1st, 2008 at 10:17 amHanshiro: I read your link over on Smirking Chimp. I couldn’t have said it better myself. What I found refreshing about it was the ANGER. It seems everyone is so busy making excuses for Obama, they don’t feel a sense of betrayal at all. Maybe they will in time.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Syrian citizen who was detained at Kennedy airport and then sent to Syria and tortured under extraordinary rendition. The court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
Who knew Kennedy Airport was not in the United States?
I smell a shitload of appeals by defendants convicted in federal court — stemming from cases originating at Kennedy Airport.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am5th Estate Says: @ 27
I agree with you wholeheartedly. What I hope to see happen with respect to all the Faith Based programs, and indeed in all Federal agencies and programs, is implimation of a system to measure the effectiveness of the government’s expenditures, ie our tax money.
I’m tired of the outright lies, the lies of omission and the supression of information that this administration has relied on to shield their illegal and impeachable actions from the public forum.
Perhaps it is time for the public to put cameras in government offices so we the people can keep an eye on our employees.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:19 amMarcus Aurelius Says:
If Obama refuses to block the FISA legislation, I’ll vote for McCain. Hell, I’ll vote a straight (R) ticket (and I can’t stand the Republicans). Why? Because it’s the hardest blow I can deliver to Obama and the feckless, wussie Dems (this group does not include Kucinich, Finegold, and a couple of others). Electing McCain wouldn’t be so bad anyway, as the next President is in for a world of trouble – might as well be McCain who gets blamed for Bush’s mess.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am
That’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face, Marcus.
Doing that doesn’t “punish” Obama, it punishes the whole country. Haven’t we had enough of that over the last 8 years?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:23 amMarcus Aurelius Says:
If Obama refuses to block the FISA legislation, I’ll vote for McCain. Hell, I’ll vote a straight (R) ticket [...]Electing McCain wouldn’t be so bad anyway, as the next President is in for a world of trouble – might as well be McCain who gets blamed for Bush’s mess.
thanks, in advance…
i’m making a list of wimps like you, who would vote R… who would cut off your nose to spite your face…
besides, it won’t be mcSAME for long… he’s dying… he’ll pick romney as VP and in short time the mitt will be president and head of the national church of war…
just my take.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:30 amSaint Augustine…
The term “Faith Based” says it all. If a relgious group or organization wants to provide social programs they should do it on their own dime.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:33 amIf they can persuade others outside their group to contribute they should be required to account for their qualifications, the effectiveness of the program and so on.
Did we REALLY think that we would always completely agree with Obama – or whoever the candidate – if so, then we were dreaming!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:33 amWe don’t always agree with our own spouse do we? In fact, we have some pretty heated arguments in my house, but does that mean that we don’t support each other? Does it mean that we cannot see that there are nuances to one’s opinion? Does it mean that we will abandon our candidate and join the enemy camp – where there is NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING we agree with? That would be too foolish to contemplate.
wow… we are on the same wave length this a.m….
Zooey Says:
[...] The court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
Who knew Kennedy Airport was not in the United States?
I smell a shitload of appeals by defendants convicted in federal court — stemming from cases originating at Kennedy Airport.
i was thinking the same thing… this will be an interesting bit of info to not just a few cases…
July 1st, 2008 at 10:35 amGood morning, katy. I hope you’re staying cool over there.
I’m about to get cool — in the AC at work.
Later, all!!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:38 amI had way more reservations about Kerry than I do Obama, yet I had no problem voting for Kerry when the time came. Come on people. If the government grants make sure that there are no religious tests for either receiving aid or hiring for those programs I can live with them. In fact, programs with those requirements have been in existance long before Bush came along. It was Bush ignoring those requirements, along with using the programs to fund cronies that stepped over the line. I’m still hopeful Obama is better than that. As a matter of fact the article linked indicate Obama is against allowing proselytizing or religious tests in government funded programs.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:51 amhere’s a good thought, from the latest C&L thread:
DirtyDawg Says:
One thing I would implore all of us to do is ‘not’ to talk about how disappointed we may be in Obama’s response on any given issue…just let them play out…let Obama’s surrogates do the heavy lifting and keep the enemy at bay. No, just keep one thing at the forefront on everything. No matter what is said and done about anything over the next four-plus months, no ‘effin’ way we’re gonna reward the Repugs with another four years after this past eight. As Paul Craig Roberts has said, we may not be happy with the performance of the Dem leadership at times, but the one thing that we can, and must do, is to hold all Repugnicans accountable for the performance of bush/cheney – after all every one of them supported, contributed to and enabled them to do the criminal damage they have done to us and others and they shall all be found guilty at the ballot box.
good day… i’m out to mow.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:53 amzooey – ha! i’m out to beat the worst of the heat… pretty mild so far, but the heat is coming…
g’day!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:55 amWhy is Obama proposing expand funding for the middle man, when we can cut through the red tape and put those dollars directly into the pockets of needy people — to have an address in their name, to have food, to have clothing, toiletries, etc.?
Since when are churches the sought-after administrator of federal aid?
At least Obama is more likely to listen if/when he gets an earful of complaints about his proposal.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:04 amI fully agree, Marie. I would never yank my vote for Obama, and would never encourage others to do the same.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am46. Marie Says: Did we REALLY think that we would always completely agree with Obama – or whoever the candidate – if so, then we were dreaming!
We don’t always agree with our own spouse do we?
This is most certainly not a matter of simple disagreement, this is cowardly capitulation of the fundamental rule of law of the Constitution by the very frauds who promised the moon before the elections (Conyers before ‘06 elections-”Constitution In Crisis”/ Conyers after the ‘06 elections-”nevermind….”)
How much of your rights are you willing to give away under the auspices of, “Well, at least he’s better than McFascist…”
Here’s a newsflash, Marie: You run a gamed system, yet you want to keep the populace voting against their better interests, what do you do? Why, offer an unqualified, senile, blithering idiot like McCain! That way, even Jeb looks sane. So we, again, give in and ‘compromise’ more rights with telecom’s bestest buddy, Obama.
Next time, after Obama “disagrees” with us some more and we get fed up again, the right offers some inbred anti-evolutionist like Huckabee and we give more away by keeping Obama, (or the latest media-anointed incarnation) ‘cuz he’s at least more ‘incremental’ about concealing egregious violations of the Constitutions by the corporate conglomerates and signing away our rights.
Lather, rinse, bend over, repeat.
“This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. ~MLK
July 1st, 2008 at 11:08 amRe: Cutting off my nose to spite my face.
If Obama does not oppose FISA, he is unfit to serve as President (same goes for anyone else – thus my exclusion of Kucinich, Feingold, et al). I say vote McCain and let the R’s harvest what they’ve sown and, at the same time, show the cowering, spineless collaborators in the Democratic Party that half-assed, faux progressivism just won’t cut it any more.
If you think Obama is acting Progressively, you are fooled. We need a liberal progressive. If the choice is between right or center right, I’ll vote (R).
July 1st, 2008 at 11:16 amAllowing the R’s to fully harvest what they’ve sown would finish off this country.
If you’re not going to vote for Obama (not recommended), at least — AT LEAST — write in Kucinich, Feingold, et al. Don’t record a vote for McCain. You’ll simply regret it.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:23 amMarcus Aurelius Says:
If you think Obama is acting Progressively, you are fooled. We need a liberal progressive. If the choice is between right or center right, I’ll vote (R).
Well, that makes sense. If the Democratic candidate isn’t sufficiently progressive, vote for a conservative. Makes all the sense in the world. Maybe the Republicans will do the same thing: since McBush isn’t conservative enough, they’ll all vote for Obama.
Riiiight.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am57. gummitch Says: Well, that makes sense. If the Democratic candidate isn’t sufficiently progressive, vote for a conservative.
Actually, what I think Marcus Aurelius’s point is, is that he’s tired of rightwing liars paraded as if they’re progressive reformers, only to bone us when they sucker us out of our votes. MA is just cutting to the chase and saying, “Hell, rather than watching our rights trickle away excruciatingly and the politicos using the torture technique of promise/disappointment/promise/disappointment to dispirit us gradually, let’s skip the kabuki and get to it while we have hope and fighting-back spirit left when the dust clears. Better a clean toe-to-toe fight than this imposter-shank-slipping deceit that results in the same ends.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:39 amIran is 3x as large as Iraq. Our finest is going fight a third war. The US ain’t seen hell yet.
Killing for oil is a war crime and should be treated as such.
repugs are going to use the same old lies to start a new war.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:40 amComing late to the debate about Obama’s obvious pander to the religious right, one must wonder if he’d also support giving money to athiest organizations, who offer community services?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:43 am“atheist”
Sorry.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:44 amThe S&P 500 lost 8.6% in June, the worst monthly performance since September 2002 when it lost 11%, and the worst June performance since 1930, when it slumped 16.5%.”
Does that mean we’re only half way to our next DEPRESSION?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:47 amthe gop;
they scam the country,
they scam each other.
read all about the conservative
campaign fundraising firm that
keeps 96% of the donations they
receive here.
*
h/t tpm
thank you.
§
good luck.
•
July 1st, 2008 at 11:48 amThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Syrian citizen who was detained at Kennedy airport and then sent to Syria and tortured under extraordinary rendition. The court claimed that “because he was never technically inside the United States, his claims could not be heard in federal court.”
That’s weird. I thought JFK airport was in NY.
When did NY secede from the union?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:49 amElectoral politics isn’t about absolutes. Each person votes (in theory) for the person who most closely represents their worldview and values.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:51 amWhile Obama moves to the center, there are going to be upsetting moments as he courts independents and religious groups.
That’s politics.
The real question is, given both candidates stances and, yes, pandering… Who would you rather have leading the nation?
If Obama does not oppose FISA, he is unfit to serve as President (same goes for anyone else – thus my exclusion of Kucinich, Feingold, et al). I say vote McCain and let the R’s harvest what they’ve sown and, at the same time, show the cowering, spineless collaborators in the Democratic Party that half-assed, faux progressivism just won’t cut it any more.
I’m starting to come to this position, with every new Obama pander to the right. While the medicine would be awful to swallow, it would stick the repubs with the bill for the last eight years. With a repub in the WH, and an overwhelmingly democratic House and Senate, the damage, and responsibility for cleanup would be all theirs. And with a new set of dems in town, to offset the Dinos, it is a political equilibrium I could live with. But this desire to place a dem in the WH at all costs is a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot strategy.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:53 amZooey Says:
Who knew Kennedy Airport was not in the United States?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
______
Anyone who’s seen The Terminal.
If the entire procedure – from the time he was apprehended to the time he was put on the flight to Syria – occured within the international arrival area of the airport, prior to having his passport stamped and crossing the border, then he technically was not in the United States.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:53 amArar was not just in the airport before being sent to Syria. He spent 2 weeks in a Brooklyn detention center before being sent to Syria.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
July 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pmAs most of you know, I am a single issue kinda guy until this FISA-Telecomm BS. is put to bed once and for all…
So I wanted to post this to make some of you aware that there is a mounting campaign on Obama’s own website and cause caller has a line up to call both senate office and campaign HQ.
You can read more about it here:
http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/page/What+else+you+can+do?t=anon
Psssst… DO SOMETHING!
Thanks
July 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pmBut will evangelical voters be pleased when federal money goes to mosques?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pmonoclea Says:
Arar was not just in the airport before being sent to Syria. He spent 2 weeks in a Brooklyn detention center before being sent to Syria.
http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2004/ 01/ 21/ 60II/ main594974.shtml
July 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
______
Ah – good to know. If that’s the case, then the “not technically in the United States” claim is unmitigated bullshit.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Bilbo, I feel your pain and I agree, He is marching to the center and doesn’t need too. Glenn Greenwald had a great article about that yesterday.
I also agree with the others here that are saying one cannot simply vote for McSame because of Obama’s march to the middle-right.
But I disagree with the sentiment that we should not utter any dissatisfaction with Obama. On the contrary, We need to be more vocal not less. How in the wide,wide world of sports does anyone think that we can get him to do the right thing on Fisa and everything else by remaining silent?
Most importantly, his campaign needs to not only hear, “Not another dime until he does the right thing on Fisa and holds this administration acountable” but the need to feel the pinch of the dollars drying up!
July 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pmThe odds of a very liberal prez candidate winning an election at this point in our history is exceedingly low. I think back to the Clinton presidency and how I wished he hadn’t signed NAFTA, how I wished he would be more progressive. But compared to the doom and gloom I’ve felt ever since Bush was selected, I’d take back that Clinton feeling in a heartbeat. McCain can never be a choice we make. No matter what stance Obama takes on FISA. And believe me I feel strongly that Obama should be opposed to the FISA bill.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pmkaty Says:
Marcus Aurelius Says:
If Obama refuses to block the FISA legislation, I’ll vote for McCain. Hell, I’ll vote a straight (R) ticket […]Electing McCain wouldn’t be so bad anyway, as the next President is in for a world of trouble – might as well be McCain who gets blamed for Bush’s mess.
thanks, in advance…
i’m making a list of wimps like you, who would vote R… who would cut off your nose to spite your face…
besides, it won’t be mcSAME for long… he’s dying… he’ll pick romney as VP and in short time the mitt will be president and head of the national church of war…
just my take.
I don’t believe he was a dem. It’s the backdoor approach the tired repugs are using. They are faking like they were for Obama.
But I also agree Sen. Obama should be true to himself and us he needs to stop pandering to the nutter repugs.
KeithO did a fine comment on Sen. Obama last nite.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pmRHF, mcchimpy really represents change. Nutbag.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm#76
Game of Life Says:
But I also agree Sen. Obama should be true to himself and us he needs to stop pandering to the nutter repugs.
KeithO did a fine comment on Sen. Obama last nite.
I agree Keith did a great job pointing out he has a 2nd chance to make a first impression.
I’m looking forward to reading Dean’s research on the FISA bill and seeing what the ACLU has to say also since they have done so much research.
Have a good day :)
July 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pmNew York judges say New York is not technically in the US?????
Obama wants to out-Bush McCain, by pandering to the christianistas. He’s all for illegally wiretapping us. He thinks MoveOn.Org & sixties counter culture folks are what’s wrong with this country. He considers it sacrilege to criticize the military. What is this “change” he’s offering us? Change from what to what? He’s starting to sound as much like Bush as McCain does…..
July 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pmNot that it has anything to do with the topic but am I supposed to think Ms. Clinton is some sort of big time progressive? Guns, Iraq war, death penalty. Sure I guess I see it… Can someone say way center.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pmFR, I waiting too.
Have a nice day too. :)
July 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pmJudy, Judy, Judy.
Those are not facts, it’s your opinion.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
You mean we shouldn’t criticize our leaders, and should remain loyal to them and not our progressive values?
no… i was in a hurry, and didn’t think to take the time to preface that with “but i don’t agree with dawg’s first sentence”…
as to the rest of your rant, shove it… you’re still wrong…
but i DO agree with this:
TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong Says:
But I disagree with the sentiment that we should not utter any dissatisfaction with Obama. On the contrary, We need to be more vocal not less.
TO THE OBAMA CAMP.
maybe what dawg meant, and i would have to agree with, is that pissin’ and moanin’ amongst ourselves is only feeding the fright-wing’s sense of superiority… somehow…
i’m all for letting ANYone know i’m not in agreement with them… and i do so, frequently… but i won’t give the trools or the wingers any satisfaction of even thinking they have a better alternative…
the anti-bama-bots are all over the place, stirring up shite as usual… trying to divide and conquer, to plant those seeds of discontent…
i don’t wanna feed ‘em.
.
break time’s over…
July 1st, 2008 at 2:11 pmGame of Life Says:
I don’t believe he was a dem. It’s the backdoor approach the tired repugs are using. They are faking like they were for Obama.
well, i usually agree with marcus a., but not about that…
it could be a name hijack, or just disgruntled anti-obama-bot…
the troolls are very busy…
and i agree, keith’s comment last night was great…
July 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pmi sure hope obama heeds that very logical and obvious advice.
Game of Life: I’m just listening to what he’s SAYING, now that he’s got us sewn up….
July 1st, 2008 at 2:49 pmObama plans to scrap the faith based program of Bush and establish a true program wherein churches, synagogues and temples (which are in every neighborhood) minister to the poor and needy and they get federal help for that. Proselytizing, restrictions on employees and those who are served will cause the program to lose funding.
Before Democrats get all over Obama’s back for not being “left” enough, please listen to him first. The rightwingers have plenty to say about what he says, does, wears, etc., and we don’t need to provide fodder for them here. Hillary Clinton’s words against Obama are continuing to haunt the campaign, hurting him AND her.
Spouting off here about voting repugnican etc. is doing as much harm as your one vote for McCain can do. If you were truly a Democrat, you would never vote for McSame — and if you still think McCain is your choice, just consider the Supreme Court after four more years.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pmOkay, so it’s time to stop reading headlines and even articles (especially AP, another mouthpiece of the Republicans)concerning Obama’s latest position on anything.
Evidently, he’s not advocating expansion of Bush’s tax payer funded religious endoctrination programs. My bad.
I’ll start listening to what he actually says, and stop bashing him, based on whet they say he said.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pmWhatever happens -GOD HAS GOT THIS-do YOU have HIM?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm