Friday, June 22, 2007
The Fake Issue / Taming the Watchdogs of Media Concentration
People who scare other people run a huge risk of blowback.
Rather says there is fear in every newsroom. I'd bet my next paycheck that it isn't al Qaeda that's giving them nightmares. Nope, my bet would be that it is the huge conglomeration heads for whom they work.
We must break up the news corporations.
They are, often by their own admission, doing a piss-poor job of actually informing the people of Democracies all over the world, which essentially means there are no healthy Democracies where these corporate monsters exist.
If there is one thing worse for democracy than an uninformed electorate, it is a misinformed electorate.
The only news organization that is not complicit in Bush's war, built on out-right lies, is Knight-Ridder (now McLatchy). All the rest became cheerleaders for the mother of all war crimes, a war of choice, a war of aggression, making them all complicit in International crimes of horrendous proportions
Adbusters : The Magazine - #72 The Fake Issue / Taming the Watchdogs of Media Concentration:
When Australia’s Rupert Murdoch threw his support behind the Iraq War, so did the 175 media outlets he owns as part of News Corp. When Canada’s CanWest Global Communications justified the Afghanistan invasion, so did its eleven daily newspapers and 16 television stations.
And when the major US media conglomerates signed off on the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, American journalists lined up right behind them. In a recent interview on PBS’s Bill Moyers Report, former CBS Evening News anchorman Dan Rather explained why journalists were so afraid to question the war.
“Fear is in every newsroom in the country . . . particularly in [the] networks,” said Rather. “They’ve become huge international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, regulatory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that that’s the case – you know. And that puts a seed in your mind of well, ‘If you stick your neck out, if you take the risk of going against the grain with your reporting, is anybody going to back you up?’
Giuliani and anthrax
Rudy is a joke and not a very funny one, at that.
Think Progress:
Former Bush EPA Chief: Giuliani ‘More Concerned With Image Than Safety’ During Anthrax Scare
In an interview last night with New York NBC affiliate WNBC, President Bush’s former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman revealed that mayor Rudy Giuliani’s administration “appeared to be more concerned with its image than the safety and speedy response of EPA employees in the wake of the 2001 anthrax scare.”
Whitman disclosed for the first time that when anthrax letters were sent to NBC headquarters, Giuliani and then-New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik would not allow EPA inspectors to be seen entering the building in their hazmat suits. Instead, a tent had to be set up where they first could change into their gear, “hidden from public view.” Whitman said:
There was concern by the city that EPA workers not be seen in their hazmat suits going in because [the city was] still recovering from 9/11. They didn’t want this image of a city falling apart. I said, “Well, that’s not acceptable, and this is the way we’re going to have to do it.
Think Progress:
Former Bush EPA Chief: Giuliani ‘More Concerned With Image Than Safety’ During Anthrax Scare
In an interview last night with New York NBC affiliate WNBC, President Bush’s former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman revealed that mayor Rudy Giuliani’s administration “appeared to be more concerned with its image than the safety and speedy response of EPA employees in the wake of the 2001 anthrax scare.”
Whitman disclosed for the first time that when anthrax letters were sent to NBC headquarters, Giuliani and then-New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik would not allow EPA inspectors to be seen entering the building in their hazmat suits. Instead, a tent had to be set up where they first could change into their gear, “hidden from public view.” Whitman said:
There was concern by the city that EPA workers not be seen in their hazmat suits going in because [the city was] still recovering from 9/11. They didn’t want this image of a city falling apart. I said, “Well, that’s not acceptable, and this is the way we’re going to have to do it.
U.S. special ops forces on American soil.
Say what?
Commandos are not supposed to be deployed on U.S. soil. Who are they going after, the Quakers?
Think Progress » U.S. special ops forces on American soil.:
U.S. special ops forces on American soil.
“The U.S. military command in charge of protecting the homeland asked the Pentagon earlier this year for a contingent of special operations officers to help with domestic anti-terrorism missions.”
Military sources told The Examiner that U.S. Northern Command, established at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado in 2002, requested its own special operations command similar to ones assigned to overseas war-fighting commands, such as U.S. Central Command.
The request was approved six months ago by the then-commander of NorthCom, Adm. Timothy Keating, who has since moved to U.S. Pacific Command.
Keating’s decision, which “raised some eyebrows because of the sensitivity of deploying commandos domestically,” is now being reviewed by the new NorthCom commander, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart.
Newsweek Poll: How Low Can Bush Go?
He still has a few points before he reached Nixon levels, but then Nixon was impeached
Newsweek Poll: How Low Can Bush Go? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com:
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
The CIA's torture teachers |
Anyone proud to be an American, anymore?
The CIA's torture teachers | Salon News:
June 21, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- There is growing evidence of high-level coordination between the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. military in developing abusive interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects. After the Sept. 11 attacks, both turned to a small cadre of psychologists linked to the military's secretive Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape program to 'reverse-engineer' techniques originally designed to train U.S. soldiers to resist torture if captured, by exposing them to brutal treatment. The military's use of SERE training for interrogations in the war on terror was revealed in detail in a recently declassified report. But the CIA's use of such tactics -- working in close coordination with the military -- until now has remained largely unknown.
Our 6th rate health care system
Our 6th rate health care system | Capitol Hill Blue:
46 million Americans have no health care at all. Most of us still receive health insurance through our employer, and most have seen sharp increases in premiums, deductibles and the coverage of such policies meaning we have less coverage than ever before. Yet health insurers see record profits. It is time to pull ourselves up from the bottom tier and actually DO something about our criminally deficient system. It is time for the candidates running for President to come forth with solutions not more platitudes.
'The U.S. spends more on medical care than any other nation, and gets far less for it than many countries. According to the 2006 analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. spends an annual $6,102 per person — more than any other country and more than twice the average of $2,571. Yet Americans have the 22nd highest life expectancy among those nations at 77.2 years compared with the analysis' average of 77.8 years. People in Japan, the world leader in longevity, live an average of 81.8 years.' – Los Angeles Times
46 million Americans have no health care at all. Most of us still receive health insurance through our employer, and most have seen sharp increases in premiums, deductibles and the coverage of such policies meaning we have less coverage than ever before. Yet health insurers see record profits. It is time to pull ourselves up from the bottom tier and actually DO something about our criminally deficient system. It is time for the candidates running for President to come forth with solutions not more platitudes.
'The U.S. spends more on medical care than any other nation, and gets far less for it than many countries. According to the 2006 analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. spends an annual $6,102 per person — more than any other country and more than twice the average of $2,571. Yet Americans have the 22nd highest life expectancy among those nations at 77.2 years compared with the analysis' average of 77.8 years. People in Japan, the world leader in longevity, live an average of 81.8 years.' – Los Angeles Times
Is Dick Cheney above the law?
Hell, no he is not above the law!
Furthermore he is answerable to the people who elected him. If he is not a part of the executive, he should relinquish his office in the White House Complex and find his own housing, as well.
Is Dick Cheney above the law? | Capitol Hill Blue:
House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and criticized him for refusing to cooperate with the agency.
Cheney's office — over the objections of the National Archives — has exempted itself from a presidential executive order that seeks to protect national security information generated by the government, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Under the order, executive branch offices are required to give the Information Security Oversight Office at the archives data on how much material it has classified and declassified.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Send John Some Money!
Edwards predicting big second-quarter drop-off
By Sam Youngman
June 22, 2007
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is expecting a significant drop-off in campaign contributions for the second quarter that might look like a pittance compared to the dollar amounts Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are expected to raise.Though it would not be unheard of for a campaign to try and lowball its fundraising expectations, an e-mail to supporters from senior adviser Joe Trippi, of Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, tells Edwards’s fans the campaign is two-thirds of the way to its goal of $9 million for the quarter.
That would give Edwards a $6 million rake with nine days to go. And even then, the campaign would realize $5 million less than it did in the first quarter.An Edwards campaign official said the goal for the campaign from the outset has been to raise $40 million total to compete in the first four primary or caucus states.“We were never going to raise $25 million in the second quarter,” the aide said, alluding to the giant sums expected of Clinton and Obama. “They’re pretty much more based on their celebrity. We are based on the early four states strategy, and we need $40 million to do that.”The dollar decrescendo is nothing new to Edwards. In 2003, Edwards was the talk of Washington after raising $7.4 million in the first quarter, which was a lot of money back then.
But in the second quarter, he reported raising $4.5 million.“This is not about out-raising our opponents in a meaningless fundraising arms race,” Trippi said in the e-mail to supporters.
“This is about executing our plan — raising enough money to push our message in the critical early states and building our operation around the country.”
Meanwhile, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) told reporters after he first entered the race to wait and watch his second-quarter numbers instead of his first.
A senior adviser to his campaign said that risky strategy came through, and they expect to report more this time around than the $6.2 million they reported after March. And all of that money will be primary election donations.An aide to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said the senator’s campaign was expecting to raise around the same amount as the $2.1 million he raised in the first quarter, which he combined with just under $2 million from his Senate reelection funds.
Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) campaign declined to comment on its expectations. Dodd raised about $4 million in the first quarter, which he complemented with $4.7 million from his Senate reelection chest.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
By Sam Youngman
June 22, 2007
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is expecting a significant drop-off in campaign contributions for the second quarter that might look like a pittance compared to the dollar amounts Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) are expected to raise.Though it would not be unheard of for a campaign to try and lowball its fundraising expectations, an e-mail to supporters from senior adviser Joe Trippi, of Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign, tells Edwards’s fans the campaign is two-thirds of the way to its goal of $9 million for the quarter.
That would give Edwards a $6 million rake with nine days to go. And even then, the campaign would realize $5 million less than it did in the first quarter.An Edwards campaign official said the goal for the campaign from the outset has been to raise $40 million total to compete in the first four primary or caucus states.“We were never going to raise $25 million in the second quarter,” the aide said, alluding to the giant sums expected of Clinton and Obama. “They’re pretty much more based on their celebrity. We are based on the early four states strategy, and we need $40 million to do that.”The dollar decrescendo is nothing new to Edwards. In 2003, Edwards was the talk of Washington after raising $7.4 million in the first quarter, which was a lot of money back then.
But in the second quarter, he reported raising $4.5 million.“This is not about out-raising our opponents in a meaningless fundraising arms race,” Trippi said in the e-mail to supporters.
“This is about executing our plan — raising enough money to push our message in the critical early states and building our operation around the country.”
Meanwhile, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) told reporters after he first entered the race to wait and watch his second-quarter numbers instead of his first.
A senior adviser to his campaign said that risky strategy came through, and they expect to report more this time around than the $6.2 million they reported after March. And all of that money will be primary election donations.An aide to Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said the senator’s campaign was expecting to raise around the same amount as the $2.1 million he raised in the first quarter, which he combined with just under $2 million from his Senate reelection funds.
Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) campaign declined to comment on its expectations. Dodd raised about $4 million in the first quarter, which he complemented with $4.7 million from his Senate reelection chest.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
W.H. Conteptuous, of all of us.
White House contempt
By Susan Crabtree
June 22, 2007
House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.
During yesterday’s testimony by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, panel Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) asked McNulty whether he would enforce such a motion. McNulty responded that he would recuse himself from handling such matters because of an internal DoJ investigation into the U.S. attorneys matter.One of the contempt motions would likely be directed at Presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, to whom the subpoena for documents was addressed, according to a Democratic aide.
Others who could face contempt motions include ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena testimony from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel voted to subpoena testimony from Taylor.“The House and Senate judiciary committees have issued subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony,” said Conyers. “We’re still hopeful they may cooperate.
But it’s still possible that enforcement action may be taken.
”Democrats have been unsatisfied with the testimony they’ve heard so far from top officials and former officials at the DoJ, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Under questioning, all have said either that their roles were limited or that they were not directly responsible for suggesting certain U.S. attorneys be placed on the firing list.Because of these claims, Conyers said, Democrats’ only choice is to seek more information from the White House.“We want to know where the lines go from the DoJ to the White House,” he said. “That’s where these bread crumbs keep leading us and then they get lost in the snow or something.”Conyers said he wanted McNulty to go on the record about the DoJ’s commitment to enforcing such a contempt motion, but his question was an indication of the Democrats’ awkward position.
If the House passed the motion, it would be referred to the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. The DoJ would then be called on to enforce it.
After the hearing, Conyers said he was not satisfied by McNulty’s testimony.“It was not a fully candid discussion,” he said.Conyers said McNulty was walking a fine line between defending his previous testimony and wanting to avoid contradicting other DoJ officials’ accounts of his role in the firings. Some have stated that he misled Congress in previous testimony.
The chairman also said McNulty was trying to avoid antagonizing former DoJ White House liaison Monica Goodling, who was granted immunity.
In her own testimony before the panel, she accused McNulty of not being forthcoming in his February Senate testimony about the White House’s involvement in the firings. She also rejected any suggestion that she had misled McNulty when she briefed him for that appearance.McNulty agreed with lawmakers’ depictions of him as largely “cut out of the loop” during the process of determining which U.S. attorneys to fire, being brought in only at the end of the process, essentially to sign off on the list of names. He said he first learned about the firing list in October 2006, and that he attended his first meeting about the firings Nov. 27.
But he claimed he didn’t discuss the matter with Gonzales until Dec. 7, the day the prosecutors were asked for their resignations.“I think you were poorly treated,” remarked Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.). “It’s my belief that you were thrown under the bus.”
McNulty pointedly refused to say that anyone, including Goodling, misled him while he was preparing for February testimony.
When news was breaking about the U.S. attorneys’ controversy back in January, he said, the department was “moving quickly” and “trying to respond to questions.”“I’m not in a position to conclude that individuals were trying to keep information from me,” he added.
McNulty also acknowledged that an Oct. 4, 2006, a phone call by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) complaining about the performance of then-New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias kept him from objecting to Iglesias’s placement on the list of those to be ousted. He did not disclose the influence of Domenici’s call during his February Senate testimony.McNulty testified that he was given the opportunity to voice his objections to the names on the list and that at least one U.S. attorney was taken off the list at his suggestion. He refused to disclose that attorney’s name, even though media accounts have identified the prosecutor as the U.S. attorney for Tallahassee, Fla., Greg Miller.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
By Susan Crabtree
June 22, 2007
House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.
During yesterday’s testimony by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, panel Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) asked McNulty whether he would enforce such a motion. McNulty responded that he would recuse himself from handling such matters because of an internal DoJ investigation into the U.S. attorneys matter.One of the contempt motions would likely be directed at Presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, to whom the subpoena for documents was addressed, according to a Democratic aide.
Others who could face contempt motions include ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena testimony from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel voted to subpoena testimony from Taylor.“The House and Senate judiciary committees have issued subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony,” said Conyers. “We’re still hopeful they may cooperate.
But it’s still possible that enforcement action may be taken.
”Democrats have been unsatisfied with the testimony they’ve heard so far from top officials and former officials at the DoJ, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Under questioning, all have said either that their roles were limited or that they were not directly responsible for suggesting certain U.S. attorneys be placed on the firing list.Because of these claims, Conyers said, Democrats’ only choice is to seek more information from the White House.“We want to know where the lines go from the DoJ to the White House,” he said. “That’s where these bread crumbs keep leading us and then they get lost in the snow or something.”Conyers said he wanted McNulty to go on the record about the DoJ’s commitment to enforcing such a contempt motion, but his question was an indication of the Democrats’ awkward position.
If the House passed the motion, it would be referred to the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. The DoJ would then be called on to enforce it.
After the hearing, Conyers said he was not satisfied by McNulty’s testimony.“It was not a fully candid discussion,” he said.Conyers said McNulty was walking a fine line between defending his previous testimony and wanting to avoid contradicting other DoJ officials’ accounts of his role in the firings. Some have stated that he misled Congress in previous testimony.
The chairman also said McNulty was trying to avoid antagonizing former DoJ White House liaison Monica Goodling, who was granted immunity.
In her own testimony before the panel, she accused McNulty of not being forthcoming in his February Senate testimony about the White House’s involvement in the firings. She also rejected any suggestion that she had misled McNulty when she briefed him for that appearance.McNulty agreed with lawmakers’ depictions of him as largely “cut out of the loop” during the process of determining which U.S. attorneys to fire, being brought in only at the end of the process, essentially to sign off on the list of names. He said he first learned about the firing list in October 2006, and that he attended his first meeting about the firings Nov. 27.
But he claimed he didn’t discuss the matter with Gonzales until Dec. 7, the day the prosecutors were asked for their resignations.“I think you were poorly treated,” remarked Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.). “It’s my belief that you were thrown under the bus.”
McNulty pointedly refused to say that anyone, including Goodling, misled him while he was preparing for February testimony.
When news was breaking about the U.S. attorneys’ controversy back in January, he said, the department was “moving quickly” and “trying to respond to questions.”“I’m not in a position to conclude that individuals were trying to keep information from me,” he added.
McNulty also acknowledged that an Oct. 4, 2006, a phone call by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) complaining about the performance of then-New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias kept him from objecting to Iglesias’s placement on the list of those to be ousted. He did not disclose the influence of Domenici’s call during his February Senate testimony.McNulty testified that he was given the opportunity to voice his objections to the names on the list and that at least one U.S. attorney was taken off the list at his suggestion. He refused to disclose that attorney’s name, even though media accounts have identified the prosecutor as the U.S. attorney for Tallahassee, Fla., Greg Miller.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Cheney: "The rules don't apply to me"
This man is about as psychotic as they come and should be removed from office ASAP!
Published on Thursday, June 21, 2007 by ABCNews.com
Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don’t Apply to Him
by Justin Rood
Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney.
Bill Leonard, head of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), told Waxman’s staff that Cheney’s office has refused to provide his staff with details regarding classified documents or submit to a routine inspection as required by presidential order, according to Waxman.
In pointed letters released today by Waxman, ISOO’s Leonard twice questioned Cheney’s office on its assertion it was exempt from the rules. He received no reply, but the vice president later tried to get rid of Leonard’s office entirely, according to Waxman.
Leonard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In a statement e-mailed to the Blotter on ABCNews.com, Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn said, “We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law.”
As director of the tiny, 25-person Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard is responsible for keeping track of the nation’s secrets and making sure they are properly protected.
For the first two years of the George W. Bush administration, Cheney’s office complied with a presidential order that requires officials to report statistics on the number of documents it classifies and declassifies.
Since 2003, however, Cheney’s office has refused to submit the data to ISOO. And when ISOO inspectors tried in 2004 to schedule a routine inspection of the vice president’s offices, they were rebuffed, Waxman’s letter claims.
Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, did not object to similar inspections, according to Waxman.
“Serious questions can be raised about both the legality and advisability of exempting your office from the rules that apply to all other executive branch officials,” Waxman said in his letter to the vice president, and asked him to explain why he felt the rules didn’t apply to him and his staff and how he was protecting classified information in his office.
Former Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was recently convicted on several counts of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the leak of the identity of former covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Waxman noted, and in 2006, former Cheney aide Leandro Aragoncillo pleaded guilty to sharing classified U.S. documents with foreign nationals. Aragoncillo also worked under former Democratic Vice President Al Gore, who complied with ISOO’s requests.
Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
‘SiCKO’: Michael Moore’s Prescription for Change
‘
SiCKO’: Michael Moore’s Prescription for Change - CommonDreams.org:
Michael Moore screened his new film, “SiCKO,” on Father’s Day at a special New York event honoring Sept. 11 first responders. Moore spoke of their heroism and recognized their role in the film. “SiCKO” is about the broken U.S. healthcare system. Case in point: the 9/11 rescue workers.
Their stories of selfless courage, followed by years of creeping, chronic illnesses, from pulmonary fibrosis to cancer to post-traumatic stress, often exacerbated by poor or no health insurance, drive home Moore’s point, that the medical/pharmaceutical industry is failing Americans—not only the 40-plus million Americans with no health insurance, but the 250 million Americans who do have health insurance.
Moore doesn’t like health insurance companies: “They’re the Halliburtons of the health industry. I mean, they really—they get away with murder. They charge whatever they want. There’s no government control. And frankly, we will not really fix our system until we remove these private insurance companies. I mean, they literally have to be eliminated. They cannot be allowed to exist in this country.”
SiCKO’: Michael Moore’s Prescription for Change - CommonDreams.org:
Michael Moore screened his new film, “SiCKO,” on Father’s Day at a special New York event honoring Sept. 11 first responders. Moore spoke of their heroism and recognized their role in the film. “SiCKO” is about the broken U.S. healthcare system. Case in point: the 9/11 rescue workers.
Their stories of selfless courage, followed by years of creeping, chronic illnesses, from pulmonary fibrosis to cancer to post-traumatic stress, often exacerbated by poor or no health insurance, drive home Moore’s point, that the medical/pharmaceutical industry is failing Americans—not only the 40-plus million Americans with no health insurance, but the 250 million Americans who do have health insurance.
Moore doesn’t like health insurance companies: “They’re the Halliburtons of the health industry. I mean, they really—they get away with murder. They charge whatever they want. There’s no government control. And frankly, we will not really fix our system until we remove these private insurance companies. I mean, they literally have to be eliminated. They cannot be allowed to exist in this country.”
Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights
Is it time yet?
To declare war on these bastards?
Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights:
Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.”
Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn’t a danger of terrorism and mass murder.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”
Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England.
Egypt invites leaders to peace summit
Egypt invites leaders to peace summit - Yahoo! News:
"RAMALLAH, West Bank - Closing ranks against Hamas, Egypt's president invited Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders to a peace summit, officials said Thursday, the biggest show of support yet by moderate Arab states for beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting will take place Monday in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, said Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has invited Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jordan's King Abdullah II. Jordan confirmed Abdullah would attend.
Abbas will call for a resumption of peace talks with Israel, arguing that only progress toward Palestinian statehood can serve as a true buffer against Hamas, which took control of Gaza by force last week, Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said.
'The most important thing to realize is that time is of the essence,' Erekat said. 'We need to deliver the end of occupation, a Palestinian state. If we don't have hope, Hamas will export despair to the people.'
"RAMALLAH, West Bank - Closing ranks against Hamas, Egypt's president invited Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian leaders to a peace summit, officials said Thursday, the biggest show of support yet by moderate Arab states for beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
The meeting will take place Monday in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, said Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisin. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has invited Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Jordan's King Abdullah II. Jordan confirmed Abdullah would attend.
Abbas will call for a resumption of peace talks with Israel, arguing that only progress toward Palestinian statehood can serve as a true buffer against Hamas, which took control of Gaza by force last week, Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said.
'The most important thing to realize is that time is of the essence,' Erekat said. 'We need to deliver the end of occupation, a Palestinian state. If we don't have hope, Hamas will export despair to the people.'
US military: 14 troops killed
The carnage continues.
Impeach Bush and Cheney, Now!
US military: 14 troops killed - Yahoo! News:
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military said 14 American troops have died in multiple attacks, including five killed Thursday in a single roadside bombing in Baghdad.
Elsewhere, a suicide truck bomber struck the Sulaiman Bek city hall in a predominantly Sunni area of northern Iraq, killing at least 16 people and wounding 67, an Iraqi commander said.
Thousands of protesters also rallied in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, waving Iraqi flags and the black and green Shiite banners with slogans such as 'Death to al-Qaida' in a show of unity following the bombing that brought down the twin minarets of a revered mosque in Samarra.
The latest U.S. deaths raised to at least 3,545 the number of American troops who have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The deadliest attack was a roadside bomb that struck a convoy in northeastern Baghdad on Thursday, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and one Iraqi interpreter, the military said.
A rocket-propelled grenade struck a vehicle in northern Baghdad about 12:30 p.m. Thursday, killing one soldier and wounding three others, another statement said.
Impeach Bush and Cheney, Now!
US military: 14 troops killed - Yahoo! News:
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military said 14 American troops have died in multiple attacks, including five killed Thursday in a single roadside bombing in Baghdad.
Elsewhere, a suicide truck bomber struck the Sulaiman Bek city hall in a predominantly Sunni area of northern Iraq, killing at least 16 people and wounding 67, an Iraqi commander said.
Thousands of protesters also rallied in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, waving Iraqi flags and the black and green Shiite banners with slogans such as 'Death to al-Qaida' in a show of unity following the bombing that brought down the twin minarets of a revered mosque in Samarra.
The latest U.S. deaths raised to at least 3,545 the number of American troops who have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The deadliest attack was a roadside bomb that struck a convoy in northeastern Baghdad on Thursday, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and one Iraqi interpreter, the military said.
A rocket-propelled grenade struck a vehicle in northern Baghdad about 12:30 p.m. Thursday, killing one soldier and wounding three others, another statement said.
Uncivil Liberties and the Empire's War on its own Citizens
OMG. We are so screwed!
The good news is, we don't have a damn thing to lose!
Uncivil Liberties and the Empire's War on its own Citizens:
In the seventh year of the current presidential administration which has eviscerated more aspects of the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution than any previous administration in American history, I recently had the opportunity of viewing a new documentary “Uncivil Liberties: What Lies Between Liberty and Security”, written and directed by Thomas Mercer. I am pleased to offer my review of the film; however, it is not possible for me to authentically review this work of art or any other pertaining to civil liberties without attaching to it my own addendum of the history of attacks on the well being of its citizens by the United States government.
Unlike Robert Greenwald’s “Unconstitutional” or Aaron Russo’s “America: From Freedom To Fascism”, Mercer’s film is not a documentary but fiction, closer in purpose to the genre of “Star Wars”, “Farenheit 451”, or “Brazil.” It is intentionally murky in its message, filled with purposeful ambiguity, devoid of stark contrasts between good guys and bad guys, with everything in shades of gray. Every character has his/her faults—like life.
It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun
Who will profit from the crash?
Why, the Carlyle Groups, of course
It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun: "It’s official. Mark your calendars. The crash of the U.S. economy has begun. It was announced the morning of Wednesday, June 13, 2007, by economic writers Steven Pearlstein and Robert Samuelson in the pages of the Washington Post, one of the foremost house organs of the U.S. monetary elite.
Pearlstein’s column was titled, “The Takeover Boom, About to Go Bust” and concerned the extraordinary amount of debt vs. operating profits of companies currently subject to leveraged buyouts.
In language remarkably alarmist for the usually ultra-bland pages of the Post, Pearlstein wrote, “It is impossible to predict when the magic moment will be reached and everyone finally realizes that the prices being paid for these companies, and the debt taken on to support the acquisitions, are unsustainable. When that happens, it won't be pretty. Across the board, stock prices and company valuations will fall. Banks will announce painful write-offs, some hedge funds will close their doors, and private-equity funds will report disappointing returns. Some companies will be forced into bankruptcy or restructuring.
VIDEO: 9/11: Disappearing explosions
Will we ever know the truth?
VIDEO: 9/11: Disappearing explosions:
Secondary explosions: explosion devices unrelated to the planes planted in the buildings?
by Brasscheck TV
Global Research, June 17, 2007
brasschecktv.com
Global Research Editorial Note
The following webcast is based on a compilation of video material from September 11, 2001, from a number of different sources.
We make this information available to our viewers and readers. Global Research does not necessarily share the conclusions of the producers of the video.
Now you hear it, now you don't
New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power
In case you missed it....this is damn scary
New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power:
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as 'a dictator':
'The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.'
This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”.
The full text is below. A critical analysis on the directive can be found here.
This is another step towards official martial law (see “US government fans homeland security fears”), which suggests that a new 'catastrophic event' 9/11-type pretext could be in the pipeline.
New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power:
The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as 'a dictator':
'The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.'
This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”.
The full text is below. A critical analysis on the directive can be found here.
This is another step towards official martial law (see “US government fans homeland security fears”), which suggests that a new 'catastrophic event' 9/11-type pretext could be in the pipeline.
Global Ruling Class: Billionaires and How They ‘Made It’
Let's find out who they are and where they are.
It is information we will need in the future..
Global Ruling Class: Billionaires and How They ‘Made It’:
Even as the world's billionaires grew in number from 793 in 2006 to 946 this year, major mass uprisings became commonplace in China and India. In India, which has the highest number of billionaires (36) in Asia with total wealth of $191 billion, Prime Minister Singh declared that the greatest single threat to 'India's security' were the Maoist-led guerrilla armies and mass movements in the poorest parts of the country.
In China, with 20 billionaires with $29.4 billion net worth, the new rulers, confronting nearly a hundred thousand reported riots and protests, have increased the number of armed special anti-riot militia a hundred fold, and increased spending for the rural poor by $10 billion in the hopes of lessening the monstrous class inequalities and heading off a mass upheaval.
The total wealth of this global ruling class grew 35 per cent year to year topping $3.5 trillion, while income levels for the lower 55 per cent of the world's 6-billion-strong population declined or stagnated. Put another way, one hundred millionth of the world's population (1/100,000,000) owns more than over 3 billion people. Over half of the current billionaires (523) came from just 3 countries: the US (415), Germany (55) and Russia (53).
Green Market Hustlers
The market cannot save us from anything, unless the people demand it in such a way that the Moneyed-marketeers are scared shit-less of what the people might do to them.
Green Market Hustlers:
On the opening panel of the Arctic Science Summit Week, Jeff Miotke announced, “Climate change policy must be based on sound silence.” It was a poignant and telling slip of the tongue. Miotke, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary of Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs, joked that his error might have “just cost me my job.” Then he promptly corrected himself: “sound science not silence.” The audience at the March 2007 meeting, a veritable who’s who of leading polar scientists, burst into laughter.
Miotke’s Freudian slip was bittersweet given the failure of leadership on climate change from Washington in general and the White House in particular. The Bush administration’s legacy of denials has morphed into present-day foot-dragging. In November 2006 the shrill pronouncements of President Bush and his advisors prompted outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to note that climate skeptics “are out of step, out of arguments, and out of time.”
While scientists agree that climate change is human caused, there is no consensus on the litany of proposals to check this leading and growing threat to humanity. There is, however, a widely held assumption that the market might be able to rescue us from climate catastrophe.
Green Market Hustlers:
On the opening panel of the Arctic Science Summit Week, Jeff Miotke announced, “Climate change policy must be based on sound silence.” It was a poignant and telling slip of the tongue. Miotke, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary of Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental Scientific Affairs, joked that his error might have “just cost me my job.” Then he promptly corrected himself: “sound science not silence.” The audience at the March 2007 meeting, a veritable who’s who of leading polar scientists, burst into laughter.
Miotke’s Freudian slip was bittersweet given the failure of leadership on climate change from Washington in general and the White House in particular. The Bush administration’s legacy of denials has morphed into present-day foot-dragging. In November 2006 the shrill pronouncements of President Bush and his advisors prompted outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to note that climate skeptics “are out of step, out of arguments, and out of time.”
While scientists agree that climate change is human caused, there is no consensus on the litany of proposals to check this leading and growing threat to humanity. There is, however, a widely held assumption that the market might be able to rescue us from climate catastrophe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
