No Voting For Me In 2012

Well fuck, I just got a response from my "liberal" senator Sherrod Brown, as I say it doesn't look like I'll be voting in 2012.

After I send him an email asking essentially WTF (without the swear words) is up with his signing on to this letter to Obama talking about using the Cat Food Commission's recommendations to reduce the deficit I get a reply telling me that just like a family the federal government must cut back in hard times, that he has co sponsored legislation that will prevent congress from getting automatic raises which will save $80 million dollars over TEN (yes 10) years and finally that he had voted for something called a sense of support for a balanced budget amendment (something I guess I should have known) for the Constitution. (I tried to copy the entire letter into blogger, but it would work and I'm not up to typing the whole thing over).

Now this is a guy who is considered one of the more liberal members of the senate.

It is as if the 1930s and 40s never happened. The truth of the matter is that we did indeed spend ourselves out of a depression with massive deficit spending and federal tax rates that were at 94% for the top marginal tax brackets. Although it does seem as though we have a larger deficit in standard dollars that we did after World War II. None of that matters, you can yell until you are blue in the face and they will look at you as if you are speaking Urdu in Dallas.

I suppose the other thing that should piss me off is that my original letter was clear enough on my position, he clearly had something come up in one of his assistants word checks that said deficit/budget or something like that and then sent the standard "Hey I am also a tea bagger" letter.

So I guess happy times are here again.

Another Kind of A Book Report

Sometimes I write something so many times in my head, that I think I've really written it down where it is possible for other people to see it.

In looking back over my previously posts for the period that I could have done it I don't think I've mentioned the book I read about the great influenza epidemic of 1918-1919. I had read a few things about the epidemic before, but the book The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John Barry was the most in depth of anything I've ever read about it. It is kind of a strange history since he spends at least half the book giving the history of medicine in the world and then in the United States up to that point. It is a description of the development of medicine and its change into a truly scientific profession. Which hadn't occurred, at least in the United States until shortly before World War One. It is interesting in one way because the climax of the story, the epidemic, was not in the end really defeated so much by the heroic doctors or their new scientific discipline. Instead it just burned itself out like most plagues in the past.

One guy Barry really doesn't like was Woodrow Wilson and the system of crushing dissent that he put in place for running America during World War I. As he describes it and if truth be told as I've read about it in other places, it was a nearly totalitarian system of enforcing compliance and ensuring that there would be no dissension and no overt opposition to the war. The system that booked no bad news about the war helped ensure that the epidemic would spread more easily and quickly, since newspapers were forbidden to write about it for the most part and people who talked about it and its danger were often reported to the authorities as unAmerican defeatists.

Kind of interesting at several levels. First, is that Wilson was from Virginia originally and did believe in the Lost Cause I suspect. What makes that interesting to me, since I've just read them, is that Grant in his Memoirs mentioned several times how much more difficult it was for the North with a free press to prevent anti war sentiment from being spread, while the South, which Grant insisted, had a censored press was more able to limit such dissent (something Grant seemed to envy). I wonder if Wilson learned this at his father's knee?

Second, is how most people were willing to agree to this kind of suppression. When one grows up reading the books I have read, it is hard to remember that these books were written by the people who were being suppressed by the vast majority of this country and who were more than willing to go along with the government's crushing of dissent. One always, I suspect, imagines himself as standing up against the kind of oppression, In the situation as it is coming down how would one act, I wonder? Or to be honest, the question I am most concerned about is how I would act.

Third, I suspect that Obama is licking his lips in the hope that he will be able to use the Espionage Act that was passed at the behest of Wilson to crush dissent during the First World War to smash Wikileaks and imprison Assange and Manning for life. I am sure he would like to get around to screwing with us lesser types too.

I went over to one of my fake progressive blogs just to see how the comments were going there or perhaps to get my fair share of abuse. Although this time I did manage to avoid commenting, for which I am vary proud. However, they were ecstatic about the arrests involving the people protesting Manning's condition. And of course once again Manning's imprisonment really isn't that bad and the people protesting weren't really hassled that much. Oh yeah, Daniel Ellsberg isn't that great a guy and what he did wasn't all that brave. There was also a massive justification post for Libya, but I'll leave that for another time.

Wow, these are people who claim to be liberal or progressive. I would guess that they would be the ones who if they lived in Germany in the 1930s would insist that National Socialist did have socialist in its name. Or in the alternative, those who lived during the First World War and would report their neighbors for not being enthusiastic enough. Worker bees I guess.

Bits And Pieces

Oooooh! New toys, gotta use em.

A couple of things. I got in my inbox a couple of new comments on the Angry Black Lady post of March 14. Since that is about a week ago, or an eon in blog time, I'm wondering why they posted. It appears as though one wants to take umbrage at my terming what is happening to Manning as torture. The other one is insisting that it isn't happening.

In retrospect perhaps I shouldn't have used the word torture, but merely said that what is being done to Manning is an attempt to destroy his personality and force him to say anything his interrogators want him to say so that they can get him to confess to any thing they want and implicate Assange.

Secondly, I went to an essay in Salon that claimed that we have a coalition of the not so real. Then for fun I went to the comments many or whom insisted that just because the vast majority of the air strikes have been flown by the U.S. is because . . . . . . . well since we have more stuff than anybody else we should of course be the people who are using it and now that we have spent a decade of funding for NPR (not that I think they deserve it any more), or heating oil purchases for the poor, we will certainly quit and let the rest of to coalition do it. So there mister smarty pants.

I wonder why everybody hates Muammar so much?

You Say Libya I Say Lybia

Actually Iraq, but remember good times, good times.

I'm starting this tonight and then perhaps it'll go up tonight and perhaps tomorrow.

At war again. And all over blogastan people who claim to be liberals are blathering on about how bad a person that Qaddafi is and how wonderful the people opposing him are. As opposed to the people in the Sudan, or the Ivory Coast, or Bahrain. Hell Libya isn't even where we should be if we want to protect the most people.

People in serious blogs who want to be taken seriously will go on and on about how well you know maybe this time things will be different and after all Qaddafi really is a bad guy so you know. You Know? This way if this works out, not like the others then they might still be listened to down the road, and if it doesn't work out well then they voiced their concerns right at the beginning dontchano.

I don't have to worry about that since I am not taken seriously by the two and a half people who actually read me to begin with.

However, there are some upsides to this (see even I am not immune):

First, perhaps this time we have finally found a third world Muslim country that we can beat and get out living only a minimal number of (our people) dead. Hell it could happen.

Second, there seems to be the advantage that it is impossible to spell Gaddafi's name incorrectly. I've seen it spelled at least four ways with both a G and a Q as the first letter . Blogger spell check gives you Qaddafi, Qaddafi's and Gaddafi's, but no Gaddafi.

Third, I tend to misspell Libya and when ever I do it gives me the giggles like a 13 year old in sex ed class.

If you stack these things up against the for sure facts that we are now responsible for the dead that come out of this and that we cannot afford to keep our social systems working, but we can afford to spend millions (at least) bombing other people to shit, in order to replace an unstable dictator (who dresses badly and rules an oil producing country with someone who will not be so unstable) I'm sure you see where on balance we could not not go to war.

Oh by the way, who else remembers that just two days ago we were arguing about whether or not we should be supporting a no fly zone. Before anything starts we ramp it up.

Tell Me Why People Are Such Assholes, Again?

As I think I've mentioned before I am a member of a (euphemism alert) 12 Step Program (I think that should be capitalized, but I'm not sure). We have what are called Steps (totally unnecessary to know what they are for this piece) and Traditions (only the fourth one is necessary for this piece).

4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups

or (euphemism) as a whole.

There are two groups which meet in this church. I found myself part of the "leadership" (for want of a better word) of one of the groups. We have decided to put on workshops to help people complete the steps, which most people who come to these meeting do not manage to complete, ever.

The other group (or at least a couple of the members, both groups probably have a total of seven or nine active members together; of which five are in our group) has decided that we have broken traditions and they must do something about it. Although, it appears as though their main activists do not hold any positions at all. There have been threats to disrupt our meetings which requires more or less constant vigilance and the ability to go and confront people who might come and try to disrupt our meetings. Mentally exhausting.

They have managed to splinter their group within a fairly short time of deciding that they had to do something. They have driven one officer completely out of the 12 Step Program and another one out of their group. They had a three and a half hour meeting which alienated even more people who are relatively new to the program. Still those who are left can be, or at least seem to be, I'm not sure which, physically threatening. Actually, there is really little or nothing they can do officially, since the workshop has been adapted from one that has been given for more than a year all over the country. In addition since groups are autonomous when letters are sent to the World Office the response is: We understand your concerns, but you must understand that since each group is autonomous we take not position on this matter. Or words to that effect.

All groups seem to function in a spirit of comity until you get to know them and become involved in the way they are run. Politics is the name of the game where ever you are. It further seems to me that what ever you are involved in there is some one who is sure that they know what the rules are and that they are the one to enforce those rules, and for some reason they are always able to get followers. And then they are always able to get those followers to follow them into some sort of battle, even if it is only metaphorically a battle.

I Don't Know What Is The Matter With Me, Oh Wait. Yes I Do.

I've been hesitating to write and been thinking about things in my head, but I keep coming back to the same ole same ole. I would like to accomplish something before this toil of tears, etc. Another attorney in town just died suddenly "only" 78, which it turns out is a lot younger than it was ten years ago.

On the other hand I live in a WTF!!! world.

I keep looking around and seeing things going down hill. It might be the reason I choose to write about Grant's Memoirs last time. Would that I had a facility for end of the world humor. I could at least parlay that into some real money.

News that it looks like the polling in the various districts in Wisconsin show most of the republicans running ahead of the democrats is simply more of the: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Or: "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half."

Yesterday deciding to kill some time between clients without doing any real work I went cruising my "Fake Progressive" folder. I was looking to see if any of them had chosen to comment on Obama's firing of Crowley and his: "Oh well, if the people who are doing the torture tell me it isn't torture, then I guess it isn't. Is it Prof. Yoo?" statement.

I really didn't look that hard, but I didn't see anything except on Angry Black Lady who attacked Greenwald for as far as I can see bringing that point up and not others. Therefore directly leading to the loss of massive numbers of democratic office holders and the destruction of unions. Plus there are other people he just doesn't care about.

I commented, something I really shouldn't have done, and the response was interesting to say the least. However, the last one that I saw before posting here was a person who commented that they really couldn't bring themselves to believe that Obama approved Manning's treatment. That is incredibly sad.

Well, I made a second mistake and made some more comments. It makes, I expect no difference, but I sometimes cannot help myself. I find myself accused of defending Greenwald, something if he chooses I'm sure he can do all by himself. What interests me more is the way that the people there defend Obama or I as suspect they think it: Dear and Glorius Leader, and deny that anything is happening to Manning that isn't just okey dokey. And that apparently any criticisms of Dear and Glorious Leader are the cause of all evil that happens to his True Followers.

UPDATE: This will also probably prove that I am only trying to ape or defend Greenwald. I suspose I shouldn't have gone in on a post that was attacking Greenwald, but what caught my eye was the absolute refusal to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all, other than He must know what is right. Or perhaps, He does it therefore it is good and right. Therefore, STFU.

The other interesting line of "thought" if one can call it that, is that Obama doesn't have the time to think about this, even though he had already answered a question at a press conference which showed that he clearly know and had spoken to people about it.

Book Report

So much has been going on personally dealing with my Mother, taxes, various incompetents around me, two briefs that are due (actually past due, but I got continuances), and the second part of an eviction action, the damages part. The eviction thing was set for a hearing on money damages tomorrow, but my clients filed for bankruptcy which stays every case everywhere which involves them. The thing wasn't so much the stay, but the fact that neither my clients nor their bankruptcy attorney bothered to mention this to either me or to the court until yesterday even though the bankruptcy had been filed about a month and a half ago.

Through all this I've been reading Grant's Memoirs. Down loaded it for free from Gutenberg.org, for my ereader. I've read abridged versions of them before, but this is the first time I've read the unabridged version. It is even a little more interesting because I also got Twain's Autobiography for Xmas and it begins with a description of the publication of the Memoirs.

The abridged versions I've read cut out the parts that are the most fun, and concentrate on his versions of the battles. I'm not saying that those are not fascinating, but the discussion of the abilities of the various generals and the politics involved in the war and the early chapters about the Mexican War in particular are both fun and fascinating.

The first thing that comes out is the very dry humor of the guy. He mostly makes fun of himself. At one point stating that he joined a charge against the Mexican Army which just happened to be ordered while he was visiting the front (not a place where his orders took him) because he did not have the moral courage not to. At another point, at the beginning of the Civil War, he continued an advance because he again did not have the moral courage to stop and try to figure out what other thing he might do. This second incident was the one where he got to the location he thought the enemy was to find the enemy had fled and realized that the enemy commander was as afraid as he was. Something he said that he never forgot. There are several other points, particularly in the early parts of the book that are quite funny.

At other points he makes very clear that he completely understands that fighting a war as a democracy is much different than fighting a war as a kingdom or dictatorship. His explanation of the Vicksburg campaign and the reasons he fought it the way he did is as insightful as any I've ever seen as to what needed to be done and how this kind of war had be fought. He understood that for the Union to win the Union had to completely defeat the Confederates. The Confederates only had to keep from losing for long enough to tire out the Union and they would win. Something that Lincoln also understood, but not I think Stanton or Halleck, nor for that matter most of the other earlier commanders of the Union Armies. Grant was quite clear on this. He thought both Stanton and Halleck "timid" while he, Sherman, and Lincoln he clearly thought were not "timid."

His explanation for why he crossed the Mississippi and cut loose from his base of supplies is straight and simple. There had been a number of Union reverses, the republicans had lost the mid-terms to mostly anti war people and conscription had, of necessity, just recently been instituted in the North. His choice was to retreat to set up a secure base and then advance on Vicksburg or do as he did (against it might be stated every one's advice, even Sherman the only general, I think he didn't criticize at some point). In other words, he had to advance and win and he had to do it then.

His admiration of the American soldier was clear and I think sincere. He said that the differences between the American soldiers in the Armies he commanded and the European soldiers of his day was that the American soldiers and the Europeans could both fight like machines, but that the Americans thought and cared about and understood the cause they were fighting for.

The one sentence description of his respect for the valor of the Southern troops which also puts their cause in perspective is possibly the best I've ever seen for doing that kind of thing. The single sentence saying that never had men fought more bravely for a more unjust cause is as powerful as any I've seen in giving the common soldier all the respect he deserves for his bravery, but still pointing out how unjust was the cause for which he fought. He gives no respect to the southern cause, but a great deal to the average southern soldier.

Finally, the prose is as clear, clean, crisp and direct as any I have read anywhere. There are a fair amount of copies of his orders included in the Memoirs and they are clear and to the point. I find myself writing better after reading him (and Gore Vidal).

Now on to Keith Richards' Memoirs.

Work

Client: You can see from this grade card that my husband shouldn't have our daughter she is getting "F's."

Me: F's? It looks like she's got A's and B's.

Client: Look here an F in grammer.

Me: Grammer, where?

Client: There you see the box.

Me: Oh there?

Client: Yes right there:

GENDER

F

Odds and Ends

Down in Florida and every time I come down here and make the turn to go down the street that leads to my parent's (my Mom's now) condo I remember the first time I turned down that road, in the early 70s, and there running beside the car was a wild boar. Now at that same corner there are some doctor's offices, a gas station, a city building, and more offices. I have to continually remind myself how much time has passed.

One of the first times I was down here I went to the local liquor store (locally owned, now there is a large ABC Liquor store in the mall) to buy some champagne for some holiday or the other. We were getting some Moet and the guy told us his story. During World War II he and a platoon that he was part of had liberated the baron (?) Moet and had spent the next week or so drinking and partying at the chateau. Since then (up to that time) he and he figured all the other guys in his platoon had gotten a case of champagne from the baron (?) each year for VE day. The guy had a nose that looked like he drank at least a case much more frequently than once a year.

I finished Screening History by Vidal. Although he is a wonderful writer, in the end his vision is incredibly dark and depressing. Essentially, his argument is simply that the United States is owned by a ruling class. If you are lucky enough to be born or to be adopted in one way or another into that class you can, if you choose, decide to run the country no matter what the rest of us want.

He has argued for years that we live in neither a real democracy nor a real republic. Rather it is a true oligarchy of power and wealth. Of course, like any oligarchy that expects to last more than a generation it does find it necessary to let in the odd sycophant (hi Misters Obama and Clinton) in and their families, after all there is enough money to go around, if you count around as the top 5% or so. He would I think agree with my frequently made point that the democrats will fight to the last to keep abortion safe and legal for the wealthy woman.

Political Arteriosclerosis

Arteriosclerosis of the political mind.

I do need to watch what I'm doing and what I'm writing. I've been reading two books skipping back and forth between them. Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster and Screening History by Gore Vidal. I've also just finished reading Williwaw also by Vidal.

Lost and Found treated me to some very interesting nightmares last night, but reading Vidal is much more dangerous. I end up attempting to write like him and since I possess neither his wit nor his facility with language the results can sometimes be a little less than inspiring.

I continue my attempt to differentiate between my own deterioration and hardening of my very own arteries and those of my country and its people no matter how young.

Today the local paper's headline (as it will be every day this week) told us about speed week, but never fear the secondary headline assured us that the president is "Chipping Away at the Deficit." On the other hand the republican's do not think that he has screwed the middle class enough and demand more cuts to what we laughingly call social services in this country.

I remember as a conservative teenager who was very interested in politics reading the rants which appeared in my local rural paper (a real paper at the time) about how the deficit was destroying our country and how it needed to be cut back and the country needed to be run as a business. Else we would be doomed. It came to me at the time that we were (then) the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world and had gotten that way while running a massive deficit. So began my economic education. I have been provided no facts that might cause me to change my mind since then.

In the meantime the right whose mindless twaddle merely clogged some minor blood vessels in my childhood seems to have managed to completely block the major arteries to the brain in my senior years so that we now all live in a kind country controlled by senile dementia.

On the Road Again

Scary Brown Guys Doing Scary Stuff

Out and about. Down in Florida and using an unsecured Internet from some condo around here. It claims to only have about a fifth of the connectivity possible, but it is faster than then mine at home. Hmmm.

Following Egypt and the strange goings on, not in Egypt, but in America's reaction to it. Today apparently we are happy with the democratic revolt as evidenced by the military over throwing Mubarak to replace him with, who? I'm a little behind, are we still backing the 25 year secret police and torturer as the last best hope for democracy in Egypt? I've been following the whole thing by reading headlines in the various newspapers that are on sale next to the Interstate in Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Interesting points (or in reality should I say point) of view. In Daytona the secondary headline of the local Sunday paper was that Israel felt safe with the Egyptian Army taking control. That says it.

Egypt and the revolts in Egypt and the other countries in the region are pretty much the most important things going on in the world right now. I keep thinking of the revolts of 1848 and 1968 and wonder if this will be another round of very brief liberal flowerings followed by generations of repression and reaction, or I guess not. At least I don't get paid a lot of money to say things like that. I'm just a hick from the middle of the good old U.S. of A. who has never been there so I have to rely on the news media to tell me what is happening and we know that the news media mostly make up what is happening. Hell, they mostly make up everything about Egypt.

I mean isn't Egypt a county that is moving toward the middle class life style we are all aspiring to be a part of with a mostly free, although slightly (ever so slightly) authoritarian government which the people when given the opportunity are happy to vote back in? Or is it all hooey?

I kind of feel the way I feel when people try to get me into a discussion of a film or book that is very controversial and I haven't seen or read. Like say The Passion of the Christ. Of course in that case I guess I could have seen the movie, but I really didn't feel like it.

So as far as I know it is entirely possible that the entire thing only is a fiction designed to raise my gas prices.

The one thing I can say for sure is that the reaction of Americans is something to behold. Listening to NPR last week on the way to work I listened to a woman who claimed to be a student who had been in Egypt for only a couple of weeks when the revolt broke out. He area of study was middle eastern studies. She was desperate to leave and was waiting at the air port for a plane out to anywhere. How sad. Had I been in her shoes at her age there is no question that no matter how stupid it might be I would have stayed there and watched history unfold. What could she teach if and when she gets her degree?

There was another NPR commentator who seemed to be surprised that the demonstrators would stay in the streets even though it was possible that their pay checks for that week might not be available.

Mostly of course, it was how this might affect the American Empire, although no one called it by that name. Empire is not a word that is used in polite society. We are merely worried that the people in Egypt might not be mature enough to elect a government that would adequately protect the interests of the average person and hold those in power to the same standards as the average citizen.

Not Quite There Yet

I Am Just Tired Some Times

I honestly do not know why I engage in these comment wars at various neo-liberal blogs. Just now I have been enraged concerning the treatment of Jane Hamsher and David House. Not so much their treatment per se, but rather the simple out of control use of power by the military and by the government in denying a visitor to David Manning and thereby continuing and intensifying his torture by his jailers.

Interestingly, the guy who "runs" or at least started Balloon Juice is, himself enraged. Angry Black Lady, a poster and the majority of the commentators on his site, want to blame Hamsher and House. (There are also a not insignificant minority of commentators who have already convicted Manning, but that is for another post[or not].)

The problem seems to be that Jane came out opposing Obama Care and called out Obama on his lies concerning his promises. Now she can do no right.

Another problem is that these people have so invested themselves in Obama and the democratic party that they cannot even begin to seriously criticize them.

For the record she and House were stopped because, according to the marines, her license plates were out of date and she did not have proof of insurance. Given the fact that apparently she drives House to visit Manning regularly, and they have accepted her proof of insurance before that is a bogus claim by the marines. If her plates were indeed out of date, they would only have been by a couple of days and it should not have entailed holding House past the visiting time. Further, there is no one arguing that the cops didn't tell them that their orders were coming from on high.

Yet, even raising these points multiple times simply doesn't matter it is just that Jane Hamsher is so......you know. Kind of icky and not in the in crowd. There were a few who did start eventually insist that they just attack Jane because she is so not cool, and that she isn't you know, you know? Well one thing I do know is that she is braver than any of the commentators, myself included. It is clear at this point that the government is determined to destroy anyone who is connected with Manning and WikiLeaks and will violate all sorts of treaties, laws, and rights to do so. Yet, for so many of the people writing about it, the important thing seems to be that Jane Hamsher is a bitch and is self aggrandizing (interestingly enough the second complaint was made and probably still is made about Jesse Jackson).

Oh yeah, mandatory Greenwald link, who the commentators and posters at Balloon Juice make fun of because he uses too many words.

Drugs

Heard in the Court House today:

Client: I should get a better deal. I wouldn't do things if it wasn't for this drug problem. Nobody knows that I've got this drug problem, if they did they'd be more sympathetic to my problems.

Me: Every god damn body in this Court House knows you have a drug problem. Derelicts using the public restrooms know you have a drug problem. It is just that nobody cares.

Client: Your fired.

Inside Baseball

So like I got into a big argument with a couple of bloggers about the Assange rape charges. In fact it (the argument and response not the case itself) is a kind off strange example of incest (I think, at least that is the best metaphor I can think of) I was in an argument in the comments on one blog and then find that the next day the blogger has another essay on Assange. He links to another blog and I turn out to be linked on the second blog to an argument I made on the first blog (which linked to the second blog which then linked back to the first blog, or actually my comment on the first one). Interesting, to say the least.

Well, I was accused of being a "fanboi" and a fanatic, not I think the same thing although I'm not sure (that's on the second blog, on the first one I was accused of being a not very bright 14 year old). My crime, (which I may be mistaken about, although I don't think so) is to doubt the story of the women accusers and to raise the spector of assumption of innocence as far as the accused is concerned.

The second blog makes the point that if I am arguing for a presumption of innocence for Assange, then I should also grant the accusers the same presumption. That is therefore, I have to completely forgo an opinion in the matter. Perhaps, but I don't think so. Although perhaps I shouldn't phrase my argument in terms of "presumption of innocence."

I do think that I can make certain assumptions about things, by viewing how the world works and just what is going on here. Like Officer Leaphorn I don't believe in coincidences. Assange and WikiLeaks have been the recipients of incredible attacks by the powers that run this world, I do not have to go into them, but they are extraordinary and beyond anything I have ever seen.

I suppose I should admit that I hope he isn't guilty, although I would think that would be obvious, but perhaps not. At any rate up to this point we have the allegations and the blanket denials and that is about all. No I really think it is. We have police reports, but those are usually simply raw data which can't be relied on. It is possible that I may find my mind changed as the evidence comes out, but for the time being I'll go with my experiences in this world and the knowledge that my government is capable of anything, and that there are people who for whatever reason will be willing to do this government's dirty work. And I will not treat them as equals in terms of whose story I should believe at this point, and it isn't the story of the accusers.

UPDATE: I think that an argument being made is that "rape is different." And therefore a person who files a complaint of being raped should not be held to the same standard as others who claim to be victims of a crime. Internal inconsistencies in a person's statements and actions are some of the things we use to help us determine whether or not to believe what people say. Therefore, if one throws a party for a guy she said raped her several days prior to the party, or if she scrubs her twitter and blog accounts of favorable comments made about the rapist after the alleged rape then this should not, apparently be taken as an indication that she may not be telling the whole truth about the crime itself. At least not as far as these alleged victims are concerned.

The point I'm making is that the defenders of these women are not requiring the same kind of consistency they would require of any other alleged victim is concerned. It is a kind of infantilization of these women and a variation of the "children don't lie" meme that was around on child abuse cases some time ago. It works quite well for the reactionaries who run our government here, as they can use the natural sympathies of liberals to do their work for them.

Barack Obama's New Year's Resolutions

This came from a super secret unnamed White House source because he (or she) just wants to look like they are really important to themselves and to the person they leaked the stuff to without getting blamed for it, if he (or she) gets caught and it back fires:

1. Try to really act like I give a shit about anybody who makes less than a million a year.

2. This year really look like I know how the fuck to negotiate at the same time I give everything I claimed to want away before negotiations really start.

3. Keep all secret deals with various industries and corporations secret for at least six months after I make them so I can screw the general populace before any of those fucking bloggers find out.

4. Start another war that I can really call my own.

5. Convince the rubes that I'm trying to save Social Security, while I cut it some more.

6. Shoot a man in Yemen just to watch him die.

7. Squish those Assange and Manning fuckers like bugs.

8. Give even more tax cuts to the most wealthy while I continue to convince the rest of America that it really is for their own good.

9. Get Wall Street and the rest of big business to yell really loud about how they are being destroyed by my socialist policies so the average democrat will really think I'm doing something.

11. Get down on my knees and thank god that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

I Hope You Had A Happy War On Xmas or The Holiday Of Your Choice

NOT THIS YEAR

I'm back at work after Xmas. (I just can't help myself, I need to keep fighting that war even if it is all over for the year. Incidentally, I live in the heart of Ohio in the middle of the bible belt and all over the place there are "Happy Holiday" signs. What is the matter with hill billies don't they take the war on Xmas seriously.)

At any rate I am over whelmed with work as I always am after Xmas. I think that perhaps I expect to be hit by a meteor during the Xmas break and therefore I don't have to be prepared for the week after. Unfortunately that has not yet happened. If it does, I expect that it will only happen when I am all caught up on everything. So, there is another reason not to get caught up.

A felony jury trial on the Eleventh and a Brief due the same day. Major custody matter the day before and here I sit writing in this blog. It might be a country and western song.

Bleth

Coming back after comparing Obama to Martin Vanger and the liberal interest groups to unnamed victims of the guy, and seeing that the republicans "convinced" the democrats to cut the health benefits for first responders to 9/11. It reminds me of Bush cutting veterans benefits shortly after or just before the start of the Gulf War. Perhaps I shouldn't have limited my analogy to merely the democrats and the liberals, perhaps I should have expanded it to include all the ruling class as Martin and the rest of us as the nameless victims. Kind of like Charlie Brown and Lucy but with more sexual innuendo.

I've been thinking for some time about writing a bit about "facts" and how they are not very powerful, strong or important, but are in reality pretty delicate, then Digby and Krugman both beat me to writing about it, however I do insist that I thought about it before I read either of their essays. The most interesting thing about it all is that the "facts" about HCR are already being distorted less than eighteen months after everything went down badly. Now it is in the interest of the ruling class to insist that the liberals or leftists held up reform and therefore made it worse and what it is today and caused the massive democratic losses in the last election. Not that Obama screwed around trying to placate the republicans and big business and caused the massive democratic losses, which is what happened.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, given that we are coming up on the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, and the defenders of the lost cause are again insisting that the war wasn't about slavery, but rather the South's desire for freedom and economic issues not involved with slavery, when all one has to do is go to the actual session documents from the state legislators, to see that is a lie. Or for that matter I can remember when that was a real issue in history departments around the United States. It had been accepted popular and mostly professional history that slavery was not the primary cause of the civil war. It took the Civil Rights Movement to change that (temporarily apparently).

DADT

A couple of more thoughts about the repeal of DADT. First, the blind pig analogy. It really isn't possible for Obama and the congressional democrats to always fuck up all the time. And when there is a happy confluence of the wishes of the military industrial complex, the neo-liberals and their desires for more colonial wars, no money lost for billionaires and a major constituency actually withholding their votes; then perhaps something good can come out of this administration.

Then there is my other thought, (if I can be forgiven from fixating on the Millennium books) is the torture scene of Blomkvist from The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (can't find it on Y0uTube) where the sociopthic serial killer offers Blomkvist a glass of water while taking a break from torturing him to death and Blomkvist thanks him. The guy then says: "See it is so simple, I offer you something that doesn'tt matter and you think that maybe I won't kill you now." Of course, he has every intention of killing Blomkvist and is openly contemptuous of Blomkvist's weakness in thinking that now maybe he will be ok. Just saying, not to imply that Obama is a sociopathic serial killer or that liberals are willing to take any offering from him as evidence of his humanity, or anything.

A Blind Pig

So I was wrong and the repeal of DADT passed the senate. So now when the generals tell the president it is OK to actually remove it, well it will be removed I guess. Let's see how long it takes before Obama reports to the senate. It is a good thing, but it is hardly the most important thing out there. The most important thing is the economy and that pouch has been screwed for some time.

I predict that this will be pushed by the veal pen as the greatest thing since sliced bread and continued reason to support Obama no matter what because McCain or whatever other republican will be nominated would never have done this. Of course no money is taken from the rich; this provides no real aid to the middle class or poor. People who happen to be homosexual will (eventually) be able to serve openly in our military in an ever widening series of colonial wars all over the world.

In the mean time budget failed, massive tax cut for rich passed (which will in all probability prevent any real economic recovery), DREAM Act failed all this week.

Pardon me if I do not completely cream my jeans.

I'm Just Pissed

Not in the best of moods, after yelling at a client; and looking over what I wrote yesterday I'm not thrilled with that either.

I no longer enjoy reading the blogs I go to for political humor: World-O-Crap, Sadly No, or even Tbogg. They make fun of the right wing, but the right wing is winning and there seems to be no one on the left who is capable of dealing with the current malaise we find our selves in and anyway I do not like slave humor all that much.

The arguments on Balloon Juice are examples of what is going on in the liberal/progressive/leftist side of the political spectrum. I can kind of understand the demand that one not blame all the troubles we are currently having on Obama (although he would certainly want all the accolades if things were going well). Certainly, once the 2008 election was over it should not have been difficult to realize what could happen in the senate given the make up, with or without Franken. A change of procedural rules might have been in order, although no one in power was willing to push the issue.

Some other backers of Obama seem to feel that there is something else that might theoretically have been done, but that he could not do it because of institutional limitations. Then the next logically step, which for the most part they do not make is that therefore, no one could have done anything, therefore we as a nation are in a place where there is no hope. Literally, no hope. There are a lot of things wrong, but no way around the internal limitations so they can't be fixed. Ever. By anyone. That may also be true, but well as I've said before I'm not a nihilist for nothing.

Others make fun of leftists who have been known to ask "Where is the leadership we were led to expect?" They point out that no one seems to be listening to Obama now so although he can demand say the end of DADT no one cares. Leaving out the real question of whether or not what he says to people outside his very private meetings with the powerful is what he really asks for or believes. Let's say he really does want to repeal DADT (unlike what he said he wanted to do about private insurers, or pharmaceutical companies, or FISA, say), why would anyone be interested in doing what he asks or what he wants. He just led his party to the biggest defeat in decades, what makes him a leader who should be followed now. These people do not seem to understand that there is a thing called "time." Things that one may do or be able to get done at one point they may not be able to accomplish at another. Months or years of dithering and showing little or no leadership may cause one to "spend their seed on the ground," as it were and leave them nothing for on down the line.

The background of these arguments assumes that he wanted to accomplish some sort of liberal/progressive/leftist agenda. Or that he at least looked at the world from that prospective. Nothing that he has done in the last two years should cause people to believe that and when one points that out one tends to get shouted down. From the very beginning, with his appointment of Rahm, the fat homophobe to give the invocation, and the economic team who are as conventional as conventional can be and really do believe in the very things that brought this country to the edge. Well that should have been a wake up call to those of us who thought he knew what he was doing and that he at least had an outlook that was not totally controlled by the oligarchs.

There is the argument that he could not have known just the kind of intransigence nor the type and viciousness of the attacks that would be leveled on him. Really? From the git go the right attacked him for not being a real American and a Muslim Further, the last democratic president from whom Obama took many of his policies and personnel was attacked, I think, as viciously. The Clinton Death List anyone? How about we have pictures of Bill loading cocaine off a drug cartel plane, or how about what about two years of impeachment proceedings? I'm being told that it is worse because Obama is black. I'm not sure that it is worse, I just think it is different.

Then there is a new argument that apparently he is afraid of being mistaken for an angry black man and so therefore he does nothing to lead or really push because he might be seen as a new version of H. Rap Brown, I guess. Instead he must look and act like Jackie Robinson. Or what? Or he will be attacked even more than he is right now? Oh really? That is one of those things that one cannot really respond to because the implication in the argument is that the person making the argument is from some other planet where they cannot understand the languages spoken on this one.

All of these arguments assume thatObama wants something other than what is happening. I suspect that he does not want any other policies, but that he does want someone else to take the blame for them. Although why he thinks that he might look better if he does anything else is beyoned me. I also do not quite understand why he would bring the last big democratic loser out to shill for him either.

I also do not touch here on the absolute crazy of the real crazies who talk death pannels and socialism and Kenyan births. Maybe some other time, although truth be told I could not figure the absolute hate for Clinton either.

I Guess I Need A Headline

Argghhh. I'm reading Balloon Juice today and finally decided to move them over into my Fake Progressives folder. That'll show them all right, all right.

John Cole has done yet another blog post telling leftists just that well we are asking too much of Obama, or unfair, or that we are racist in our criticisms of his. Then right on cue he links to a New York Times Op Ed Ismael Reed saying essentially the same thing. That blacks and hispanics know when to be quite and, I guess take what they are given, something that apparently white folks never learned. Or forgot I guess.

The comment section is a free for all, something that one wouldn't have seen six months ago at Balloon Juice. Now Cole is complaining about the folks coming in to argue about whether or not Obama has done what he could or should do.

I'm actually not sure what people are arguing concerning criticism by white folks of Obama being as he is African American. Generally, at least out loud, they are not arguing that any criticism of him is racist, but I see them coming close to that. One of the suggestions was that Obama is like the political Jackie Robinson and has to hold is temper at all times else he be called an Angry Black Man (apparently the 60s never happened). Another, is that the African American (called AA in the comments which confused me quite a bit for a while) community will react, as a group, negatively to too much criticism and to primary him. Another person ran a time line of how he tried to save the middle class tax cuts while ending them on income over $250,000.00, of course the time line started this summer.

The interesting thing about these discussions is that they completely ignore all that has happened in the last two and a half years. That is what Obama has actually or chosen not to do or who he has put the muscle to. He has not arraigned himself with a cabinet of dashiki clad black radicals like Putney Swope. He appointed the most conventional of main stream thinkers[?] around, when he wasn't reappointing Bush republicans.

Yet his defenders seem to be completely unaware of this it is as if they have been living in a parallel universe where there is an effective Obama who cares about the poor and middle class. It is if one is talking past these people. One tries to point out just what he has done or failed to do and the argument is well if he had tried it wouldn't have worked so he had to do something else that didn't work either.

More WikiLeaks

Some times wonder if I do not run off down the off ramps in all the directions the "Man" wants me to go. Do you suppose the survivors of the '48 uprisings felt about the world they ended up living in the same way liberals do about this one, but without I-phones I guess.

So I find my self writing about the sex charges against Assange and the positions taken by the liberal blogs, serious liberal blogs are taking on this. I kind of find myself going to the same place I was with the Roman Polanski thing. I was correct to seriously wonder about what kind of guy Polanski was, but not I was not correct to wonder about the "victim's" motives, or for that matter what was going on with the whole thing and the motives of all those involved because well it just wasn't right and proper.

The same with Assange and his accusers. It does seem that we are not permitted to seriously question the motives or the timing of the two women who brought these charges. One has allegedly worked extensively with the C.I.A. and anti-Castro groups. One gave a party for the guy after the alleged incident and texed friends about how neat he was also after the alleged incident. The complaints appear to be based on the allegations the Assange wasn't a particularly nice guy and didn't stop in mid-thrust as it were. (I'm not sure I've ever had that request.) Both women found out about each other and met and discussed things before they filed their formal charges with the police. The case was dismissed by one prosecutor and then refiled by another and placed on the "Most Wanted" Interpol List. Then Assange is denied bail even though he turned himself into the law when the arrest warrant was shown to be valid.

All of this is of a piece. You cannot take one part of it out and say let's just look at this by itself. If it was a simple assault case that had gone this route one would look at the complainants with a very jaundiced eye. As Rumpole would (and did in fact say): "I am treating this woman as a perfect equal and demanding the same level of proof that I would demand from a man."

I recall a Guild convention I was at in Atlanta decades ago. There was a very heated discussion about the feminist arguments that some pornography needed to be banned, because it was by its very nature harmful to women. I didn't have enough nerve to participate. But the positions of the participants were very interesting. Mostly it was younger women who were arguing that some things needed to be banned because they were just beyond the pale. Older individuals and they were mostly men who I suspect now been through the censorship wars involving Lady Chatterley, Junkie, and others; and remembered that censorship had once been used to keep birth control information from women took the other position.

But the position of the younger people was that women needed to be protected from these things. Not it seemed to me at the time a very empowering position.

So I guess it is possible that Assange is guilty of something, but not likely, and it looks like his accusers are willing pawns and being used by the very reactionary powers who always use those kind of people.

Oh Hell

Brisk and cold outside, the sun just starting to come up over a scattering of mostly old snow on the ground. The chow is outside and the St. is inside. The chow likes us well enough, but she wants to enjoy the cold weather. She'll stay out for twenty or thirty minutes and come inside to check us all out, then turn around and go back out for another twenty or thirty minutes. The St. is more than willing to put up with the heat if he can be near us.

Assange is all over the news which is more than a little depressing, when I look and see the government was able to get just about every power that matter arrayed against him, from corporations like VISA and Mastercard to nations one would normally expect (Sweden and Switzerland) to have gone their own independent way, to international organizations like Interpol, which up to this point seemed to have a certain (at least in my mind, but perhaps I just wasn't paying attention) independence and honesty. But as I say what do I know? Also, even thoug Obama himself is keeping quite he is the one who is pushing this, don't forget.

Assange and WikiLeaks managed to take my mind away (for part of the time only) the ongoing disaster that is the Obama presidency and the lame duck congressional session. It is nice to see Obama call out his real enemies: the liberals and progressives who got him elected. Obama's and the democrats complete and total inability to learn from their mistakes in the last two years (if they are actually mistakes) is breath taking. He apparently blames the losses in the last election on the "professional left" rather than on his unnecessary compromises and inability or unwillingness to effectively negotiate for his stated positions. He also doesn't seem to have understood the effect of his various lies on those who worked and voted for him, or perhaps he is just shocked that people are recognizing the lies for what they are, but maybe I shouldn't hold him to too high a standard.

It is also interesting to read stuff from the various Fake Progressive Blogs to see how they are more than willing to keep defending Obama and attacking people who are calling him out. No More Mister Nice Blog has managed to get itself moved into my Fake Progressive folder because of an essay claiming that there are people who prefer to see the top marginal tax cuts maintained rather than extend the unemployment benefits if that was the trade off. Of course I'm not at all sure that is the trade off, but we will see. I'm sure it will pass in the same bill that repeals DADT, perhaps a little sooner than card check though. Congratulations No More Mister Nice Blog.

The professional villagers who were convinced by Bush that there were possibly WMDs in Iraq are the same people who are leading the charge to defend Obama and the democrats. Reliably liberal when there is no chance of their policies passing and more than willing to defend the status quo other wise.

Perhaps the most interesting commentary is that by those who more or less correctly identify Obama's short comings and then go on to say that they will not only vote for him, but will also give money to him and work for him. I can't understand that position at all. It resembles the dead enders who supported Bush right up until the end. The old (comparatively speaking) joke is that if Bush had eaten live kittens on tv they would find a way to not only justify it but praise it. Or perhaps abused wives or girlfriends who just know that the abuser will change if she just gives him one more chance and this time what he says will be what he does, not like the other times.

There is also the: "But Obama couldn't have done any more than he did, he was trapped" line of comments. Completely ignoring the real world out there with so much to contradict it that I do not feel like listing all the explanations as to what that is a miss reading of the real world. There is the little thing about being a leader and acting like a leader and pushing for enactment of certain important changes that one says one believes in. Something that appears to be sorely lacking in the current leadership.

I said on Facebook that I am more hopeless than I was during Bush's terms. I could work to try to defeat Bush, but those of us who want to fight against what Obama and the democratic party are have to do what? We are not considered "serious" people. We must work completely outside the normal systems and it is clear that we are marginalized beyond belief. Apparently, most of the voters think Obama is doing a fine job. Or if he isn't Palin or one of the reserve republican fascists could do a better one. What to do? So I guess we have to leave that sort of thing for our betters, you know:

Things Can (And Apparently Will) Always Get Worse

Geeze. I was going to lay off WikiLeaks for awhile, but I guess they insist on being attacked by "my" government. Just a little something from Greenwald again, and from yesterday.

More and more depressing news. I suspect that the kind of stuff I post or even the kind of stuff Greenwald does will be left alone. We just kind of nibble along on the edges, obviously WikiLeaks hits them where they hurt. I also suspect that they are going all out at this point to make a point for anyone else who might want to shed a little light on the vile internal working of our government and its minions (minions including other countries and large corporations).

In passing I find it depressingly interesting that the law most frequently cited is the 1917 Espionage Act. It is a law from one of the most reactionary periods of Twentieth Century American History. It was intended to aid in crushing dissent against one of the more unpopular wars in American history. It did a fairly good job of it, Debs served almost five years for a speech he gave against that war.

The least just and more unreasonable the government's position on any issue the more intense will be their attempt to destroy any dissent. So the United States has now officially and openly, joined the governments of Burma and China. Congratulation on us.

And I would argue, I expect to see them succeed more times then they fail.

Block That Analogy

Let's leave fiction and go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear for our extended analogy. No I mean really yesteryear. Like about 63 B.C.E and the Catiline rebellion. Class war fare, no real war and feckless and incompetent leaders of the peoples party. Ending eventually with the entrenchment of the wealthy as the complete powers, for a short time. Then it just turned weird, see my friend Caligula. Although the satisfaction of the various noble and wealthy family being cut down by the crazy emperors does give one a nice cozy feeling of schadenfreude.

Or if you prefer:

We are kind of like the Titanic and Bush II would be our captain Smith of the Titanic he's already steered us into that iceberg and now Obama is the lesser officers; he has many different roles: the guy that allows the the life boats to leave half full, the guy who holds the gun on the the steerage passengers forbidding them to come up to the deck to try to get off the sinking ship, or perhaps one of the guys in command of a life boat who refuses to go back and rescue the passengers in the water take your pick.

Finally, I feel like the individual in one of the old movie series, who has gotten their foot stuck in that railroad track and sees that training barrelling down on him, but is unable to get lose and do anything about it.

There enough metaphors or analogies for you?

The Air Castle That Was Blown Up

So my last post on WikiLeaks most recent leaks until Assange gets taken before some Swedish tribunal for something hopefully resembling the last scene from The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. But in Googling the title I see that the Swedish title is more accurately translated as: The Air Castle That Was Blown Up, perhaps even more apropos. OK, OK, but the damn thing is playing out so closely to that movie that I just cannot get over it.

I watched Greenwald and Aftergood (what a great name) debate the WikiLeaks thing on Democracy Now (yesterday streaming on the computer thingy). First, Aftergood who has a (kind of) organization that pushes for (apparently) more openness in American government seemed to be really jealous. Here he has worked for years within the system and he is barely noticed. I had heard about his organization, but not a lot. He had apparently going through FOIA requests and the proper court channels gotten some information, but none that appeared to really get a lot of interest outside the belt way types. He was angry about what WikiLeaks had done and how they had done it.

In fact Aftergood (insert own sarcastic comment here) simply lied and said that WikiLeaks had published a blue print for a nuclear bomb, the only one ever publicly published. That was simply, apparently not true. Then he went on to argue that some of the leaks shouldn't have been leaked although others were apparently alright. One of the leaks that he chose to mention that was bad and shouldn't have been leaked, was the one which revealed the German politician who gave the U.S. Ambassador detailed notes about what went on in the formation of the current German government. Since the German was essentially a spy for the U.S. it reveals a terribly America centric point of view and another way Aftergood would be more than willing to censor what the average citizen knows.

Essentially, it is an argument that someone must always stand between the people and their government's secrets. The Wise Men (mostly men) know what the hoi poli need and should know. We're just arguing about who those Wise Men should be. Clearly Aftergood believes that he is one of those Wise Men.

A second point, though. I've been wondering whatever is causing the completely unrestrained rage which has been expressed by the ruling class of at least this country, if not the world. The ruling class as I mentioned before being the media types (perhaps; they at least are given to think they are part of that class and encouraged to believe it), elected types, appointed types, wealthy types, and it now appears the educational types (those who hope to move on to jobs in the government or think tanks). They are the Wise Men (even if some of them are women). Assange is not (nor are you, by the way).

This unrestrained rage does seem to be kind of strange coming as it does at the release of diplomatic cables rather than at the release of the military stuff of a few months ago. I do not mean to imply that there was no anger at WikiLeaks and real rage from those in power, but it didn't seem to take hold as it seems to be this time. It is certainly being pushed more aggressively by the media than it was before, and I think that might be because the media are starting to realize that WikiLeaks is making them look like the ineffectual bumbling handmaidens of the rulers that they are and that they always knew they were, but were able to deny it to themselves up to this point maybe.

Another reason for this completely uncontrolled rage is the sheer number of cables that make the writers look like middle school children back biting each other: "She's so fat," etc. It is one thing to be shown to have killed people for no good reason, but that you have the power to do it, it is quite another to be shown to be merely petty.

WikiLeaks: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The Pentagon Papers and the revelations concerning the "secret" Cambodian bombings were, to me and my generation at least, the origins of major document dumps. I do believe that there are people who are still pissed about them.

When the "secret" bombings of Cambodia were finally revealed, my how the powerful squealed. Who were the bombings secret from? Us. Not the Cambodians certainly, nor the USSR, and most of Europe knew it. I was only us rubes here who didn't have a clue. Oh well more of the same, I guess. The anger was extreme and it was all because the American people were given some information about who else their government was killing in that interminable war. The anger was really, once again, directed against the people who leaked the information, not against the people ordering the "secret" bombings.

The anger against Ellsberg for the Pentagon Papers was even more extreme and even less reasonable. An internal "Defense [Orwell quotes]" Department study that came to the conclusion the the war was not winnable. No new information concerning tactics or war plans, but now everybody could know that we were there in a losing cause, killing untold numbers of Vietnamese and killing very told numbers of American and allied troops killed for apparently no reason at all.

At least as far as our military leaders thought at the time. But at any rate no anger against those who were insisting on killing for no particular reason, just against those who told us there was no particular reason. Since Ellsberg was in therapy the government went after his psychiatrist and lucky for him were caught breaking in. However, that didn't stop them from implying the Ellsberg was crazy and so shouldn't be believed because of it. Still most of the anger was directed at Ellsberg not those who were insisting on waging an unwinnable war.

Yes I do understand that the New York Times did publish these things, but they were attacked for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by most of the middle American press.

Now Assange is under attack by Sweeden not because he is letting the people in a democracy know what their government won't let them know, but rather because he allegedly is guilty of sexual misconduct with a couple of women who it turns out if and this is a big if his lawyer is correct decided after the fact that they were assualted. I guess they just didn't think of this for Ellsberg.

Well, well, well lookie at this there is nothing that the governments of the world and their lackies won't do to keep the people of a democracy from having information about their governments.

Hey, I Though It Was Just A Novel

Wow. So the powers that be are after Assange. One of the ten most wanted for what is apparently an allegation of date rape, maybe. Not that date rate is anything that should be blown off. On the other hand, I find it interesting that this is a guy who is on Interpol's Ten Most Wanted List. I am sure it has nothing to do with WikiLeaks, no suree bob.

In the meantime our great and powerful "leaders" (yes I'm being snarky, thank you) like president Lieberman assist Amazon in finding its patriotism and blocking information concerning what our country is doing all over the world.

The interesting thing is in the way that the government has reacted to this most recent leak. In a way that is out of all proportion to what the leaks contain, at least to those who have read them. And by government I mean the ruling junta which includes the media and the corporate power boys (and yes some girls), not just our (more or less) elected and appointed rulers. I suspect that our rulers believe that this stuff is going to keep coming and that eventually people are going to start paying attention.

Greenwald has been all over this for the last couple of days.

There is no question that there is now a full court press against Assange and that the various governments of the world will not rest until the guy is in custody and the hope is, of course, that he is really not just the face of WikiLeaks, but the real moral authority there and that getting rid of him will get rid of this pesky irritant. It will also have the added benefit of scaring others who might consider doing something similar in the future. (Paging Scott Ritter and Eliot Spitzer anyone?)

Just watched The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest last weekend and have now seen all the Millennium Trilogy and read two and a third of the books. It certainly does give one pause. I did not think that the various government agencies would take the books as a How To, rather than as a warning against harming innocent citizens, silly me. Another interesting thing is that it was difficult, but not impossible, to find a link other than Amazon, that handles the books. Well I guess sex crimes are better at smearing people than the good old fashion drugs and violence, do not want to hew too closely to the printed page in the adaptions, now do we.

I'm Really Getting Tired of the News

Hey, welcome back.

I've been listening to NPR some while I drive to and from home to work and when I say some I mean until I become so enraged that in order to drive I have to turn the radio off. One reason we have no TV is that my wife got tired of me yelling at the thing during the various news casts.

I used to watch CNN Headline News because the first fifteen minutes or so was decent hard news, even if the last fifteen or ten was fluff. Then one day I realized that I had watched two cycles of Headline News and seen no news at all just fluff from beginning to end. Well I guess that was better than my reaching for my trusty six shooter to blast the carn sarn piece of devil's equipment to hell. I would not have been able to endure Dancing With Stars with or without Bristol. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing part of a Duggers episode when I was at another persons house, and that was just weird.

At any rate to get back to the original thought today I listened to someone from The Wall Street Journal explain that Obama has taken the last election as a sign from the voters that they want more bipartisanship in government. The discussion was that this was a not unreasonable position for him to take. That was when I turned the radio off.

Well we are certainly living in interesting times, I guess. I have no doubt that Obama has taken the election as proof that he was doing just what the voters wanted, just not enough. What I have a difficult time understanding is how anyone outside a completely bunkered facility, somewhat like the place Hitler was in the final days of WWII, could believe this.

Well perhaps not really believe this, but say it at least. And sound like they believe it. How is that possible? I guess they could be brilliant actors, but other than that I really do not understand this. You lie and don't deliver on much of anything that you promised, but you make sure that the people who opposed you in the last election get everything they want.

The other strange thing is that many of the original Obama supports continue to support him no matter what he does, but some how believe what he says even though he never (or almost never) delivers on his promises. Drifting over and around the various blogs it appears as though Tbogg has decided that Obama is simply incompetent rather than malicious or evil where I think that he is incompetently evil. Trumka and the AFL-CIO is just disturbing, what are they thinking they support the guy and get nothing of substance from him? Once again discussing this with people who will not give up on him is..............what? Certainly not illuminating and it is getting less and less interesting as one can give them literally dozens of major examples of issues that he has lied about and/or failed to deliver on and it doesn't seem to matter.