My Life as a Professional Fake Skateboard Champion

2+2=4, Rain Means It's Raining And Torture By Any Other Name Is Torture

2009-01-14T14:50:00.003-05:00

The only thing I'll miss when the door hits George bush in the ass is Dan Froomkin's column in The Washington Post beating it to him on a daily basis.

Israel, Stop Killing Civilians!

2009-01-06T19:31:00.007-05:00

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has finally descended into nothing more than a sado-masochistic sisyphisian exercise on both sides.

That Hamas can sleep at night believing the mickey mouse rockets they lob into Israel will some day set them free is pathetic. At best these are young men making their bones against a giant oppressor that they have no intention of slaying. Winning may not be an option -- but looking like a stud sure beats crying like a baby. Or does it? It's time for some creativity.

Defenders of Israel's slaughter of civilian women and children fall back on the stunningly superficial notion that the people of Gaza are simply paying the price for tolerating Hamas. This idea is as ignorant and self serving as it is immoral. We know the equations -- generals and politicians barter the support of paranoid Israeli citizens by making it clear that the price for one Israeli life will be 100 Palestinian lives. This is not unique to Israel, it's the hubris of ownership and we in the United States know it well. Possession is 9 tenths of the law, so the saying goes, and apparently it is also justification for just about any atrocity. Just ask George Bush.

The problem is this is both savage and boring, and the only people paying the price for this stupidity are those who get caught in the middle. The equation needs to change, people need to demand new direction from their leadership, or lead themselves. Oh yes, you can.

Mr. President (yeah both) , Please Listen to Sarah Chayes

2008-12-14T09:15:00.002-05:00

Sarah Chayse is someone who needs a direct line to the President. Do yourself, and the people of Afghanistan, a favor and read her recent Washington Post Op Ed.

Criminal

2008-12-11T14:04:00.001-05:00

"It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against our own soldiers and that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel," the report said.

The Difference Between a Hockey Mom and a Pitbull?

2008-09-18T11:53:00.002-04:00

BY LAJULES

Spaying, apparently!

ABC? CBS? NBC? FOX? No, The Real News Comes From Comedy Central

2008-09-06T13:54:00.004-04:00

This is an absolute MUST SEE. Not only is it high comedy -- as all good politics are -- but it shows how the "network news" fail in their most basic responsibility to challenge the absurd inconsistencies that their political hack guests are allowed to spout. Note:If this doesn't show up go to The Daily Show and view the Sarah Palin Gender Card.

Even the Zombies Don't Believe Themselves

2008-09-03T18:00:00.004-04:00

Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan say what they really think of Quayle, um... I mean Palin, when they think the mic is turned off.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

2008-08-29T15:54:00.003-04:00

A Funny Thing Happend On The March Towards The Police State

2008-06-25T16:37:00.003-04:00

Senator Dodd, June 24, 2008, on the House Floor.

Mr. President: I rise—once again—to voice my strong opposition to the misguided FISA legislation before us today. I have strong reservations about the so-called improvements made to Title I. But more than that, this legislation includes provisions which would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently have violated the privacy and the trust of millions of Americans by participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law.

I am here today to implore my colleagues to vote against cloture in the morning.

And let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance.

And that difference—the difference between surveillance that is lawful, warranted and that which is not—is everything.

Mr. President, I had hoped I would not have to return to this floor again under these circumstances – hoped that in these negotiations we would have been able to turn aside retroactive immunity on the grounds that it is bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.

As all of my colleagues know, I have long fought against retroactive immunity, because I believe, quite simply, it is an abandonment of the rule of law. I’ve fought this with everything I had in me—and I haven’t waged this fight alone.

In December, I opposed retroactive immunity on the Senate floor. I spent ten hours on this floor then. In January and February, I came to the floor time and time again to discuss the dangers of granting retroactive immunity. Along with my colleague and friend Russ Feingold, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue, I offered an amendment that would have stripped retroactive immunity from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, our amendment failed and to my extreme disappointment, the Senate adopted the underlying bill.

Since passage of the Senate bill, there has been extensive negotiations on how to move forward. Today, we are being asked to pass the so-called compromise that was reached by some of our colleagues and approved by the House of Representatives.

I am here today to say that I will not and cannot support this legislation. It goes against everything I have stood for – everything this body ought to stand for.

There is no question some improvements have been made over the previous versions of this bill. Title I, which regulates the ability of the government to conduct electronic surveillance, has indeed been improved. Albeit modestly. In fact, it is my hope that a new Congress and a new President will work together to fix the problems with Title I should the Senate adopt this new legislation.

But in no way is this compromise acceptable, Mr. President. This legislation before us purports to give the courts more of a role in determining the legality of the telecommunications companies actions. But in my view the Title II provisions do little more than ensure without a doubt that the telecommunications companies will be granted retroactive immunity.

Allow me to quote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the matter. It reads:

Beginning soon after September 11, 2001, the Executive branch provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic communication service providers to obtain their assistance with communications intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.

The letters were provided to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. All of the letters stated that the activities had been authorized by the President. All of the letters also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President.

Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply decide whether or not the telecommunication companies received documentation stating that the President authorized the program and that there had been some sort of determination that it was legal.

But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that this happened.

We already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.

But that’s not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, “were their actions legal?” It’s rather straightforward—surprisingly uncomplicated.

Either the companies were presented with a warrant, or they weren’t. Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.

Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered, Mr. President. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Because of this compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and that, as they say, will be that. Case closed.

No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies activities in participating in the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.

None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court.

What they will have is a government that has sanctioned lawlessness.

Well, I refuse to accept that, Mr. President. I refuse to accept the argument that because this situation is just too delicate, too complicated, that this body is simply going to go ahead and sanction lawlessness.

We are better than that.

And if I have needed any reminder of that fact, simply look to all those who have joined this fight – my colleagues and the many, many Americans who have given me strength for this fight. Strength that comes from the passion and eloquence of citizens who don’t have to be involved, but choose to be nonetheless.

They see what I see in this debate – that by short-circuiting the judicial process we are sending a dangerous signal to future generations. They see us establishing a precedent that Congress can—and will—provide immunity to potential law breakers, if they are “important” enough.

Mr. President, some may be asking – why is retroactive immunity so dangerous?

What is this issue? Why should I care?

Allow me to explain by providing a bit of context. I want to remind my colleagues of what I said about this bill months ago, because the argument against providing retroactive immunity remains unchanged.

Mr. President, unwarranted domestic spying didn’t happen in a panic or short-term emergency, not for a week, or a month, or even a year. If it had, I might not be here today.

But that isn’t the case. What we now know is that spying by this Administration went on, relentlessly, for more than five years.

I might not be here if it had been the first offense of a new administration. Maybe not if it had even been the second or the third.

But that isn’t the case either, Mr. President. Indeed, I am here today because with offense after another after another, I believe it is long past time to say: “enough.”

I am here today because of a pattern—a pattern of abuse against civil liberties and the rule of law. Against the Constitution—of which we are custodians, temporary though that status may be.

And I would add that had these abuses been committed by a president of my own party, I would have opposed them, every bit as vigorously.

I am here today because warrantless wiretapping is merely the latest link in a long chain of abuses.

So, why are we here? Because, Mr. President – it is alleged that giant telecom corporations worked with our government to compile Americans’ private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope.

Secretly and without a warrant, those corporations are alleged to have spied on their own customers – American customers.

Here’s only one of the most egregious examples. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence [states]…that for year on end every e-mail, every text message, and every phone call carried over the massive fiber-optic links of sixteen separate companies routed through AT&T’s Internet hub in San Francisco—hundreds of millions of private, domestic communications—have been…copied in their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by means of multiple “splitters” into a secret room controlled exclusively by the NSA.

The phone calls and internet traffic of millions of Americans, diverted into a secret room controlled by the National Security Agency. That allegation still needs to be proven in a court of law. But it clearly needs to be determined in a court of law and not here in Senate.

I suppose if you only see cables and computers there, the whole thing seems almost harmless. Certainly nothing to get worked up about—a routine security sweep, and a routine piece of legislation blessing it.

If that’s all you imagine happened in the NSA’s secret room, I imagine you’ll vote for immunity.

I imagine you wouldn’t see much harm in voting to allow this practice to continue either.

But if you see a vast dragnet for millions of Americans’ private conversations, conducted by a government agency that acted without a warrant, acted outside of the rule of law—then, I believe, you’ll recognize what’s at stake here. You’ll see that what’s at stake is the sanctity of the law and the sanctity of our privacy. And you’ll probably come to a very different conclusion.

Maybe that sounds overdramatic. Perhaps some will ask, “What does it matter, at the end of the day, if a few corporations aren’t sued? These people sue each other all the time.”

Others may say, “This seems a small issue. Maybe the Administration went too far, but this seems like an isolated case.”

Indeed, Mr. President – as long as this case seems isolated and technical, they win. As long as it’s about another lawsuit buried in our legal system and nothing more, they win. The Administration is counting on the American people to see nothing bigger than that – “Nothing to see here.”

But there is plenty to see here, Mr. President – and it is so much more than a few phonecalls, a few companies, a few lawsuits.

What is at stake is nothing less than equal justice—justice that makes no exceptions. What is at stake is an open debate on security and liberty, and an end to warrantless, groundless spying.

This bill does not say, “Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions.” Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear:

“Trust me.”

And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. “Trust me.”

What is the basis for that trust? Classified documents, we are told, that prove the case for retroactive immunity beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But we’re not allowed to see them! I’ve served in this body for 27 years, and I’m not allowed to see them! Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.

I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take “trust me” for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a President on Mount Rushmore.

I can’t put it better than this:

“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.

Those words were not spoken by someone who took our nation’s security lightly, Mr. President. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan -- in 1980. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values. Even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.

But again, Mr. President:

“Why should I care?”

The rule of law has rarely been in such a fragile state. Rarely has it seemed less compelling. What, after all, does the law give us anyway? It has no parades, no slogans. It lives in books and precedents. And, we are never failed to be reminded, the world is a very dangerous place.

Indeed, that is precisely the advantage seized upon, not just by this Administration but in all times, by those looking to disregard the rule of law. As James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said more than two centuries ago, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger…from abroad.”

With the passage of this bill, his words would be one step closer to coming true. So it has never been more essential that we lend our voices to the law, and speak on its behalf.

What is this about, Mr. President?

It’s about answering the fundamental question: do we support the rule of law…or the rule of men? To me, this is our defining question—indeed it may be the defining question that confronts every generation.

This is about far more than a few telecoms – it is about contempt for the law, large and small.

Mr. President, I’ve said that warrantless wiretapping is but the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to the rule of law.

This is about the Justice Department turning our nation’s highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, and turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the pernicious machinations of politics.

Contempt for the rule of law.

This is about Alberto Gonzales, the nation’s now-departed Attorney General, coming before Congress to give us testimony that was at best, wrong—and at worst, outright perjury.

Contempt for the rule of law – by the nation’s foremost enforcer of the law.

This is about Congress handing the president the power to designate any individual he wants as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” hold him indefinitely, and take away his right to habeas corpus—the 700-year-old right to challenge your detention.

If you think that the Military Commissions Act struck at the heart of the Constitution, you’d be understating things—it did a pretty good job on the Magna Carta while it was at it.

And if you think that this only threatens a few of us, you should understand that the writ of habeas corpus belongs to all of us—it allows anyone to challenge their detention.

Rolling back habeas rights endangers us all: Without a day in court, how can you prove that you’re entitled to a trial? How can you prove that you are innocent? In fact, without a day in court, how can you let anyone know that you have been detained at all?

Thankfully, the Supreme Court recently rebuked the President’s lawlessness and ruled that detainees do indeed have the right to challenge their detention.

Mr. President, the Military Commissions Act also gave President Bush the power some say he wanted most of all: the power to get information out of suspected terrorists—by virtually any means.

The power to use evidence gained from torture.

I don’t think you can hold the rule of law in any greater contempt than sanctioning torture, Mr. President.

Because of decisions made at the highest levels of our government, America is making itself known to the world for torture, with stories like this one:

A prisoner at Guantanamo—to take one example out of hundreds— was deprived of sleep over fifty five days, a month and three weeks. Some nights, he was doused with water or blasted with air conditioning. And after week after week of this delirious, shivering wakefulness, on the verge of death from hypothermia, doctors strapped him to a chair—doctors, healers who took the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”—pumped him full of three bags of medical saline, brought him back from death—and sent him back to his interrogators.

To the generation coming of age around the world in this decade, that is America. Not Normandy, not the Marshall Plan, not Nuremberg. But Guantanamo.

Think about it.

We have legal analysts so vaguely defining torture, so willfully blurring the lines during interrogations that we have CIA counterterrorism lawyers saying things like, “if the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.”

We have the CIA destroying tapes containing the evidence of harsh interrogations—about the Administration covering its tracks in a way more suited to a banana republic than to the home of freedom.

We have this Administration actually defending waterboarding, a technique invented by the Spanish Inquisition, perfected by the Khmer Rouge, and in between, banned—originally banned for excessive cruelty—by the Gestapo!

Still, some say, “waterboarding’s not torture.”

Oh really?

Listen to the words of Malcolm Nance, a 26-year expert in intelligence and counter-terrorism, a combat veteran, and former Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School. While training American soldiers to resist interrogation, he writes,

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people….Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word….

It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result…and the obstinacy of the subject.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation…usually the person goes into hysterics on the board….When done right it is controlled death.

Controlled death, Mr. President.

And that is not torture?

Not according to President Bush’s White House. They have said waterboarding is legal, and that, if it chooses, America will waterboard again.

Surely then, Mr. President, our new Attorney General would condemn torture.

Surely, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer in the land, coming after Alberto Gonzales’s chaotic tenure, would never come before Congress and defend the president’s power to openly break the law.

Would he?

He would, Mr. President.

When he came to the Senate before his confirmation, Michael Mukasey was asked a simple question, bluntly and plainly: “Is waterboarding constitutional?”

He replied: “If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.”

One would hope for a little more insight from someone so famously well-versed in national security law. But Mr. Mukasey pressed on with the obstinacy of a witness pleading the fifth: “If it’s torture….If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.”

And that is the best this noted jurist, this legal scholar, this longtime judge, a supposed expert on national security law had to offer on the defining moral issue of this presidency. Claims of ignorance. Word games.

Now-Attorney General Mukasey was asked the easiest question we have in a democracy: Can the president openly break the law? Can he—as we know he’s done already—order warrantless wiretapping, ignore the will of Congress, and then hide behind nebulous powers he claims to find in the Constitution?

His response: The president has “the authority to defend the country.”

And in one swoop, the Attorney General conceded to the president nearly unlimited power, just as long as he finds a lawyer willing to stuff his actions into the boundless rubric of “defending the country.” Unlimited power to defend the country, to protect us as one man sees fit, even if that means listening to our phone calls without a warrant, even if that means holding some of us indefinitely.

That is, Mr. President, contempt for the rule of law.

And so, this is very much about torture – about “enhanced interrogation methods” and waterboarding.

It is also about extraordinary rendition—outsourced torture of men this administration would prefer we didn’t know exist.

Oh, but we do know, Mr. President.

One was a Syrian immigrant raising his family in Canada as a citizen. He wrote computer code for a company called MathWorks and was planning to start his own tech business. On a trip through New York’s JFK Airport, he was arrested by U.S. federal agents. They shackled him and bundled him onto a private CIA plane, which flew him across the Atlantic Ocean to Syria.

This man spent the next 10 months and 10 days in a Syrian prison. His cell was three feet wide—the size of a grave. Some 300 days passed alone in that cell, with a bowl for his toilet and another bowl for his water, and the door only opened so he could go wash himself once a week—though it may have been more or less, because the cell was dark and he lost track of time.

The door only opened for one other reason: for interrogators who asked him, again and again, about al-Qaeda. Here’s how it was described:

The interrogator said, “Do you know what this is?” I said, “Yes, it’s a cable,” and he told me, “Open your right hand.” I opened my right hand, and he hit me like crazy. It was so painful, and of course I started crying, and then he told me to open my left hand, and I opened it, and he missed, then hit my wrist. And then he asked me questions. If he does not think you are telling the truth, then he hits again.

The jail and the torturers were Syrian, but America sent this man there with full knowledge of what would happen to him—because it was part of the longstanding secret program of “extraordinary rendition.” America was convinced that he was a terrorist and wanted the truth beaten out of him.

No charges were ever filed against him. His adopted nation’s government—Canada, one of our strongest NATO allies—cleared him of all wrongdoing after a year-long official investigation, and awarded him more than $10 million in government compensation for his immense pain and suffering. But not before he was tortured for 10 months in a cell the size of a grave. Did his torture make us safer? Did his suffering improve our security?

I would note Mr. President, that our own government has shamefully refused even to acknowledge that his case exists.

We know about a German citizen as well, living in the city of Ulm with his wife and four children. On a bus trip through Eastern Europe, he was pulled off at a border crossing by armed guards and held for three weeks in a hotel room, where he was beaten regularly. At the end of three weeks, he was drugged and shipped on a cargo plane to Kabul, Afghanistan.

For five months, he was held in the Salt Pit—a secret American prison staffed by Afghan guards. All he had to drink was stagnant water from a filthy bottle. Again and again, masked men interrogated him about al-Qaeda, and finally, he says, they raped him.

He was released in May of 2004. Scientific testing confirmed his story of malnourishment, and the Chancellor of Germany publicly acknowledged that he was wrongly held. What was his crime? Having the same name as a suspected terrorist. Again, our own government has shamefully refused to even acknowledge that his case exists.

And so, we do know, Mr. President. We know because there aren’t enough words in the world to cover the facts.

If you’d like to define torture out of existence, be my guest.

If you’d rather use a Washington euphemism—“tough questioning,” “enhanced interrogation”—feel free. Feel free to talk about “fraternity hazing,” like Rush Limbaugh did, or to use a favorite term of Vice President Cheney’s, “a dunk in the water.” You can call it whatever you’d like.

But when you’re through, the facts will still be waiting for you. Controlled death. Outsourced torture. Secret prisons. Month-long sleep deprivations. The president’s personal power to hold whomever he likes for as long as he’d like. It is as if we woke up in the middle of some Kafka-esque nightmare.

Have I gone wildly off-topic, Mr. President? Have I brought up a dozen unrelated issues?

I wish I had, Mr. President. I wish that none of these stories were true.

But, we are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the U.S. attorneys issue, the habeas issue, the torture issue, the rendition issue, or the secrecy issue as if each were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! When we speak of them as isolated, we are keeping our politics cripplingly small; and as long as we keep this small, the rule of men is winning.

There is only one issue here. Only one: the law issue.

Does the president serve the law, or does the law serve the president? Each insult to our Constitution comes from the same source; each springs from the same mindset; and if we attack this contempt for the law at any point, we will wound it at all points.

That is why I’m here today: Retroactive immunity is on the table today; but also at issue is the entire ideology that justifies it, the same ideology that defends torture and executive lawlessness. Immunity is a disgrace in itself, but it is far worse in what it represents. It tells us that some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way. That some only believe in the rule of law, so long as exceptions are made at their desire. It puts secrecy above sunshine and fiat above law.

Did the telecoms break the law? That, I don’t know.

But pass immunity…and we will never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the cases will be closed forever.

“Law” is a word we barely hear from the supporters of immunity. They offer neither a deliberation about America’s difficult choices in the age of terrorism, nor a shared attempt to set for our times the excruciating balance between security and liberty. They merely promise a false debate on a false choice: security or liberty, but never, ever both.

I think differently. I think that America’s founding truth is unambiguous: security and liberty, one and inseparable, and never one without the other--no matter how difficult a situation, no matter what threats we face.

Secure in that truth, I offer a challenge to immunity’s supporters: You want to put a handful of corporations above the law. Could you please explain how your immunity makes any one of us any safer at all?

The truth is that a working balance between security and liberty has already been struck! In fact, it has been settled for decades. For thirty years, FISA has prevented executive lawbreaking and protected Americans, and that balance stands today.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Senate convened the Church Committee, a panel of distinguished members determined to investigate executive abuses of power. And unsurprisingly, they found that when Congress and the courts substitute “trust me” for real oversight, massive lawbreaking can result.

They found evidence of U.S. Army spying on the civilian population, federal dossiers on citizens’ political activities, a CIA and FBI program that had opened hundreds of thousands of Americans’ letters without warning or warrant. In sum, Americans had sustained a severe blow to their Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

But at the same time, the senators of the Church Committee understood that surveillance needed to go forward to protect the American people. Surveillance itself was not the problem; unchecked, unregulated, unwarranted surveillance was. What surveillance needed, in a word, was legitimacy.

And in America, as the Founders understood, power becomes legitimate when it is shared, when Congress and the courts check that attitude which so often crops up in the executive branch—“if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

The Church Committee’s final report, “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans,” put the case powerfully:

The critical question before the Committee was to determine how the fundamental liberties of the people can be maintained in the course of the Government’s effort to protect their security.

The delicate balance between these basic goals of our system of government is often difficult to strike, but it can, and must, be achieved.

We reject the view that the traditional American principles of justice and fair play have no place in our struggle against the enemies of freedom. Moreover, our investigation has established that the targets of intelligence activity have ranged far beyond persons who could properly be characterized as enemies of freedom….

We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian regimes.

We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what witnesses characterized as “vacuum cleaners,” sweeping in information about lawful activities of American citizens.

The senators concluded: “Unless new and tighter controls are established by legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its nature.”

What a strange echo we hear in those words! They could have been written yesterday. Three decades ago, our predecessors in this chamber understood that when domestic spying goes too far, it threatens to kill just what it promises to protect—an America secure in its liberty. That lesson was crystal-clear 30 years ago. Why is it so clouded now?

And before we entertain the argument that “everything has changed” since those words were written, remember: The men who wrote them had witnessed world war and Cold War, had seen Nazi and Soviet spying, and were living every day under the cloud of nuclear holocaust.

I’ll ask this, Mr. President: Who will chair the commission investigating the secrets of warrantless spying, years from today? Will it be a young senator in this body today? Will it be someone not yet elected? What will that senator say when he or she comes to our actions, reads in the records how we let outrage after outrage after outrage slide, with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one? I imagine that senator will ask of us, “Why didn’t they do anything? Why didn’t they fight back? In June 2008, when no one could doubt anymore what the administration was doing—why did they sit on their hands?”

Since the time of the Church Commission, Mr. President, the threats facing us have multiplied and grown in complexity, but the lesson has been immutable:

Warrantless spying threatens to undermine our democratic society, unless legislation brings it under control. In other words, the power to invade privacy must be used sparingly, guarded jealously, and shared equally between the branches of government.

Or the case can be made pragmatically. As my friend Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, recently argued, “The engagement of all three branches tends to yield not just more thoughtful law, but a more broadly supported public policy.”

Three decades ago, Congress embodied that solution in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

FISA confirmed the president’s power to conduct surveillance of international conversations involving anyone in the United States, provided that the federal FISA court issued a warrant—ensuring that wiretapping was aimed at safeguarding our security, and nothing else.

The president’s own Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, explained the rationale in an interview last summer: The United States “did not want to allow [the intelligence community] to conduct…electronic surveillance of Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that was required.”

As originally written in 1978, and as amended many times since, FISA has accomplished its mission; it has been a valuable tool for conducting surveillance of terrorists and those who would harm America.

And every time presidents have come to Congress openly to ask for more leeway under FISA, Congress has worked with them; Congress has negotiated; and together, Congress and the president have struck a balance that safeguards America while doing its utmost to protect privacy.

Last summer, Congress made a technical correction to FISA, enabling the president to wiretap, without a warrant, conversations between two foreign targets, even if those conversations are routed through American computers. For other reasons, I felt that this past summer’s legislation went too far, and I opposed it. But the point is that Congress once again proved its willingness to work with the president on FISA.

Isn’t that enough?

Just this past October and November, the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees worked with the president to further refine FISA and ensure that, in a true emergency, the FISA court would do nothing to slow down intelligence gathering.

Isn’t that enough?

And as for the FISA court? Between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA court approved 18,748 warrants—and rejected five.

The FISA court has sided with the executive ninety nine point nine percent of the time.

Isn’t that enough?

Is anything lacking? Have we forgotten something? Isn’t all of this enough to keep us safe?

We all know the answer we received. This complex, fine-tuned machinery, crafted over three decades by three branches of government, four presidents, and 12 Congresses was ignored. It was a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping a president could conceive—and spying still happened illegally.

If the shock of that decision has yet to sink in, think of it this way: President Bush ignored not just a federal court, but a secret federal court; not just a secret federal court, but a secret federal court prepared to sign off on his actions ninety nine point nine percent of the time. A more compliant court has never been conceived.

And that still wasn’t good enough.

So I will ask the Senate candidly, and candidly it already knows the answer:

Is this about security—or is it about power?

Why are some fighting so hard for retroactive immunity? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy, and secrecy means power.

It’s no coincidence that the man who proclaimed “if the president does it, it’s not illegal”—Richard Nixon—was the same man who raised executive secrecy to an art form.

The senators of the Church Committee expressed succinctly the deep flaw in the Nixonian executive: “Abuse thrives on secrecy.” And, in the exhaustive catalogue of their report, they proved it.

In this push for immunity, secrecy is at the center. We find proof in immunity’s original version: a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program.

In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.

Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted.

They knew better than anyone else what they had done—they must have had good reason to be afraid.

Thankfully, immunity for the executive is not part of the bill before us. But the original proposal tells us something very important: This is, and always has been, a self-preservation bill.

Otherwise, why not have the trial and get it over with? If the proponents of retroactive immunity are right, the corporations would win in a walk.

After all, in the official telling, the telecoms were ordered to help the president spy without a warrant, and they patriotically complied. We’ve even heard on this floor the comparison between the telecom corporations to the men and women laying their lives on the line in Iraq.

But ignore that comparison – which, frankly, I find deeply offensive. Ignore for a moment the fact that in America we obey the laws, not the president’s orders. Ignore that not even the president has the right to scare or bully you into breaking the law, though it seems that tactic has proven surprisingly fruitful.

Ignore that the telecoms were not unanimous; one, Qwest, wanted to see the legal basis for the order, never received it, and so refused to comply.

Ignore that a judge presiding over the case ruled that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

Ignore all that: If the order the telecoms received was legally binding, they have an easy case to prove. The corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given, and they’ll be in and out of court in five minutes.

If the telecoms are as defensible as the president says, why doesn’t the president let them defend themselves? If the case is so easy to make, why doesn’t he let them make it?

It can’t be that he’s afraid of leaks. Our federal court system has dealt for decades with the most delicate national security matters, building up expertise in protecting classified information behind closed doors—ex parte, in camera. We can expect no less in these cases.

No intelligence sources need be compromised. No state secrets need be exposed. After litigation at both the district court and circuit court level, no state secrets have been exposed.

In fact, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, a Republican appointee, has already ruled that the issue can go to trial without putting state secrets in jeopardy.

He reasonably pointed out that the existence of the terrorist surveillance program is a hardly secret at all: “The government has [already] disclosed the general contours of the ‘terrorist surveillance program,’ which requires the assistance of a telecommunications provider.”

As the state secrets privilege is invoked to stall these high-profile cases, it’s useful to consider that privilege’s history. In fact, it was tainted at its birth by a president of my own party, Harry Truman. In 1952, he successfully invoked the new privilege to prevent public exposure of a report on a plane crash that killed three Air Force contractors.

When the report was finally declassified—some fifty years later, decades after anyone in the Truman administration was within its reach—it contained no state secrets at all.

Only facts about repeated maintenance failures that would have seriously embarrassed some important people.

And so the state secrets privilege began its career not to protect our nation—but to protect the powerful.

In his opinion, Judge Walker argued that, even when it is reasonably grounded,

the state secrets privilege [still] has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired.

The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

And that ought to be the epitaph of this Administration: “sacrificing liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.” Worse than selling our soul—giving it away for free!

It is equally wrong to claim that failing to grant this retroactive immunity will make the telecoms less likely to cooperate with surveillance in the future.

The truth is that, since the 1970s, FISA has compelled telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance, when it’s warranted—and what’s more, it immunizes them. It’s done that for more than 25 years.

So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today, and despite claims by supporters of immunity-- never has been. Collusion in warrantless illegal wiretapping is. And the warrant makes all the difference, because it is precisely the court’s blessing that brings presidential power under the rule of law.

In sum, we know that giving the telecoms their day in court—giving the American people their day in court—would not jeopardize an ounce of our security.

And it could only expose one secret: the extent to which the rule of law has been trampled.

And that is the choice at stake today: Will the secrets of the last years remain closed in the dark? Or will they be open to the generations to come, to our successors in this chamber, so that they can prepare themselves to defend against future outrages of power and usurpations of law from future presidents, of either party?

Thirty years after the Church Committee, history repeated itself. If those who come after us are to prevent it from repeating again, they need the full truth.

And that is why we must not see these secrets go quietly into the night. I am here because the truth is no one’s private property—it belongs to every one of us, and it demands to be heard.

“State secrets,” “patriotic duty”—those, as weak as they are, are the arguments the telecoms’ advocates use when they’re feeling high-minded! When their thoughts turn baser, they make their arguments as amateur economists.

Here’s how Mike McConnell put it: “If you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So…we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities.”

To begin with, that’s a clear exaggeration. We are talking about some of the wealthiest, most successful companies in America. Some of them have continued to earn record profits and sign up record numbers of subscribers at the same time as this very public litigation—totally undermining the argument that these lawsuits are doing the telecoms severe “reputational damage.”

Companies of that size couldn’t be completely wiped out by anything but the most exorbitant and unlikely judgment. To assume that the telecoms would lose, and that their judges would then hand down such backbreaking penalties, is already to take several leaps.

Opponents of immunity, including myself, have stated that we would support a reasonable alternative to blanket retroactive immunity.

No one seriously wants to financially cripple our telecommunications industry. The point is to bring checks and balances back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a crippling judgment.

It’s much more troubling, though, that our Director of National Intelligence even bothers to speak to “liability protection for private sector entities.”

This isn’t the Secretary of Commerce we’re talking about, but the head of our nation’s intelligence efforts.

For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw entire suits out because the defendant stood to lose too much?

It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic!

And so, at the rock-bottom of its justifications, the telecoms’ advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.

The truth is exactly the opposite—and it should be obvious:

The larger the corporation, the greater the potential for abuse.

No one suggests that success should make a company suspect; companies grow large, and essential to our economy, because they are excellent at what they do. But the size and wealth open the realm of possibilities for abuse far beyond the scope of the individual.

After all, if the allegations are true, we are talking about one of the most massive violations of privacy in American history.

Should there not be some retribution or penalty?

If reasonable search and seizure means opening a drug dealer’s apartment, the telecoms’ alleged actions would be the equivalent of strip-searching everyone in the building, ransacking their bedrooms, and prying up all the floorboards.

The scale of these corporations opens unprecedented possibilites for abuse—possibilities far beyond the power of the individual.

What the telecoms have been accused of could not be done by one man or even ten.

It would be inconceivable without the size and resources of a corporate behemoth—the same size that makes Mike McConnell fear the corporations’ day in court. That’s the massive scale we’re talking about—and that massive scale is precisely why no corporation must be above the law.

On that scale, it is impossible to plead ignorance. As Judge Walker ruled, “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

But the arguments of the president’s allies sink even lower. Listen to the words a House Republican leader spoke on Fox News. They are shameful: “I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get into the pockets of American companies.”

Of course, some of the “typical greedy trial lawyers” bringing these suits actually work for a nonprofit. And the telecoms that some want to portray as pitiable little Davids actually employ hundreds of attorneys, retain the best corporate law firms, and spend multimillion-dollar legal budgets every year. But if the facts actually mattered to immunity supporters, we wouldn’t be here. For some, the pre-written narrative takes precedence far above the mere facts; and here, it is the perennial narrative of the greedy trial lawyers.

With that, some can rest content. They can conclude that we weren’t ever serious about law, or about privacy, or about checks and balances—it was about money all along.

There can no longer be any doubt: One by one, the arguments of the immunity supporters, of the telecoms’ advocates, fail. I’d like to spend a few moments reviewing, in detail, those claims and their failures.

[Slide 1]

One: Immunity supporters argue that granting immunity is a presidential prerogative.

But the fact is that this case belongs in the courts, in cases where the outcome has not been predetermined. The judiciary should be allowed to determine whether the president has exceeded his powers by obtaining from the telecoms wholesale access to the domestic communications of millions of ordinary Americans.

The courts should not simply be in the business of certifying that the companies received some form of documentation. Rather they should be allowed to evaluate the validity of the legal arguments asserted in the document. Was the request legal or not?

Remember also that the administration’s original immunity proposal protected everyone involved in the wiretapping program—not just the telecoms. In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.

Thankfully, executive immunity is not part of the bill before us. But the origin of immunity tells us a great deal about what’s at stake here: self-preservation.

[Slide 2]

Two: Immunity supporters claim that only foreign communications were targeted—not Americans’ domestic calls.

But the fact is that clear, first-hand evidence, authenticated by the corporations in court, contradicts that claim. “Splitters” at AT&T’s Internet hub in San Francisco diverted into a secret room controlled by the NSA every e-mail, text message, and phone call—foreign or domestic—carried over the massive fiber-optic links of sixteen separate companies.

[Slide 3]

Three: Immunity supporters claim that a lack of immunity will make the telecoms less likely to cooperate with surveillance in the future.

But remember: Since the 1970s, FISA has compelled telecoms to cooperate with warranted surveillance, and it has immunized them. The issue today is not wiretapping—it is warrantless wiretapping. And the warrant is essential, because that is what brings the president’s power under the rule of law.

[Slide 4]

Four: Immunity supporters argue that the telecoms can’t defend themselves without exposing state secrets.

But the fact is that Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has already ruled that the issue can go to trial without putting state secrets in jeopardy. He pointed out that the existence of the warrantless surveillance program is a hardly secret at all: “The government has [already] disclosed the general contours of the ‘terrorist surveillance program,’ which requires the assistance of a telecommunications provider.”

[Slide 5]

Five: Immunity supporters claim that the telecoms are already protected by common law principles.

But the fact is that common law immunities do not trump specific legal duties imposed by statute, such as the specific duties Congress has long imposed on telecoms to protect customer privacy and records. In the pending case against AT&T, the judge already has ruled unequivocally that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

Even so, the communications company defendants can and should have the opportunity to present these defenses to the courts, and the courts—not Congress preemptively—should decide whether they are sufficient.

[Slide 6]

Six: Immunity supporters claim that leaks from the trial might damage national security.

But the fact is that our federal court system, in decades of dealing with delicate national security matters, has built up the expertise it takes to secure that information, behind closed doors. If we’re still concerned about national security being threatened as a result of these cases, we can simply get the principals a security clearance.

We can be increasingly confident that these cases will not expose state secrets or intelligence sources—because, after the extensive litigation that has already taken place at both the district court and circuit court level, no sensitive information has leaked out.

[Slide 7]

Seven: Immunity supporters claim that litigation will harm the telecoms by causing them “reputational damage.”

But the fact is that there is no evidence that this litigation has reduced or will reduce the defendant companies’ bottom lines or customer base.

These companies’ reputations can only be harmed if they have done something wrong. If they have not, they have nothing to worry about.

[Slide 8]

Eight: Finally, immunity supporters claim that these lawsuits could bankrupt the telecoms.

But as we’ve seen, such huge corporations could only be wiped out by the most enormous penalties—and also the most unlikely. It takes several leaps to assume that the telecoms will lose, and then that they’ll be slapped with such huge judgments.

But on another level, immunity supporters are staking their claim on a dangerous principle—that a suit can be stopped solely on the basis of how much a defendant stands to lose.

If we accept that premise, we could conceive of a corporation so wealthy, so integral to our economy, that its riches place it outside the law altogether. And that is a deeply flawed argument.

We see, then, that none of the arguments for immunity stand. There is absolutely no reason to halt the legal process, and bar the courthouse door.

And ultimately, Mr. President, that’s all I’m asking for: a fair fight. In any other administration, it would be a humble claim: a day in court, for the companies that have been accused, and for the American citizens who have accused them. To reject immunity would mean to grab hold of the closest thread of lawlessness we have at hand, and to pull until the whole garment unravels.

But ensuring a day in court is not the same as ensuring a verdict. When that day comes, I have absolutely no investment in the verdict, either way. It may be that the federal government broke the law in asking the telecoms to spy, but that the telecoms’ response was innocent. It may be that the government was within the law, and that the telecoms broke it. Maybe both broke the law. Maybe neither did.

But just as it would be absurd for me to declare the telecoms clearly guilty, it is equally absurd to close the case in Congress, without a decision. That is what immunity does. Throughout this debate, the telecoms’ advocates have needed to show not just that they’re right—but that they’re so right, and that we’re so far beyond the pale—that we can shut down the argument right here, today.

That is a burden they have clearly not met. And they cannot expect to meet it when a large majority of the senators who will make the decision have not even seen the secret documents that are supposed to prove the case for retroactive immunity.

Mr. President, my trust is in the courts, in the cases argued openly, in the judges who preside over them, and in the juries of American citizens who decide them. They should be our pride, not our embarrassment. They deserve to do their jobs.

As complex, as diverse, as relentless as the assault on the rule of law has been, our answer to it is a simple one. Far more than any president’s lawlessness, the American way of justice remains deeply rooted in our character.

That, no president can disturb. So I am full of hope, even on this dark day. I have faith that we can unite security and justice—because we have already done it.

My father, Senator Tom Dodd, was the number two American prosecutor at the famous Nuremberg trials. And I have never, never forgotten the example he set.

As Justice Robert Jackson said in his opening statement at Nuremberg: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”

Mr. President, what is the tribute that Power owes to Reason?

That America stands for a transcendent idea.

The idea that laws should rule, not men.

The idea that the Constitution does not get suspended for vengeance.

The idea that this nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.

The tribute that Power owes to Reason is due today. I know that we can find the strength to pay it. And if we can’t? We will all have to answer for it.

There’s a famous military recruiting poster that comes to mind. A man is sitting in an easy chair with his son and daughter on his lap, in some future after the war has ended. His daughter is asking him, “Daddy, what did you do in the war?” And his face is shocked and shamed, because he knows he did nothing.

My daughters, Grace and Christina, are six and three. They are growing up in a time of two great conflicts: one between our nation and its enemies, and another, between what is best and worst in our American soul. And someday soon, I know I am going to hear that question: “What did you do?” I want, more than anything else, to give the right answer.

That question is coming for every single one of us in this body. Every single one of us will be judged by a jury from whom there’s no hiding: our sons, our daughters, our grandchildren. Someday soon, they’ll read in their textbooks the story of a great nation, one that threw down tyrants and oppressors for two centuries; one that rid the world of Nazism and Soviet communism; one that proved that great strength can serve great virtue, that right can truly make might.

And then they will read how, in the early years of the 21st century, that nation lost its way.

We do not have the power to strike that chapter. No, Mr. President—we can’t go back.

We can’t un-destroy the CIA’s interrogation tapes. We can’t un-pass the Military Commissions Act. We can’t un-speak Alberto Gonzales’s disgraceful testimony. We can’t un-torture innocent people. And perhaps, sadly, shamefully, we cannot stop retroactive immunity. We can’t un-do anything that has been done in the last six years for the cause of lawlessness and fear.

We cannot blot out that chapter. But we can begin the next one, even today. Let its first words read: “Finally, in June 2008, the Senate said: ‘Enough.’”

I implore my colleagues to write it with me. I implore my colleagues to vote against retroactive immunity and vote against cloture tomorrow morning.

We Can't Possibly Afford to Fund Healthcare Because All Our Cash Is 'Tied Up' At The Moment

2008-06-10T13:59:00.006-04:00

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources. Read the entire article here.

A Pep Talk From Our Commander In Chief

2008-06-01T21:20:00.008-04:00

"Kick ass!" he (Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez) quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

KILLER COPS

2008-04-25T13:35:00.001-04:00

Tears For Fears

2008-01-09T11:44:00.000-05:00

Here's a rant.

I'm not particularly supportive of a Hillary Clinton presidency. However, here's a middle finger to all the members of the press who rushed to imply that Clinton had suffered a 'Muskie Moment' when she misted up while responding to a question about the personal difficulties of running such an intense campaign. The implication, of course, is familiar -- once the nation sees a woman getting 'emotional' (code-word: hysterical) on the national stage they will be spooked into the conservative notion that a woman cannot be trusted with her finger on the button. The problem is this -- the press never waited for someone to actually attribute this regressive notion to. In this new era of Fox-Standard reporting the pundits and news reporters become the sources and attribute these attitudes back and forth among themselves. When you 'report' that a particular person has made a specific statement then the public has the opportunity to agree, disagree, or at least consider the source. So what source are we supposed to be considering here? Ahhh ...

Let's shed our tears for the death of independence and integrity in journalism!

Of Course It Works ...

2007-12-11T14:58:00.000-05:00

...it's torture!

All you need to do is examine the glazed videotaped faces of captured American soldiers from past conflicts (Iraq, Vietnam, take your pick), taking direct responsibility for American Imperialistic Foreign Policy, while using language and speech patterns completely unrecognizable to their families, friends and commanders. They too confessed, so it must have worked. The fact that what they confess to more than likely bears no relationship with reality matters little as long as it plays well to the home audience. If you start pulling my fingernails out one by one and I'll tell you whatever you need to know. Simulate my death by drowning and I'll tell you who shot Kennedy, Malcom X and JR.

Well, now you are the home audience so you decide, but remember, karma can be a real bitch.

If my clever comments don't convince you, here is a more articulate article about torture from the Washington Post: 5 Myths About Torture

Topics For Future Blogs

2007-11-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

1) The Kids Are Alright, Are You? (Why I Love Teenagers, pt.1)

2) Punk Rock Retrospectives Are Making Me Anxious

3) Does Integrity Really Come Down To A Dare?

I haven't had the time to actually write anything but I thought I'd at least let you know that I am thinking of writing something. I know ...lame.

Alec's Fables

2007-11-12T19:34:00.001-05:00

Your faithful servant, far right, in 1981.

So when did we get so mean? And why is it okay? I understand that we are all filled with various degrees of anxiety, resentment and prejudice. What I don't understand is when and why we started taking so much pride in these personal shortcomings?

When I was a pimple faced young punk rocker in high school my gym teacher was also my driver-ed teacher -- one of those made for TV drill sergeants who wore tight beige nylon 'coaching shorts' no matter the season and barked "Hands at 10 and 2!" every 20 seconds in my ear during test drives. He seemed to me to be expressly placed on this earth to humiliate, degrade and fail people just like me. I didn't fear him so much as I simply dreaded the inevitable verbal smack-down that I knew was lurking around some yet unknown corner.

Finally one day, while on one of our "10 and 2" test drives, he looked me up and down -- taking in my bleached hair, scrappy clothes and combat boots --and it began, "You know what your problem is?"

To this point our test drives (which regularly involved me, the only person in the class who actually did NOT already know how to drive, running his afternoon errands) had mercifully involved zero personal interaction --other than his tapping the rear view mirror with a pencil and barking his usual refrain.

I braced for the inevitable.

"Your problem is that people fear what they don't understand. Fear and anger come from the same place, you know?-- insecurity. People like you remind others that they do not, and may never, understand their world. I just wonder if you understand who you are. You're not done questioning, young man. HANDS AT TEN AND TWO!"

A Make-Over

2007-11-06T14:32:00.000-05:00

So, basically --I got sick of hearing myself talk (write -- whatever). I understand that it is well within the nature of the 'blogger' that we feel our private thoughts are so important that they MUST be shared, and I am certainly no less megalomaniacal than the next person, but I simply felt the writing had become flat and didn't reflect any of the fun that should go along with outrage. The World certainly doesn't need another depressed and depressing social critic. I believe in certain values (and ridicule so many others) because I feel like there is another, more healthy and satisfying way to live. I am a strong believer in the power of a good role model and in people who take action. I believe that most change occurs not from within, but when somebody builds a better mousetrap, or better yet, when somebody shows us that the mousetrap is just a figment of our imagination.

So, feeling somewhat re-freshed, I hope to check in a little more often and hope to open up the content here a bit more. Please feel free to chime in, comments are always welcome ...um, usually welcome.

xoxo-- Alec

Now THIS Is Islamofascism!

2007-11-05T14:07:00.000-05:00

Pakistan suspends constitution to fight democracy, um, I mean terrorism.

It's About Morality, Stupid

2006-10-16T23:42:00.000-04:00

The Evangelical community has been foolish out-sourcing its morality based agenda to a devil who keeps one hand in their wallet and the other down their pants. Pretty soon the Evangelical community is going to realize that the right wing politicians in this country answer to the almighty dollar, not the almighty. Evangelical environmentalists who in recent months have gained traction and attention by making Creation Stewardship a moral priority are already feeling the wrath of their more politically connected pro-business brethren who fear their influence (and their slush funds) being threatened.

I have always lived under the code that a thief is a thief, and whether your victim is your neighbor or yourself there is always consequence. I beleive we are witnessing this consequence today as a steady stream of disgraced politicians head to jail. And the fact is that behind these corrupt politicians and partisan hit men lie the MANY accomplices and enablers who tolerate and even encourage morally bankrupt behavior as long as they believe these activities will result in a net gain for the "good guys" -- which is how the arrogant universally perceive themselves. The problem is this -- liars and thieves inevitably end up in bed with other liars and thieves. The road to hell may be paved with good connections but good connections backed by bad behavior gets you to hell an awful lot faster.

Fighting Fire With Fire

2006-10-09T08:44:00.000-04:00

Addicted to Mediocrity

2006-09-26T00:12:00.000-04:00

As I was flipping radio channels on my way to work I paused on one of the "dude" oriented morning talk shows. You know the ones, the mildly offensive, proud to be a moron, we're just everyday men kind of shows. It seems like they are everywhere. Now, these guys are not ideologues, we're not talking Fox News talking points here --but nonetheless, something about the Fox agenda became very clear to me this morning. I always wondered about the logic behind Fox's embrace of right wing ideologies on one hand and their simultaneous embrace of trashy, anti-social, dumbed down television on the other. These morning idiots may have given me the answer.

Shortly after ridiculing an African American caller for, unbeknownst to them, being stupid enough to correctly answer one of their spontaneous trivia questions (Dude, my wife just had a C-section, it was gnarly! What does the 'C' stand for anyway? ... Caesar? No way, dude. Like Julius Caesar? Dude, I think the brother is stretching his vocabulary a bit! ) our everyday idiots moved on to more serious fare. Somewhere between the football analysis and the discussion on the relative merits of snorting coke off a stripper's tits they wandered into a discussion of whether or not the Israelis kicked major ass in Lebanon. Their thoughtful roundtable discussion was broken up when one of the dudes protested something like this: Okay, STOP! this has nothing to do with OUR LIVES! This is not news! Whether they kill each other or not is irrelevant! Let's talk about what's going to affect MY LIFE! Give me the weather. If it rains, I miss my tee time so I want to know if it's gonna rain. THAT'S NEWS! All that other crap is a waste of our time! NEXT TOPIC!

With that inspired outburst from Idiot #3 I realized that the dumbing down of America is the Fox agenda. Like P2 before them they understand that uninspired, uninformed, uninterested, jaded and sarcastic Americans won't get involved. They don't ask questions, they don't debate and as long as it doesn't affect their tee time, they don't care. How these dudes could not count terrorism, or the deaths of over 3,000 men and women on 9-11 as affecting their lives is incredible to me. Yet we have more proof everyday that 1) the numbing of the American spirit is epidemic, and 2) the wolves are quick to the sheep.

5 years after 9-11, and three years after the invasion of Iraq 50 percent of Americans polled believe that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Obviously this is no accident, this Administration and it's enablers care not if their sloppy logic leads people to connect the dots to a pattern that does not exist. This is an Administration that has asked nothing of it's citizenry but silence and compliance in return for security and the freedom to not give a shit. It's a social contract and it seems this is a citizenry that is eager to accept whatever is offered. In a recent article retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes (who served in Iraq in 2004) said it better than I. "Hammes said removing the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein 'introduced major instability not just in Iraq, but in the greater Middle East.' And while the Bush administration has repeatedly said the war in Iraq is critical to U.S. security, 'it has asked nothing of the majority of U.S. citizens...while asking major sacrifices, to include the ultimate sacrifice, from those Americans who are serving in Iraq, we are not even asking our fellow citizens to pay for the war ... Instead we are charging it to our children and grandchildren.' "

We now have outraged generals, outraged widows, outraged intelligence officers, diplomats, allies, civil libertarians, human rights organizations, ex-POWs, relief workers and peace activists.

As for our everyday idiots?

Call me when it affects my tee time.

My Life as a Believer ...betrayed

2006-09-12T00:04:00.000-04:00

This is an exercise in betrayal. I am not a believer. I do not believe a word that comes from this administration nor do I believe that government in this day and age works for the better good of the people it is supposed to represent. However in order to communicate ideas and values that will resonate beyond my own doorstep I try to find and and amplify the values that believers and non believers can share.

I believe the honest people who support the war on terror are the ones most betrayed by this Administration.

I believe the men and women of the military have been betrayed in their efforts to defend our country.

I write this piece from the point of view of a believer but the ending is the same.

I watched the towers fall. I saw the fighters circling the skies and my pounding heart told me that we were at war. I held hands with my neighbor and for the first time in my life I raised a flag above my house. I watched the British Parliament sing OUR national anthem as one nation after another simply put aside whatever differences they may have had with America or American policy to mourn for our country and our countrymen.

I joined the military to fight terrorism. To defend my county from another 9-11 and to avenge the slaughter of so many good and innocent people. I believed that Al Quaeda and their state sponsors, the Taliban, had to go and I believed that I fought with the support of my president, my countrymen and most of the free world. So I went to Afghanistan.

Within weeks the Taliban was on the run, Kabul fell first and then Kandahar. Within months The Taliban's unquestioned grip over the Afghani people was released and Al Quaeda camps were disbanded, abandoned or destroyed. For the first time in a decade it was Al Quaeda on the run, looking to the skies in terror. As the Taliban and Al Quaeda beat a quick path to the mountains I watched as normal Afghanis came slowly out of their shells, terrified and suspicious, but hopeful. I imagined with great pride the true "shock and awe" they would soon experience as armies of civil engineers, aid workers and business leaders flooded into their country to stabilize their economy, rebuild their cities, villages and infrastructure and reshape their lives. After all, I believe this was the promise of America, to secure the peace after the war --- to create a new Marshall Plan that would offer a true alternative to the desperation that feeds terrorism. And our commanders and the President made me a believer, repeatedly assured the world that indeed this would be so -- they would never again abandon Afghanistan to the wolves and warlords after a fleeting military victory.

But it never happened.

9 months after the fall of the Kabal, with Bin Laden still at large and the Taliban regrouping in the mountains, American military, civil and political resources were already leaving Afghanistan in droves. I later learned that while the headlines at home were loudly trumpeting our victories these resources were quietly being refocused and redistributed in preparation for an invasion of Iraq that was still more than a year away.

With a skeletal American presence in Afghanistan the new Afghani government has fallen prey to extreme corruption and the whims of local warlords. On the local level fear is now split equally between the new local governors (who are often the old local warlords) and the Taliban as citizens are victimized by corrupt local officials at one turn and resurgent factions of Taliban militias on the other. With no real security the mass amounts of international aid money has gone largely unspent as international workers are unable or unwilling to venture into the countryside to administer the funds. Meanwhile there is an open border with Pakistan where the Taliban is not only openly tolerated but openly supported and sheltered by the Pakistani government, our nominal Allies. Tales of difficult border crossings over treacherous mountain ranges are simply overstated as Taliban fighters are waived through traditional armed border crossings at will.

What is clear to many of us now is that while we believed we fought and died to rid the world of the terrorists who murdered our countrymen on 9-11, this Administration never believed this conflict was anything more than a detour on the road to Bagdad. In the days following 9-11 Administration officials are quoted referring to Afghanistan as an unimpressive and thus unworthy military target. In order to send the preferred message to the world they would need to make an example of a REAL government and not just rearrange a pile a rocks in the middle of the desert. Iraq was a perfect candidate; it's leader was hostile, cruel and a thorn in the side of the United States and the UN. Never mind that Hussein presided over a secular state with no tolerance whatsoever for Islamic Jihadists or terrorists of any kind. Meanwhile here we are. We continue to fight and die in Afghanistan with no plan to secure the victory or the peace -- a beard for some geopolitical nonsense that is clearly not working out on either end. The only thing I can believe now is that we believers have been betrayed.

Islamofascism?

2006-08-31T09:42:00.000-04:00

Who makes up this shit?

The manipulation of language for propaganda is obviously not a new concept, it's been relied on by totalitarian governments like those of the USSR, China and Nazi Germany throughout the 20th century as a useful tool to confuse and demoralize an ignorant populace. But rarely have we seen a more concerted, organized effort from a government of a "free society" to urge its people away from using facts or history as a guide for drawing conclusions about world events and foreign policy.

This administration has redefined terrorism as simply an "us vs. them" or "good vs. evil" equation and is now beginning a new effort to redefine fascism in similar terms. Obviously terrorists and fascists are threats to any free society. But the devil is in the details and by simplifying the common meaning of these words to fit a specific geo-political agenda the powers that be are engaging in a short sighted manipulation which can only erode the true horror these concepts depict. It's a lot like crying wolf. When we claim that a rude waiter is acting like a Nazi we don't truly elevate him to the status of a monster, instead we degrade the details of Hitler's agenda to the status of inconvenience.

The fact is we don't need scary new words like Islamofascism to describe Islamic extremism, we have a description that works just fine -- it's called religious fundamentalism, and it is already scary. I will stand first in line to denounce fundamentalism in all its unsavory and anti-democratic detail but with the debt this Administration owes to Christian Fundamentalism I'm fairly sure this President will not.

Sardegna: A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

2006-08-27T11:52:00.000-04:00

PROPAGANDA 2: Conspiracy Theory No More

2006-08-16T23:03:00.000-04:00

Propaganda 2, or P2, is a Masonic lodge that acted as a shadow government in Italy from 1974 to 1981. Based on the principal that ideologies and values can be easily manipulated by commercial TV and a complacent press, P2 managed to seamlessly place its members in all spheres of Italian life and secretly shaped Italy's political and economic landscape with the backing of a select group of political and Industrial elite, the Sicilian Mafia and the American CIA.

Rumors of a Masonic lodge that involved Italy's highest powers had been spreading since the mid-1970, but still Italian citizens were in shock when a list of P2 members was revealed to the public on May 20th, 1981. The list contained about 900 illustrious names; among them were four ministers or ex-ministers, 44 members of Parliament, all the chief positions of the secret services, the head of the Revenue Guard Corps (Guardia di Finanza), high officials of the state police (Carabinieri), army officers, prefects, magistrates, bankers, entrepreneurs, newspapers’ directors, journalists, and so on. A week after the list was published, the ruling government was forced to resign.

The Manifesto of P2, titled Plan for Democratic Rebirth, was impounded on July 4th 1981, shortly after the discovery of the list of members, in the double-bottomed suitcase of Maria Grazia Gelli (daughter of the well known fascist Licio Gelli). The plan explained how P2 intended to “make use of financial aids” to enter the most diverse places of power: political parties, the press, labor unions, and the three branches of government. The plan explains in detail how to buy a considerable influence within the governing party of the time, the Christian Democrats. The part that concerned the press is particularly terrifying. P2’s plan was to position trusted journalists in the major national newspapers, so that they always presented a favorable image of P2 politicians and the P2 agenda. National, regional, and local activist press had to be infiltrated as well. TV would be controlled to manipulate public opinion and to lull the population into a submissive chorus of approval. Infiltration was organized among judges and magistrates, as well as among bankers and police officials of every rank. The aim was to set up an authoritarian government of privileges, anti-democratic, falsely populist, and reactionary.

To understand the history of P2, one should examine the biography of his leader, fascist freemason Licio Gelli. Gelli served with fascists in the War in Spain and had always been close to extreme fascist movements. His strong anti-communist stand and his ability to bond with the highest ranks of power led him to work for a few years for the United States’ CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps) and with the British secret services. Gelli’s most notable collaboration was with Gladio, the secret service agency heavily financed by CIA and NATO to counter Communist influence after World War II in Italy. Gladio’s methods were far from orthodox, and acted through the so-called "strategy of tension." The strategy of tension consisted in setting up terrorist attacks to be blamed on extreme left groups. Between 1964 and 1984, Gladio, whose existence and responsibilities were ascertained only in 1990, killed 149 people in 8 terrorist attacks.

When Licio Gelli founded P2 in 1974, he brought in Gladio’s techniques, principles, and influential friendships within the new organization. Some modifications were needed, though. Direct confrontations and attempted coups were replaced by a more subtle and deliberate occupation of the positions of power. For ten years, P2 was directly involved in all levels of Italian mysteries and scandals. These include numerous banking scandals (Banco Ambrosiano, the Vatican banking scandal), the kidnap and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the assassination of activist journalist Mino Pecorelli, terrorist attacks like the bombing on the train “Italicus,” the Iran-Contra affair, the assassination of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme, and many more illegal economic maneuvers.

Although freemasonry was banned in 1981 and Licio Gelli is confined to house arrest, many fear that today P2 is as strong as ever. Many of the P2 members have kept their positions of power, and one notable member, businessman Silvio Berlusconi, has been prime minister twice in the past 12 years. Silvio Berlusconi’s amazing career bears all the marks of P2. From his humble beginnings as a singer on cruise boats, Berlusconi entered P2 and received all means of economic and political support from the organization. It is not by chance that Berlusconi built an economic empire in a handful of years without any proof of legal transactions. The right friends and a benevolent disposition for money laundering go a long way. Today Berlusconi is Italy's richest man and despite almost constant investigations into his shady business practices and his relationships with Mafia figures he managed to hold power longer than any other Prime Minister since World War II.

One mark of P2 lies in the way Berlusconi gained and held onto power: owner of publishing companies, radio stations, and three of the six major TV networks of the country, Berlusconi had all means of information on his side. In his 5-year government, the ex-P2-member managed to annul most of the laws, and thus most of the charges against him, for corruption and collaboration with the Mafia, as he advanced the cause of his own businesses over his competitors. In 1996, commenting of the program of Silvio Berlusconi's improvised political party, Fortza Italia, Licio Gelli affirmed that Berlusconi “took our plan for rebirth and copied almost all of it.”

Many historians believe that despite it's outing P2 has already carried out a slow-motion but successful coup d’etat. The tragedy is that the story of P2 is not the stuff of conspiracy theory. P2 is a fact of Italian (and American) history with names, dates and an agenda which can all be verified. The Plan for Democratic Rebirth has cost the lives of hundreds of people, destroyed Italy's economic competitiveness, tramped over justice and legality and disenfranchised Italy's voting population. Propaganda and corruption has slowly brought Italy down to the ranks of the "semi-free", according to Freedom House , a non-profit, non-partisan organization that publishes a yearly survey on freedom around the world (for freedom of speech Italy ranks no. 77). Hopefully Italy's experience can serve as a cautionary tale for countries that also see the rise of strong economic and political powers with shared ideologies and the consolidation of media power, all of which render the press, the people and thus democracy, weaker by the day.

Bake a Cake!

2006-08-11T15:53:00.000-04:00

If the choice between The Gap and Old Navy seems like no choice at all then start your own store!

Leann and Danni did...

Meeps is having their grand re-opening at their new localtion on lower 18th street in Adams Morgan this weekend. If you are not familiar, Meeps carries tons of great vintage clothes as well as new fashions from Local DIY designers. So, instead of complaining about the Coke vs. Pepsi nature of the world put your money where your mouth is and support DIY business in Washington DC!

Cheers--!

When We Fear Fear , Who Wins?

2006-08-11T09:17:00.000-04:00

TERRORISM: The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police. -Encylopedia Britannica

- 2,973 deaths caused by the Sept. 11 hijackings.

- 3,646 deaths caused by terrorist bombings and shootings around the world in 2004, including 35 Americas.

- 2597 American soldiers killed in Iraq.

- 40-45,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the 2003 Invasion.

- 49,693 deaths caused by homicide on the streets of the USA in 2003.

- 43,005 deaths in the USA in 2002 caused in the by motor vehicles.

-400,000 deaths caused EVERY YEAR in the USA from smoking tobacco.

If we take these numbers to be fairly consistent then we can say in 2001 there were approximately 10 times more people murdered by their fellow citizens than were murdered on 9-11. There were 100 times more people killed by cigarette smoke. You are 10 times more likely to be killed driving to work than you are to be murdered in a terrorist attack.

I understand that it is easy to play games with numbers however, the point I am trying to make is that our attention has been so consumed with the random nature of the terrorist threat that we seem to have lost our sense of perspective. Isn't that the goal of terrorism? The very nature of terrorism is that it feeds off of an unreasonable fear. And when governments amplify that fear who are they serving?

Who was served here in Washington DC when huge budget cuts were made in after school programs, community policing and neighborhood youth programs to make way for homeland security? We are only 10 years removed from the loss of almost an entire generation of young black men to the murder wave which swept through this city in the late 80s and early 90s. After years of investment in community crime prevention and a methodical recovery we find ourselves once again in the midst of a "crime emergency" which many community activists blame directly on the diversion of funds and focus from these programs since 9-11.

Who was served when Hurricane Katrina blew through New Orleans and the federal government was nowhere to be found? We have the National Guard stretched to the bone fighting foreign wars instead of taking care of their actual mandate which is to protect the "homeland" during wartime or disaster. What did the billions of dollars diverted to homeland security do for the people of New Orleans during their time of need?

I am not saying that terrorism is a fabrication or that due diligence should not be used in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks. I am saying however that we should examine why we divert so many resources to a threat which is so remote when we have more imminent threats to our everyday existence that are begging for our attention; and why we are so willing to abdicate the very freedom we say we are defending to government officials who time and again prove their willingness to abuse whatever power is granted them. If the terrorist agenda is to strike unreasonable fear and alter our economy and the government's agenda is to consolidate power then there are two obvious winners in the global war on terror and neither one of them is us. The way I see it, one hand washes the other.

Joseph Lieberman: Next!

2006-08-09T09:31:00.003-04:00

On October 10, 2002 Congress passed H. J. RES. 114 , a Joint Resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

It's time to put an end to the myth that White House "lies" or "faulty intelligence" is an acceptable explanation for Senators who voted in favor of the war resolution. Democrats who voted for this resolution did so because like Joseph Lieberman they were either on the same page as the White House, or because they were simply too afraid they would find themselves on other side of what many thought would be a speedy military victory to vote their conscience.

I am not a member of Congress, I do not have their tools of research at my disposal, I do not have their subpoena powers or the ability to haul members of the Administration in front of me to answer my questions under oath. Yet by simply reading newspapers articles, journals and other publicly available material it was absolutely clear to me at the time that the Administration's context for going to war in Iraq was a complete falsehood. The subsequent parade of current and former government officials, from Richard Clarke to Joe Wilson to paul Bremer, speaking out to anyone who will listen as to the dangerous nature of the White House policy on Iraq bears this out. In fact Bob Woodward has Donald Rumsfeld quoted in his 2002 book Bush at War as seeing an "opportunity" to invade Iraq days after 9-11 even though no one in the White House or anywhere in the intelligence community believed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 in particular or terrorism in general.

It is true that the Administration lied, it is also true that the Administration cherry picked intelligence reports that pointed them in the right direction and ignored or suppressed reports that did not. These are obvious and transparent facts. Why did the United States go to war in Iraq? Thanks to the Senators listed below that question remains unanswered 4 years and tens of thousands of lives later. Some of these folks are no longer in office and I think it's time to make sure the same goes for the rest in the coming election season.

Senators in support of H. J. RES. 114:

Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Bennett (R-UT), Biden (D-DE), Bond (R-MO), Breaux (D-LA), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Campbell (R-CO), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), Daschle (D-SD), DeWine (R-OH), Dodd (D-CT), Domenici (R-NM), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Feinstein (D-CA), Fitzgerald (R-IL), Frist (R-TN), Gramm (R-TX), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC), Hollings (D-SC), Hutchinson (R-AR), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT). Lincoln (D-AR), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Miller (D-GA), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Nickles (R-OK), Reid (D-NV), Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Santorum (R-PA), Schumer (D-NY), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-NH), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Thomas (R-WY), Thompson (R-TN), Thurmond (R-SC), Torricelli (D-NJ), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

Fighting Fire with Fire

2006-08-07T16:00:00.000-04:00

I am so outraged and offended by Israel's bombing campaign in Lebanon that I can barely sleep at night. But I am also outraged that people will use the "opportunity" these horrible events offer to further their own agendas of hateful bigotry. We in the US are well acquainted with the tenor of Mel Gibson's recent anti semitic outburst. Our recent history is one of reckoning with our own institutional bigotry and Gibson's remarks take us directly to that ugly but familiar place. There has been little debate here as to whether or not Gibson was entering into a meaningful debate on his way to the drunk tank. However, the fact that so many people in Europe and elsewhere seem eager to defend his ranting as some kind of brave attempt to "keep it real", rather than to bully, demean and dehumanize, is alarming.

I agree that one need not be an anti-semite to speak out against Israel's brutality, in fact, one need not even be non-Jewish. So let's all agree to speak out against hateful speech and hateful violence no matter it's vessel. And while we are pondering balance let's ponder the fact that a common denominator between Israel, Hammas, Al Queda, Hezbolla and the United States is their collective willingness to use murder as a means to an end. At some point we are going to need to go in another direction because fighting fire with fire is simply burning us out.

Beppe Grillo: Comedy isn't Pretty

2006-08-04T16:08:00.000-04:00

One of the main inspirations I had for creating this site came from the the blog of the Italian comedian Beppe Grillo. Italy has a long tradition of social critique being delivered by comedians. Unlike their American late night equivalents these comedians dive headfirst into real issues and use their bond with the common man and their insight to the absurd to mobilize Italians to speak out against political abuse and cynical party and religious rhetoric.

However, Italy also has a well documented history of revolving alliances between government officials, the Catholic Church, mafia and anti-communist secret societies. Once Silvio Berlusconi (who has been linked to all of the above) came to power in the mid-90s these comedians, while hugely popular, were effectively banned from the public airwaves. Berlusconi is not only the founder of the right wing political party Forza Italia, he is Italy's richest man and owns a media empire that controls 3 of the 6 major Italian television networks.

Once banned Grillo and his fellow comedians began taking their shows directly to the public. They tour the country in local theaters and began using the internet as a means to stay in touch with a wider public. Today Beppe Grillo's shows are almost universally sold out and his blog is not only the most visited website in Italy, with 1500-2000 comments a day, it is one one the most visited blogs in the world! His is an important voice and the fact that his site has become THE place to go for both political insight and humor is a true inspiration for us all.

Follow the Money

2006-08-02T16:17:00.000-04:00

THIS IS MURDER

For some reason we need words like murder to remind us that the wholesale slaughter of innocent people is immoral. Words like killing no longer hold meaning and words and phrases like casualties and collateral damage are cynical wordplay at best. It seems impossible from our quiet streets to comprehend the mayhem and human suffering that is now a daily occurrence on the streets of Bagdad, Beirut, the villages of Lebanon and elsewhere. And this is no mistake. Political agendas and military euphemism are not just convenient but necessary to keep a relatively comfortable population at arms length from the horror on the ground so we can debate murder as a matter of policy rather than morality. And who does this benefit?

If there is ever to be a reckoning with this slaughter the concept we must face is that our comfortable lifestyles are being sold to us as a direct product of these struggles. We are taught that to live in comfort we need two things, cheap labor and cheap energy. We marvel at the prices at Target, IKEA, Wall-Mart, etc., but would be horrified if we saw the true cost of such bargains. Look at the tags on the back of almost any inexpensive product and you'll find it was likely made in a county that doesn't support anything close to what you would find acceptable in terms of basic wages or human rights. Look at the governments behind the top oil producing nations and you'll be far more likely find a despot than a democracy. The question I have is whether this is all really necessary or whether we are being sold not an inconvenient truth, but a convenient lie.

When slavery was abolished in America many in the south claimed their economy, their lifestyles, would never recover. History claims otherwise. But isn't the relationship between our current lifestyles and the abject poverty of those who make it possible another form of slavery? And wouldn't we be just as able to recover if we altered course? We live in a world of unprecedented advances in technology and yet few of these ideas make it to the market place in any form other than consumer gadgets (which make giant corporations rich) and smart bombs (which make those same corporations even richer). It's time to look at these relationships and ask ourselves what it is that we are defending. Was slavery a net-plus for average Americans? Or was it a net plus for a handful of southern landowners. How about today? Is the middle class growing? Is the working class flourishing? Is the environment healthy?

Vegetarians often say that if most meat-eaters spent a day at the slaughterhouse they would likely never eat meat again. The Meat Industry goes to great lengths to make sure the consumer never has to consider that the main by-product of their product is the slaughter of farm animals. And isn't this the whole point? If the basic agenda of the Meat Industry is to sanitize slaughter what should we expect from the Defense Industry? I've always carried around a certain amount of guilt because I eat meat, not because I'm so moved by the animal rights movement, but because I realize that I contribute to a process that doesn't simply enable my dinner but sanitizes global suffering as its by-product.

However, as flawed as I am, I refuse to be paralyzed by guilt. Far too many well meaning souls are silenced by their inability to speak up for their well meaning values without experiencing some form of guilt. Another by-product of our comfortable existence is malaise. Guilt is an acknowledgment that one can do better (and who among us can't?), but it does not absolve us from our responsibility to speak out. One need not be a saint to express moral outrage. One also need not be a scholar to see beyond the complicated maze of economic, political and military policy and insist that all public policy reflect the most basic of our shared values. And if you believe that the men and women in the power suits will never have your best interests in mind then get to work. Apathy is not just a by-product of the status quo, it is its most powerful tool so let's take a minute to collect or thoughts ... then get going.

keep Asking Questions

2006-08-02T15:57:00.000-04:00

Why do we go to war? An open question that will not be answered here:

Any person who has read the painfully ironic "Patriot Act" understands that freedom is not something that the current American Administration values, much less goes to war for. On that note, it seems that freedom is no longer something even the American people are willing to fight for. We live in the strongest military and economic state the world has ever seen but somehow we have been conditioned to live in near constant fear. We fear pornographers, child snatchers, computer hackers, red light runners, the stock market and the boogey man - not to mention terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, and any threat whatsoever to our comfort, complacency and total belief that everything we own we've earned, and everything we do we do for the better good, simply because we are Americans.

WHAT WE SEEM TO FEAR IS FREEDOM. Every time someone expresses their freedom by doing something nobel (or stupid), or voicing opinions (or facts) that make other people uncomfortable Americans run to the polling booths in support of regresive laws that weaken their own rights while tranfering more power and authority to a more secretive government which is less likely to respect what individual rights remain. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance then it seems the price is just too high. What a shame! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness sounded SO GOOD.

So, what to do? Anything. Bake a cake, start a band, open a store, live your life with your eyes open and according to whatever values actually make sense to you and hold up to some kind of scrutiny. Apathy is the enemy so don't allow your alienation to the mainstream culture or politics keep you from living. Live your life with honesty and conscience as your guide and you'll be doing more than you'll ever know. The world doesn't need any more depressed and depressing former activists. It needs ideas and role models-- people who are happy with who they are and what they are doing no matter who the latest pretender to the throne may be.

FREEDOM: less talk more rock

2006-07-20T10:32:00.000-04:00

FREEDOM
1. The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints. -Webster's Disctionary

LIBERTY
1. Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence.
2. Freedom of choice: "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes".
3. Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression. -Webster's Disctionary

TYRANNY
1 : oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government -Webster's Disctionary

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." ---Henry Mencken

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson

Canary In a Coal Mine

2006-06-30T13:01:00.000-04:00

So, I'm confused. Exactly which messengers are we supposed to kill?

The ones who "out" undercover CIA agents inconveniently married to critics of the Iraq War? Or the ones that "out" the executive branch for ordering military tribunals, secret torture prisions and domestic spying?

Apparently The New York Times is a useful messenger as long as Judith Miller is employed and is willing to receive leaked material from the office of Dick Cheney but now that The Times is receiving leaked material about executive spying members of Congress would like to bring the Times up on charges of treason.

So, kill this messenger? He's alrady dead.

This is all new to me ....

2006-06-27T08:43:00.000-04:00

And here we are. I hope to have this space be a place where friends and like minded people can share ideas and encourge eachother to be creative and remain positive during what can only be described as the current malaise. And while I don't have a good word to say about the current American administration, I don't want this space to contribute to or validate the absurd Pepsi vs. Coke arguments of the American two party system. We can do better than that.

Let's talk about the environment. REALLY. let's talk about art and terrorism. Let's talk about democracy and it's failure to protect the poor. Let's talk about War and why Americans accept it abroad but not at home. Let's look in the mirror and talk honestly about about ourselves.

I've always supported and echoed the idea that the greatest tool of the status quo is apathy. I also believe that communication, be it through art, jokes, debate or outrage, is a form of hope. So, let's be hopeful and create a space where conventional wisdom doesn't exist, and where reinventing the wheel is not only encouraged but required. Read on ....