DEMOCRACITY

Bubber Miley - St. James Infirmary

2010-12-15T22:00:00.001-05:00

Sweet!

I recently purchased a cd just to hear Bubber Miley playing trumpet on this song, St. James Infirmary. Oh how I wish Bubber hadn't died so young. I could listen to his playing 24/7. My thanks to the Internet Archive for posting this on their site.

This one's for you Dad. Happy Birthday!

Wikileaks Helping Us Set Brushfires of Freedom In The Minds of Citizens

2010-12-05T00:08:00.002-05:00

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." — Samuel Adams

President Obama on the Wrong Track

2010-11-05T19:46:00.004-04:00

Why is it so hard for President Obama and his staff to understand why so many Democrats stayed home on election day? We we're willing to support Obama change the system in Washington and instead we got a bait and switch presidency. We were played and they wonder why we are angry. They better figure out how to turn this White House around or this is going to be a one term presidency. And NO President Obama the answer isn't to move even further to the right to appease the Republicans. Anyone that tells you that should be fired on the spot.

Maybe you should watch this great discussion with Dylan Ratigan, Cenk Uygur and Glenn Greenwald to get a clue.

Clueless Establishment Media

2010-10-25T20:09:00.001-04:00

Magic Lantern Slide of Dog Jumping Through a Hoop

(National Media Museum 1830)

First we had CBS's Bob Schieffer who got all bent out of shape about the "Party crashers" at the White House. He was so offended by the Salahi's party crashing that he wanted them prosecuted. This coming from a man who never once called for investigations, much less prosecutions for anyone in the Bush administration for the hideous state sponsored torture that was done in all of our names.

Then we had CBS's Lara Logan who wanted the Rolling Stone reporter, Michael Hasting's story investigated because she felt what he wrote just couldn't be true because she knew the real General McCrystal and he just wouldn't have done what Mr. Hastings attributed to him.

Now we have ABC's Diane Sawyer, who after watching a report about the leaked Wikileak documents that detailed what Glenn Greenwald described as "..mass torture, abuse, government deceit and reckless civilian deaths in Iraq" and all Diane could think to ask was whether Wikileaks would be prosecuted for revealing the information. What? That's it. That's all you want to know, Diane?

And our establishment media personalities actually wonder why we speak of them with such utter contempt. They are so out of touch with reality that it's just breathtaking.

Puttin On The Ritz

2010-10-02T22:37:00.008-04:00

In my opinion this is the best version ever of the song Puttin' on the Ritz. It's performed by Leo Reisman and his Orchestra in 1930. If I'm not mistaken the fantastic trumpet player on this recording is none other than Bubber Miley, who played with the Duke Ellington Orchestra.

Way to go, Bubber!

Will We Ever Know The Truth About What Happened to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui?

2010-09-24T21:48:00.008-04:00

Will we ever find out the whole story about what happened to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her children? Was she held in Bagram or some other prison? Was she tortured, as she claims? I know one thing...the photos of her before her disappearance in 2003 and the photo of her when she was arrested by the U.S. show a dramatic difference in her appearance. The photo when she resurfaced looked nothing like the vibrant woman captured in the earlier photos. The difference clearly seen in the photos leads me to believe that wherever she was during the "missing years" that she must have gone through hell because hell is clearly etched upon her face.

With this weeks sentencing of Dr. Siddiqui we now know that the future for Dr. Siddiqui is to spend 86 years of her life in prison (a life sentence). But knowing her future is not enough for me, I want to know the full truth about her past. I want her claims about torture to be thoroughly investigated and not just covered up using the ubiquitous "state secret" mantra.

For those of you who know little about Dr. Siddiqui I am posting links to two good pieces that I found on the net.

This video is from the website RT that was done after her sentencing.

Here is a piece from 2006 from Boston Magazine about Siddiqui that provided much more information than what most of us have seen in the MSM reports about her. In other words it was not written merely from the government's perspective.

If anyone has any other links that might help shed light on this case I hope you will post them here.

Prop 8 Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down

2010-08-04T19:16:00.004-04:00

Read the daily transcripts posted at the American Foundation For Equal Rights website. Pay particular attention to Day 10, 11 & 12 to read the marvelous David Boies cross examinations.

Don't Be Fooled - Top 5 Social Security Myths

2010-08-02T19:56:00.000-04:00

Don't Be Fooled

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit. Defeating these myths is a powerful step to stopping Social Security cuts. Share this list with your network.

I Agree With Napolitano - Bush and Cheney Should Be Indicted

2010-07-13T22:15:00.008-04:00

So when is our Justice Department going to do it's job? This is not a right vs. left issue. Judge Napolitano can hardly be described as liberal. This is a law and order issue and always has been.

Gossip and Insinuations Passing for News on CBS

2010-06-23T18:53:00.019-04:00

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch this interview with CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Lara Logan. Pay particular attention to the end of the video where she insinuates that the reporter for Rolling Stone, who wrote the article that's gotten General McChrystal into hot water, may have violated the "trust" of McChrystal and his aides. She offers no evidence of this other than to claim that people who know McChrystal are stunned by this lapse of judgement because it's so unlike him and so uncharacteristic of him to be so undisciplined. She goes on to say that "a lot of people" are asking - "how did this reporter get inside the inner circle of trust and did he violate the trust?" She ends the piece by saying that it just doesn't add up - it's completely inconsistent with everything that people know about General McCrystal and it raises some very interesting questions that haven't been addressed yet. I agree. I have a few questions of my own.

What kind of reporting is this? Who are these people who she says are "a lot of people" questioning the reporter from Rolling Stone? Why is she allowed to take a potshot at the reporter who did this story about McChrystal without offering one shred of evidence that he did anything wrong? Why is CBS allowing their Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent to use anonymous sources described as "a lot of people say" to impugn the integrity of this Rolling Stone reporter ?

I sure hope we get an explanation for this strange interview on tomorrow's CBS Morning show. I also hope that CBS has the decency to invite the Rolling Stone reporter, Michael Hastings, onto their show so that he can respond to Ms Logan's insinuation that he might have done something wrong.

If Mr. Hastings did something wrong then Ms. Logan should prove it and not just take cheap shots at Hastings without offering any evidence that he did anything wrong.

Here is a link to the Michael Hastings Rolling Stone piece entitled The Runaway General.

Update: Jason Linkins has a great piece up at Huffington Post that may give us a clue about the identity of all of the people Lara Logan said were questioning Michael Hastings reporting.

Update: I found this information in a blog post by emptywheel that was done yesterday. Evidently General McCrystal didn't have the same questions about the Michael Hastings story that Lara Logan and all of those people she mentioned in her interview had.

Rolling Stone’s executive editor on Tuesday said that Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not raise any objections to a new article that repeatedly quotes him criticizing the administration.Eric Bates, the magazine’s editor, said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that McChrystal saw the piece prior to its publication as part of Rolling Stone’s standard fact-checking process – and that the general did not object to or dispute any of the reporting.Asked if McChrystal pushed back on the story, Bates responded: “No, absolutely not

**More people commenting on Lara Logan's style of "journalism."

Glenn Greenwald

The two poles of journalism

and Matt Taibbi.

Lara Logan, You Suck

A New Year's Resolution Worth Doing

2009-12-30T18:34:00.011-05:00

While you're making your list of New Year's Resolutions this year consider doing this one that the group at Move Your Money has suggested. And check out this great article (and over 2500 comments) at the Huffington Post about how this movement to move our money out of the "Too Big To Fail" banks came about.

Pass this information on to your family and friends. Make it go VIRAL so we can begin to take our country back from the moneyed interests and their various protectors in Washington who are using our money to run her into the ground.

Join the Sea Change

Bob Schieffer Advocates Prosecution for WH "Party Crashers" Does Not Advocate Prosecution For War Crimes

2009-12-04T18:45:00.017-05:00

Man with his head on backwards

This morning while we drank our morning coffee we watched the CBS Morning Show. During the show we heard this incredible comment from Bob Schieffer:

Evidently Mr. Schieffer is all for prosecuting people when they crash WH State Dinners but I never heard him utter a word about the need to prosecute government officials for war crimes. I could find no video of Mr. Schieffer calling for prosecutions for those government officials involved in planning, carrying out and protecting the Bush torture program. The closest I could come was this video of Schieffer interviewing Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont about his call to investigate the torture program. From the sound of the interview with Senator Leahy it appears to me that Mr. Schieffer is not only not interested in prosecuting torture (he didn't even ask about it) but he even appeared to be uninterested, some might say hostile, to even investigating the torture program.

"Is there anything else to know here?" - Bob Schieffer

While Mr. Schieffer was uninterested at best in investigating or prosecuting those government officials who deliberately broke our laws and treaties during the Bush presidency he got himself all worked up about the Salahi's "horrible crime"

"I think the government ought to prosecute these people," Schieffer said today on theCBS Early Show. "If that means sending them to jail, so be it."

"State dinners are part of the symbols of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem," he said. "And when people are making fun of those things, when they're doing what these people did, that's an insult to all of us. And if these people go to jail, that will be just fine with me."

Here's what I posted at the CBS website tonight:

by pmorlan December 4, 2009 7:33 PM EST

Where is the video of Mr. Schieffer calling for prosecution of government officials for committing war crimes? I guess in Mr. Schieffer's insulated beltway world the more serious crime is crashing a party and having your photo taken with dignitaries, not the deliberate creation of an illegal government program where we tortured and killed people in our custody.

What kind of perverted thought process would allow someone to think that what the gate crashing Salahi's did was an insult to all of us but the creation of an officially sanctioned government program of torture was not?

If Mr. Schieffer really wants to talk about insulting the symbols of our democracy he need look no further than his own profession. Every day that passes where our establishment media stands by and allows government officials to cover up the crimes of previous government officials without being challenged is an insult to our democracy. Equal justice under law is meaningless if we allow government officials to break our laws and treaties with no accountability whatsoever.

The Washington establishment suffers a serious defeat

2009-11-20T19:15:00.006-05:00

Mark November 19, 2009 on your calendars because on that day the interests of the people actually triumphed (temporarily) over the cynical manipulations of the "political establishment."

I hope my fellow citizens, no matter your political party, contact your Congressional representatives and let them know that you support the truly bi-partisan Paul/Grayson amendment that mandates a REAL audit of the Federal Reserve. To see the details about this important amendment please read the excellent Glenn Greenwald column below.

The Washington establishment suffers a serious defeat

Posted using ShareThis

* Let's finally wise up and stop letting the corporate controlled Democrats and the corporate controlled Republicans fool us into thinking that they actually represent our interests because they don't.

* Let's start supporting Republicans and Democrats ONLY when they support the interests of the people.

* Let's stop looking at each other as enemies because one of us is a Democrat and the other a Republican. As citizens we have far more in common with each other than we do with the corporate controlled politicians from either Party.

* Let's finally begin to take our country back from the entrenched interests that are running her into the ground just so they can hold onto power and add to their own personal bank balances.

Remembering Tenor, Mario Lanza - The Man and "The Voice"

2009-10-07T09:14:00.024-04:00

I was watching The Great Caruso on Turner Classic Movies this morning and I was reminded about how much I enjoyed Mario Lanza's voice while I was growing up. He was one of my mother's favorites and he's always been one of mine. On one hand it's a shame that his Hollywood career prevented him from having the opera career that I think he deserved but on the other hand if it hadn't been for his Hollywood career many people like me might never have developed a love for opera. Evidently a lot of opera singers felt the same way as me about Lanza's voice. Here is an interesting passage about Lanza's influence on others from Wiki.

A highly influential artist, Lanza has been credited with inspiring successive generations of opera singers, including Plácido Domingo, Luciano Pavarotti, Leo Nucci and José Carreras, as well as singers with seemingly different backgrounds and influences, his RCA Victor label-mate Elvis Presley being the most notable example. In 1994, tenor José Carreras paid tribute to Lanza in a worldwide concert tour, saying of him, "If I'm an opera singer, it's thanks to Mario Lanza."[2] Carreras' colleague Plácido Domingo echoed these comments in a 2009 CBS interview when he stated that, "Lanza's passion and the way his voice sounds are what made me sing opera. I actually owe my love for opera thanks to a kid from Philadelphia."[3]

More praise for Lanza came from Enrico Caruso, Jr.

In 1951, Lanza portrayed Enrico Caruso in The Great Caruso, which proved an astonishing success, though it did not adhere to the facts of Caruso's life. At the same time, Lanza's increasing popularity exposed him to intense criticism by some music critics, including those who had praised his work years earlier. Nevertheless, Lanza's performance earned him compliments from the subject's own son, Enrico Caruso Jr., a tenor in his own right. Shortly before his death in 1987, Enrico Jr. wrote in Enrico Caruso: My Father and My Family (posthumously published by Amadeus in 1990) that, "I can think of no other tenor, before or since Mario Lanza, who could have risen with comparable success to the challenge of playing Caruso in a screen biography. [...] Mario Lanza was born with one of the dozen or so great tenor voices of the century, with a natural voice placement, an unmistakable and very pleasing timbre, and a nearly infallible musical instinct." He went on to praise Lanza's tempi and phrasing, "flawless" diction, and "impassioned" delivery, adding that, "All are qualities that few singers are born with and others can never attain." In conclusion, he wrote that, "Lanza excelled in both the classical and the light popular repertory, an accomplishment that was beyond even my father's exceptional talents."

Here is my all time favorite Mario Lanza recordings of Vesti la giubba. I wore out my mother's 78 record of Lanza singing this aria from the opera Pagliacci written and composed by Ruggero Leoncavallo. What a voice! What emotion! What power!

Another one of my favorite Lanza performances was of him singing the popular song Be My Love. Although it's not opera it shows that Lanza was just as comfortable singing the songs of the day as he was an aria. This song, like Vesti la giubba, sends chills up and down my spine. What a shame he died so young (he died 50 years ago today at the age 38.).

Mario Lanza singing another one of my favorites - Una Furtiva Lagrima (L'elisir d'amore).

Here's Lanza singing Questa O Quella from Rigoletto

And finally Lanza singing La donna e mobile.

Thank you Mr. Lanza for the many, many years of enjoyment you gave us. We only wish you could have stayed with us a little while longer. But, while you may longer be with us, as we would like, thanks to the recordings and movies you did - the voice lives on.

**If you're a Mario Lanza fan like me you will want to stop by the Lanza Legend website and post a comment on their message forum or just go there to read all of the interesting comments that others are making about him today on the 50th anniversary of his death. They also have many other Lanza related items on this site that are well worth checking out.

***I would also recommend reading a wonderful piece about Lanza that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past Sunday.

Mario Lanza still has the greatest high C
A South Philadelphian is as enthralled today as he was more than 50 years ago

The piece was written by Orlando R. Barone. Evidently Mr. Barone and I were both introduced to Lanza through his Vesti la giubba recording. Here is a snippet.

Aside from a handful of movie musicals, Lanza left us a vast recorded legacy, and in the YouTube era you have no excuse for not having heard this astonishing tenor.
Search "Lanza, 'Golden Days,' " and experience the sweetest voice that can fairly be called masculine, along with the most masculine high notes you'll ever hear.
Follow it up with that million-seller, "Be My Love," and learn what a high C should sound like. By now you'll notice his English diction is as good as Ella Fitzgerald's, his voice is placed perfectly, and the excess of talent is very nearly unimaginable.
Now, try these: "Song of India," "The Lord's Prayer," and "Because." Next, listen to "Vesti la Giuba," my introduction to Mario. By then, quite possibly, the sheer power and beauty of Lanza's incomparable voice will have enthralled you as it did that awestruck 8-year-old boy more than a half-century ago.

Graceful Butterfly

2009-09-19T10:08:00.016-04:00

This post is only for Graceful Butterfly. We are communicating on a project and this is the easiest way I found to do so.

Most of the hats here I could wear as is with other outfits (they are all beautiful). My comments are specifically in reference to what I want on a hat when wearing the two dresses that I showed you. The first few photos are just some art deco styles that I like to give you a better idea of my style. Showing you these photos does not mean that my hat has to have something from these photos it is just to give you a better idea of some things that I like. You may have some materials that are similar in style that you think might work. If you have any questions, please feel free to comment on this blog or send me an email.

I love the designs on these elevator doors.

The statue above shows the style of some of the geometric patterns and lines that I like.

I like this art deco hat pin that looks like a feather.

I'm a big fan of art deco. I like the geometric lines that are frequently used like those in this 1920s dress. I don't know if that's anything that can be incorporated into a hat but it gives you a better idea of what I like.

I would really like to have some type of feathers included in the hat. I'm not a feather expert so I don't know which ones would look the best but I would like to include some feathers. I don't want the whole hat covered in them but just a tasteful inclusion of some. I also like solid colors more than patterns (although some geometric patterns are ok). The guinea feather above is one of my favorites. The flower they use with this arrangement is ok but it's not why I added this photo. Even though I like the guinea feathers I don't necessarily have to have guinea feathers on the hat if you find something more appealing. I also don't necessarily have to have feathers at all if you find something that is even more appealing.

Hat #1

I thought these first two style of hats might look good with the Edwardian plum dress. When I say style of hat I'm just talking about the shape of it not necessarily the color.

Hat #2

I liked the flower on this hat and I may like the style of the hat but I'd have to see more angles of it. Actually the more I look at it the more I like it.

Hat #3

I like the style of this next hat but not the style or color of this flower.

Hat #4

This one is my favorite style of hat but I prefer different ornamentation.

Hat #5

I like this hat style. I also like having feathers on the hat (depending on the type of feather). These feathers look good on this hat.

Hat #6

This hat style I'm not sure about(I like it on the head model but I don't know what it would like on me) but I like the texture of the hat.

Hat #7

I like the style and texture of this hat but not the ornamentation. I do like the way the string hangs down.

Hat #8

I love the style and texture of this hat. I also like having the ornamentation on the side. I don't know if I like this particular adornment.

Hat #9

I like the style of this hat.

Hat #10

I added this hat because I like the texture and style of the hat. I don't like the ornamentation but I love the dress clip! LOL I love art deco.

Hat #11

I like everything about this hat.

Hat #12

I like the ornamentation on this hat and I think I like the style but I'd have to see the front.

Hat #13

Remembering our Friend Tim Krekel October 10, 1950 - June 24, 2009

2009-06-25T08:41:00.022-04:00

Partying w/Tim Krekel and the unforgettable Mary. Sadly for us all they are both with the angels now. New Years Eve 2007

Last night I got some bad news about our friend, Tim Krekel. Tim was diagnosed with cancer back in March of this year and unfortunately he passed away yesterday. Tim was only 58 years old but in his short life he touched so many people with his gentle ways and his glorious music. The local Louisville newspaper, the Courier-Journal wrote a nice piece about Tim that the Tennessean newspaper also picked up. Here's a snippet from the newspaper story.

Musician Tim Krekel dies

By Paula Burba

pburba@courier-journal.com

Tim Krekel, a musician whose career started in Louisville before he was a teenager and soared to two stints as lead guitar for Jimmy Buffet's band and a reputation in Nashville as a hit songwriter, died Wednesday afternoon at his Louisville home. He was 58.
Krekel died of cancer, which he had been fighting since a diagnosis and surgery in March, according to his family.
"He had a major, successful career, but he was still based here. He's just a hometown boy," said friend John Gage.
Krekel "had a way of writing and performing and singing that just put people in touch with a more spiritual sense. He was all about that," Gage said.
Stacy Owen, program director at WFPK-FM, where Krekel was a perennial favorite of listeners, said Krekel "did so much to champion the local music scene."
"I'm sure if you talked to a lot of local musicians here in town, they would consider Tim a mentor," Owen said.
Owen said the station would "spend the day (Thursday) playing his music and celebrating his life."
"I think the wonderful thing about Tim is, he shared himself in his songs," Owen said.

Because of our financial situation we weren't able to go out to the clubs to see Tim play for quite some time but we followed what was happening with Tim through email. We also played our Krekel cd's almost every weekend and I even posted some of his videos here on two occassions. The last time we saw Tim he teased me about the check off list of his songs that I'd printed so that I could more easily request songs while he played.

He was such a good man. I never heard him say anything bad about anyone and I never heard anyone say anything bad about him. We are going to miss him terribly and we hope wherever he is now that he's making music.

Here are a few videos of Tim playing the music he and the rest of us just loved.

For Tim, Love is what it was all about. Here he is at Zena's playing with Terry Adams of NRBQ

Unfortunately this next video doesn't have the video and soundtrack in sync so you don't want to watch the video but you will want to listen to the song. It's truly a beautiful song. I hope you enjoy it as much as we do.

And here's one of my all time favorites - All Night Radio

Farewell Tim. We hope that we get to see you again in another life.

WFPK has a page set up on their website for condolences that is full of personal stories from friends of Tim. WFPK will also be playing Tim's songs all day. You can tune in here.

Update: There will be a Memorial Service at the Vernon at 4 p.m. for friends and family.

Happy Father's Day, Dad

2009-06-21T10:43:00.017-04:00

Photo: Father and child 1915 George Eastman House Collection

On August 5, 2007 my father passed away. He was 86 years young.

Today on Father's Day, in honor of Dad, I'm posting video of a few songs that he introduced me to and one that I introduced him to. Dad liked a variety of music but he talked a lot about "growl trumpets" so my selections today are heavy on the growl trumpets.

Happy Father's Day, Dad. Thanks for turning me onto such wonderful music and thanks for being such a great Dad.

I Love You Dad and I miss you.

Another song Dad introduced me to was Cab Calloway singing Minnie the Moocher

Duke Ellington's Black and Tan Fantasy from 1927 with the legendary Bubber Miley on trumpet.

Duke Ellington East St. Louis Toodle-Oo

Duke Ellington at the Cotton Club playing Echoes of the Jungle 1931

Duke Ellington - Shout "Em Aunt Tilly

Dad was a big fan of Muggsy Spanier and Jack Teagarden. Here's a great Muggsy Spanier tune.

Here's a cool video tribute to Jack Teagarden

Duke Ellington song - It Don't Mean a Thing if it Aint Got That Swing. I remember playing this song on the portable organ my parent's bought me for Christmas one year.

In addition to the "growl trumpets" and "growl trombones" Dad liked the "sound" of Glenn Miller. Here is Moonlight Serenade.

And not to leave the women out, here is Ella Fitzgerald doing Bei Mir Bist Du Shoen.

The Queen of the Blues, Bessie Smith singing Send Me to The "lectric Chair.

And who could forget Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa doing Sing Sing Sing

I'll close out today's music selections with this Django Reinhardt/Stephane Grapelli song. It's one of my favorites (as are the other tunes posted here). When I first played it for Dad he said he hadn't heard it before but said he liked it a lot. It was nice to be able to play a song for him from his own era that he hadn't heard before.

More Secrecy from the "Most Open and Transparent WH in history"

2009-06-18T23:56:00.007-04:00

Corona of the Sun During a Solar Eclipse 1900

On the White House website the Obama administration makes the following claim:

Transparency -- President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise. The President's executive orders and proclamations will be published for everyone to review, and that’s just the beginning of our efforts to provide a window for all Americans into the business of the government.

But transparency is not what we are getting from the Obama administration. In fact, we are getting just the opposite. Just this week alone we found out that the administration argued that the WH visitors logs should be kept secret just like the Bush administration argued. We also found out that the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security is using the old standby excuse of national security to prevent government officials from telling the public the location of coal ash dumps.

There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she isn't allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected.

"There is a huge muzzle on me and my staff," she said."Homeland Security and the Army Corps [of Engineers] have decided in the interests of national security they can't make these sites known," she said.

and then yesterday they did this:

A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney's statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed surprise during a hearing here that the Justice Department, in asserting that Cheney's voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald were exempt from disclosure, relied on legal claims put forward last October by a Bush administration political appointee, Stephen Bradbury. The department asserted then that the disclosure would make presidents and vice presidents reluctant to cooperate voluntarily with future criminal investigations.

But career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, responding to Sullivan's questions, said Bradbury's arguments against the disclosure were supported by the department's current leadership. He told the judge that if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern "that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show' " or somehow be used as a political weapon

Sadly, the Obama administration has consistently been more secretive than transparent. Glenn Greenwald did an excellent blog post the other day, Here is secrecy creep in action, where he documented the long string of Obama administration decisions where they chose secrecy over transparency. It's a MUST READ.

Today the Obama administration is scheduled to release the 2004 CIA Inspector General Report about interrogation techniques (torture). However, it was reported in the Washington Post on Wednesday that some in the CIA were pressing the administration to keep most of this report classified. Once again President Obama has an opportunity to prove to the American people that his administration is truly interested in government transparency. Will the report be heavily redacted as the CIA wants or will the Obama administration let sunlight help disinfect this sorry chapter in our history? Stay tuned.

Upate: Greg Sargent writes that the 2004 CIA Inspector General Report will not be released today. Looks like we will have to wait until next Friday for release of this report - maybe.

65th Anniversary Normandy Invasion June 6, 1944 - June 6, 2009

2009-06-06T11:26:00.018-04:00

Front page of the New York Times, June 6, 1944

Today on the 65th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion (June 6, 1944) I thought it was appropriate to post the following assorted images and historical accounts to honor those who bravely fought and died to help defeat Nazi fascism.

German Propaganda Video

In addition to the above videos you can view D-Day photos and other documents at the Navy Historical Center. You can also read an eyewitness account from a French citizen here. And you can read about another eyewitness account from 89 year old veteran Bob Winer, one of the few surviving veterans from the D-Day invasion.

For a history of the Normandy Invasion you can go here.

You can also watch the excellent film The Longest Day. Here is the movie trailer.

Here is part of the Wikepedia description of the movie, The Longest Day.

Many of the military consultants and advisors who helped with the film's production were actual participants in the action on D-Day, and are portrayed in the film. The producers drew them from both sides; Allied and Axis. Among them are Günther Blumentritt (a former German general), James M. Gavin (an American general), Frederick Morgan (Deputy Chief of Staff atSHAEF), John Howard (who led the airborne assault on the Pegasus Bridge), Lord Lovat (who commanded the 1st Special Service Brigade), Philippe Kieffer (who led his men in the assault on Ouistreham), Pierre Koenig (who commanded the Free French Forces in the invasion), Max Pemsel (a German general), Werner Pluskat (the major who was the first German officer to see the invasion fleet), Josef "Pips" Priller (the hot-headed pilot) and Lucie Rommel (widow of Erwin Rommel).

One thing that sets the film apart from most films set in the Second World War is that all characters speak in their own languages, with subtitles in English wherever the characters speak either French or German. A separate version exists, shot simultaneously, in which all the actors speak their lines in English, which is why the trailer has the Germans delivering their lines in English. This version saw limited use during the initial release, but saw extensive use during a late 1960s re-release of the film. The English-only version was featured on the "flip side" of an older single disc DVD release. The usual Nazi stereotypes are avoided, and mostGerman characters are portrayed as human beings. The words "Sieg Heil", for instance, are not uttered even once in The Longest Day, although they are seen written on a bunker wall in Ouistreham.

Torture Defender Liz Cheney Accuses President Obama of "Moral Relativism"

2009-06-04T13:19:00.015-04:00

Liz Cheney was once again on Morning Joe this morning where she accused President Obama of "moral relativism." That's right, the same Liz Cheney who defends the morally indefensible torture of human beings, as long as the U.S. is doing it, is accusing the president of moral relativism. Unbelievable. This woman should be laughed off the set for that statement alone but for some strange reason her comments are treated as serious comments worthy of discussion.

“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”

It's a sad commentary on the state of our establishment media where someone so ill informed as Liz Cheney is invited to appear on TV over and over and over to take pot shots at President Obama using half truths, lies and total nonsense. Liz and Dick have been on TV so much pushing their talking points that one has to wonder if they are blackmailing someone to allow them to appear in these uncritical national forums whenever they please. Greg Sargent wrote a post about this at his Plum Line blog.

Before I could finish my post, Liz Cheney appeared on yet another MSNBC segment today with Andrea Mitchell. No video is posted yet but it's pretty close to what you see in the Morning Joe comments.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: Here's video from the Andrea Mitchell segment mentioned above.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Liz Cheney makes the "moral relativism" charge once again (unchallenged) and accuses President Obama of attacking "the people that protected us' while on foreign soil. Unlike Joe Scarborough and company, Andrea Mitchell at least attempts to inject facts into the discussion but she was so passive that she was just ineffectual in the interview.

At one point Mitchell plays tape of Dick Cheney and asks Liz if her father has backed off his Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection claims. Liz says that he's saying the same thing he's always said and that he never said there was a connection between Saddam and 911. Remarkably Mitchell said that she'd have to do her homework and have Liz back on her show because she thinks Liz is wrong. Shouldn't she have done "her homework" before the interview?

Update: Jason Linkins at Huffington Post has a piece up on the Cheney's and cable TV.

The Dick and Liz Cheney Show Rolls On; MSNBC Defends Air Time

Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President

2009-06-04T07:30:00.026-04:00

America in 100 days photostream - Day 4 in Philadelphia

President Obama gave an excellent speech in Cairo today but my ears perked up upon hearing a couple of specific passages where he talked about democracy.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Are these just words in a speech or will President Obama's actions back up his words? If President Obama believes what he says in this speech about democracy then how can he say we must look forward without first addressing the crimes committed by the Bush administration? How can he think ignoring war crimes will give anyone confidence in the rule of law and confidence that there is equal justice under law? How can his use of an overly broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits and his suppression of photos that document crimes be consistent with the idea of transparency that he rightfully says is important?

I agree with President Obama's speech on the campaign trail where he said - words matter. But words matter only when they are backed up with actions and so far I haven't seen President Obama back up his eloquent words about democracy with actions.

The idea that our laws require that we hold officials accountable can't be suppressed for the sake of political expediency. The crimes of the Bush era were much too monstrous and widespread to ignore. It's clearly in the interest of our country to investigate and where appropriate prosecute those who broke U.S. and international laws. It's in our interest because it will help restore confidence in the rule of law and because it's essential for our security to show the world that we apply the rule of law even to our own leaders. It's also necessary in order to drive a stake through the heart of the vile idea, that continues to be argued today, that torture should be an option for the United States to use. It's also clearly in our interest to confront and thoroughly discredit the dangerous unitary executive theory that places the president above the law because we can't afford to have some future politician repeat the destructive actions our country barely survived under the Bush administration.

Holding Bush administration officials accountable under law may not be convenient for the political parties but it is necessary in order to have a functioning democracy.

I hope President Obama will stop listening to his political advisers, who are only concerned with party politics and will instead let his own words from this speech and his promises from the campaign trail guide him in doing what is right for the U.S. and what is necessary in order for us to truly move forward.

We need true transparency, Mr. President and we also need a president who's courageous enough to stand up to the political establishment and demand accountability for war crimes so that the world will know that America stands for the rule of law and that the words equal justice under law aren't just words used in a political speech but are words that describe a principle our country enthusiastically embraces.

General Sanchez Supports Truth Commission - Leaves Open Possibility of Prosecutions/Commendations

2009-06-02T12:00:00.006-04:00

Another Voice In Favor of a Truth Commission.

How Long Must We Wait?

Home Grown Terrorists

2009-06-01T10:20:00.017-04:00

When MSNBC says in it's reporting today that Scott Roeder, the suspect in the murder of OB/GYN, Dr. George Tiller, appears to have "acted alone" in the murder I think they are wrong. Anyone who's followed this issue knows that it's clear that he was not really acting alone. While the evidence may show that he was the lone shooter, the awful truth is that far too many people in the so called "pro-life" movement actively support and encourage this suspect and others to murder doctors who provide abortion services.

The most well known supporters for murdering abortion providers are the zealots who signed the lawless 1990s Defensive Action Statement. That extremist statement claims that use of lethal force in the defense of unborn babies is justifiable. One of the people who signed that statement, Regina Dinwiddie, said this about Mr. Roeder.

As news of Roeder's arrest traveled, Kansas City activist Regina Dinwiddie remembered the day a dozen years ago when Roeder hugged her in glee after trying to frighten an abortion provider by staring him down inside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"He grabbed me and said, 'I've read the Defensive Action Statement and I love what you're doing,' " Dinwiddie said in a telephone interview. She was a signer of the 1990s statement, which declares that the use of force is justified.

[Snip]

"I don't think he was murdered. I believe he was absolutely stopped in his tracks and it was long overdue," Dinwiddie said. She declined to say when she last spoke with Roeder.

Another person who signed the Defensive Action Statement, Dave Leach, also knew Roeder.

Dave Leach, a Des Moines antiabortion activist who also signed the statement, said Sunday night by telephone that he published some of Roeder's writings in "Prayer & Action News," which describes itself as "a trumpet call for the Armies of God to assemble.

"Leach described Roeder as "anti-government" and said he once stopped to see Roeder in Kansas. At the time, Leach said, he was on his way home to Iowa after paying a prison visit to Rachelle "Shelley" Shannon, an abortion foe convicted of shooting Tiller in both arms outside his Wichita clinic 16 years ago.

Leach said he lost touch with Roeder and does not recall the specifics of his writings.

The zealots who signed the Defensive Action statement are not the only extremists in the "pro-life" movement who stir up hate against doctors who provide legal abortion services to women. There is also Randall Terry and his Operation Rescue organization. Terry and his followers have used extreme, hate filled methods for years against abortion doctors. The Operation Rescue web site even had a special section where they documented Dr. Tiller's movements. According to a Daily Kos post today by Blue Intrigue, shortly after the news that Dr. Tiller had been murdered the information about him on the Operation Rescue website was suddenly inaccessible.

Operation Rescue has long maintained Tiller Watch, a section of their website devoted to keeping tabs on Dr. George Tiller, the abortion provider who was murdered today in Wichita. Shortly after the news of the murder was announced - and I mean within minutes - the link from Google to Tiller Watch returned a Forbidden 403 error. Other links referencing Tiller but not in the Tiller Watch directory also returned the 403 error. The front page of the site was still active but there were no links to anything about Tiller other than the statement on the front page regarding the murder. Thanks to Google cache, though, what Operation Rescue is trying to keep you from reading is still available.

Note: Since Blue Intrigue posted this diary you now get the 403 error for the entire Operation Rescue website, not just the Tiller information.

The Huffington Post has another piece up about Terry and his group that discusses his inappropriate press release after the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas in 1991, issued a statement about today's killing of the abortion doctor.

In his comments, Terry does not grieve for Tiller or denounce the murder but seems more concerned about President Obama's reaction and what it bodes for the pro-life movement.

In addition to Terry and the Defensive Action zealots there was also an extremist anti-abortion group that created old west style wanted posters for abortion doctors where once the doctors were murdered their names were crossed off the list. And sadly, there is a whole network of other extremist anti-abortion groups that encourage violence against abortion providers. These groups are quite simply home grown terrorists whose actions should be condemned by all law abiding citizens regardless of their views about abortion.

While I believe that most pro-life supporters don't support murdering abortion doctors they can't entirely escape responsibility for these crimes when they continue to use or allow to be used over-the-top rhetoric calling these doctors murderers. That kind of over-heated language helps contribute to the atmosphere of hate which in turn encourages these murderous anti-abortion zealots to take the law into their own hands. Every time these zealots see a sign at a pro-life rally calling these doctors murderers they are more convinced than ever that they are right.

Legitimate pro-life supporters must actively take steps to help eliminate these home grown terrorist groups who twist the bible in order to justify their violence just like the Muslim terrorists twist the Koran to support their murderous deeds. Pro-life activists must make it clear that they view these violent zealots for what they are - terrorists. They must strongly denounce them and their methods in order to help disrupt their ability to recruit others to their murderous cause. Saying you are against the murder of doctors after a doctor has been murdered is too little, too late. The pro-life movement must finally accept that these violent extremists are part of their movement whether they like it or not and that it's in the best interest of everyone (including the pro-life movement) if they stop pretending that the pro-life movement has nothing to do with these people. It does.

If pro-life activists truly wish to distance themselves from these violent extremists they can't sit on the sidelines any longer leaving it to everyone else to fight these groups. They can't continue to pretend that these violent extremists have nothing to do with them because they do. They must take responsibility for the most extreme members of their political movement and finally join with the rest of us to help end this reign of terror. They must stop thinking that if they join with the pro-choice movement to fight these extremists that it will somehow damage their pro-life movement. It won't, unless they consider murdering all doctors who provide abortion services helpful to their movement. They can't have it both ways. If they don't support the views of these people they need to do much more than just say we don't support murdering doctors, they need to really help fight these extremists.

Here are the self-identified anti-abortion terrorists who signed the Defensive Action Statement in support of violence against abortion providers.

DEFENSIVE ACTION STATEMENT

We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.

Mike Bray - Pastor, Reformation Lutheran Church, Bowie, Maryland

C. Roy McMillan - Executive Director, Christian Action Group, Jackson, Mississippi

Andrew Burnett - Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Cathy Ramey - Associate Editor, Life Advocate Magazine, Portland, Oregon

Matt Trewhella Pastor, Mercy Seat Christian Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Paul J. Hill - Director, Defensive Action, Pensacola, Florida (executed Dec. 6, 1994 for the double murder of Dr. John Britton and his clinic escort, James Barrett)

Paul deParrie - Author of Numerous Titles, Portland, Oregon

Regina Dinwiddie - Christian Pro-Life Activist & Producer of Rescue Radio, MO and KS

Michael Dodds - Leader of Wichita Rescue Movement, Kansas

Henry Felisone - Director, Queens Pro-Life Group, Queens, New York

Tony Piso - Pastor, Evangelical Mission Church, Forest Hill, New York

Jacob Miller - Evangelist, Assembly of Yahweh & Pro-Life Activist, Tampa, Florida

Dan Bray - Director, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

David Crane- Director, Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, VA

Donald Spitz- Evangelist & Assistant Director for Rescue Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia

Michael Jarecki - Ret. Pastor, Saint Mary's Church, Brushton, New York

Bill Koehler - Director of Project Awareness, North Bergen, New Jersey

Kenneth Arndt - Director, New Hampshire Rescue, Windham, New Hampshire

Dave Leach - Editor, Prayer and Action Weekly News, Des Moines, Iowa

Mike Walker - Leader in National Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Fighters, Alabama

Thomas Carleton - Catholic Priest, Presently Incarcerated in Billerica, Massachusetts

Joseph F. O'Hara - Director, Wyoming Valley Rescue Group, Pennsylvania

David Graham - Attorney at Law, Olathe, Kansas

David Trosch - Catholic Priest, Publisher Justifiable Homicide Cartoon & President

Life Enterprises Unlimited, Mobile, Alabama

Dawn Stover - Assistant Director, Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon

Mike Meyer - Chairman, Tri-State Rescue Committee, Cincinnati, Ohio

David Craig - Former Presby Pastor, Hope, Indiana

John Brockhoeft - Author of "The Brockhoeft Report," incarcerated in Burlington, Kentucky

Donna Bray - Co-Founder, Defenders of the Defenders of Life, Bowie, Maryland

Media Consultant - Gary McCullough; Publicist - Jerry McGlothlin

Update: The WSJ has a piece up with more biographical information on Scott Roeder.

Another Saturday With Tim Krekel

2009-05-30T11:55:00.003-04:00

Photo: May Newman playing a cigar box banjo she made: Palatka Florida 192?

IT'S A BEAUTIIFUL, SUNNY 73 DEGREES HERE IN LOUISVILLE, KY TODAY!

Time to Party

With an Encore Performance by Tim Krekel

From his My Space page:

Kentucky-bred Singer-Songwriter-Guitarist Tim Krekel has stunned listeners with his soulful grooves and knockout passionate performances for years.Yet, he remains a welcome, new discovery for many outside of the Southeast US. Befriended and endorsed as a personal favorite early in his career by John Belushi, the modest Krekel has a massive recording and touring history with icons such as Jimmy Buffet, The Eagles, Bo Diddley, Tracy Nelson, Delbert McClinton and others. He has enjoyed several Billboard chart-toppers and 1 Hits; and is ranked as the 150th Greatest Artist of All Time on WFPK/Louisville's "Fortunate 500" and had FOUR songs listed in WFPK's "2001 Greatest Songs of All Time".

I'd encourage everyone to check out his My Space page because he has some audio recordings of some more of his songs that you just gotta hear! And for politico's like me, you will especially appreciate his new song - Bailout blues.

And now ladies and gentleman, the music of TIM KREKEL

Unfortunately this final video doesn't have the video and soundtrack in sync so you don't want to watch the video but you will want to listen to the song because it's one of the most beautiful love songs I've ever heard. When we see Tim sing this live we get chills up and down our body. It's truly a beautiful song. I hope you enjoy it as much as we do. Incidently Tim has quite a few cd's out there that you can purchase if you like his music, like we do.

Obama and Cheney Speeches Not the End of Torture Discussion

2009-05-29T09:10:00.009-04:00

When President Obama and former Vice-president Cheney gave what the press called "dueling speeches" about Bush era war crimes I posted a comment where I said that I'd talk about my reaction to the speeches at a later date. Since that post there have been a lot of people who have commented about the speech so I'm not going to rehash what was said and not said other than to say my overall impression of both speeches and the media coverage was one of disappointment. The Cheney speech was so full of distortions and lies that it doesn't even merit a response except to say that in my view former V.P. Cheney is a thoroughly dishonorable man. The media coverage was typical establishment media coverage. They stuck to their narrative and ignored any facts that didn't fit the narrative. The one response about Obama's speech that was closest to my own response was this one from Rachel Maddow

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Because of the importance of this issue I know the two speeches given by Obama and Cheney will not be the last word on what happened in the Bush era. In fact, we already have descriptions leaking out about what appeared in the photos that the Obama administration failed to release. The administration is of course denying the reporting.

We also continue to have Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney, appearing on one political talk show after another claiming waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were not torture. We also have President Bush publicly defending torture again and we have Alberto Gonzales trying to deny his involvement in torture.

The American people deserve answers, not spin and until that happens this subject will not go away and should not go away. Contrary to what President Obama and others believe, we can't move forward as a country while we still have people who think what was done in the past is appropriate for use in the future. We can't afford to have people like Liz Cheney encouraged to run for office when she is out there actively promoting the use of torture.

Until we drive a stake through the heart of the idea that torture is a viable option to be used by the U.S. we can't move forward or we risk having the use of torture come back like some vampire in a horror movie comes back to feed on it's victims again and again.

Sibel Edmonds Starts a New and Exciting Blog - Project Expose MSM

2009-05-27T14:57:00.011-04:00

The battle to reclaim our free press has a new warrior. Sibel Edmonds, a former language specialist for the FBI has started a new blog devoted to holding the establishment media accountable.

Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secrets Privilege” by Attorney General Ashcroft, and the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification issued by the Department of Justice.

Here is a link to the rest of her bio at her blog.

Her new project is called Project Expose MSM. Here is a snippet from her blog that describes her project:

We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of 'oversight.' We have been outraged for way too long at seeing 'no' accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage -- which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it's supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.

Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.

At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I'm happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.

Yes, we will be naming names -- myself included.

This is very exciting news. While people like me can expose specific lies or distortions in the media we don't have access to the behind the scenes story about how those lies and distortions make their way into our newspapers or onto our television screens. Hopefully, Sibel will be able to ;penetrate behind enemy lines to find out why this is happening over and over and over again.

Good luck, Sibel. We will all be watching, waiting and helping you whenever we can to help expose the shoddy work of our establishment media and to force them to explain why they have been acting more like the propaganda mouthpiece for our government and various corporations instead of being the watchdogs for the American people. We have your back and hopefully you will have ours.

Unlikely Partners - David Boies and Ted Olsen File Prop 8 Challenge

2009-05-27T11:36:00.011-04:00

Clarence Darrow & Wm. Jennings Bryan - Scopes Trial - July 20, 1925

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that an unlikely partnership has formed between David Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen. David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election contest, and Ted Olsen, who represented George Bush, are now joining forces to challenge California's Proposition 8 in Federal Court.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8. Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the propostion, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Here is a pdf file of the press conference announcing the challenge and a pdf file of the complaint filed May 22, 2009.

And here are the plaintiff bios and the bios of Ted Olsen and David Boies.

In the AM LAW Litigation Daily they point out that the LA Times talks about the uphill battle that awaits this challenge:

The Times adds that Boies, of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and Olson, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, could have a tough battle ahead, given the many conservative judges George W. Bush appointed during his presidency. Even the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has "experienced a curtailing of its liberal orientation with Bush's seven appointments," notes the Times.

In an article by Byron York at the Washington Examiner, Ted Olsen tells York why he is involved in the case and what he would tell conservatives who object to his challenge:

"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."
I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

Politico always eager to placate the right is already snidely referring to Olsen as "the left's favorite conservative lawyer." I'm sure that this characterization of Olsen by Politico will be mild in comparison to what other conservative outlets and their friends in the establishment media will be saying. It might get real ugly.

Because this case will probably end up at the Supreme Court it raises a number of questions. Will the Court take the case or will they punt? If they do take the case and rule in favor of Boies and Olsen will this finally put an end to Republicans using gay marriage as a wedge issue in Republican politics or will they just combine their attack of gay marriage with their usual attack against "activist judges"? Will the current make-up of the Supreme Court doom this case before it even gets there? Will Ken Starr go after Ted Olsen? How will the right wing echo chamber handle having one of their own turning on them? Lots of interesting questions. This is certainly one case that should get a lot of attention.

For further updates on this case you can follow it at the American Foundation for Equal Rights FACEBOOK page.

Update: Internationaljock has a diary up at Daily Kos on this same topic. Check it out.

ATT Up to it's Old Tricks Again

2009-05-27T08:34:00.016-04:00

Photo: Mobile phone and thief

Looks like AT&T is up to it's old tricks again. This time instead of illegally helping the Bush administration wiretap it's customers, AT&T was accused in January of this year of spamming their customers with American Idol messages and more recently of helping to rig the text voting for American Idol.

LOS ANGELES — AT&T, one of the biggest corporate sponsors of “American Idol,” might have influenced the outcome of this year’s competition by providing phones for free text-messaging services and lessons in casting blocks of votes at parties organized by fans of Kris Allen, the Arkansas singer who was the winner of the show last week.

AT&T spammed a "'significant number' of its 75 million customers" yesterday with text messages advertising the premiere of American Idol. AT&T also pissed off a significant number of its 75 million customers in the process, and the company's justification for the blitz isn't exactly making AT&T sound smart when it comes to understanding what qualifies as spam.

I guess after Congress granted them immunity for helping the Bush administration with their illegal wiretapping AT&T felt that they could do anything they wanted to do without suffering any consequences.

Indeed, back in 2008 Boing Boing documented that AT&T was so unrepentent for helping the Bush administration spy on Americans and so confident that nothing would happen to them that they even ran a parody about spying on people on their billing website. I guess AT&T thought the parody was a perfect way to advertise their online billing program and at the same time thumb their nose at those who had the nerve to criticize their lawless participation in the Bush spying program.

Our establishment media never got real excited about covering AT&T's lawless behavior in helping the government spy on Americans.

Unfortunately, there has been scant coverage by MSM of the AT&T/NSA spying program and the pending court cases against it, despite the imminent threat this program and its legalization poses to communication privacy in America, and indeed to democracy itself. So why haven't the MSM given due attention to this serious threat to national security?

The answer probably lies in the ever-increasing trend toward corporate media consolidation in America. First, the MSM corporations including News Corp (FOX), General Electric (NBC), Time Warner (CNN), Viacom (CBS), and Disney (ABC) have all enjoyed joint ventures with AT&T. Since these few giant media corporations that control network news in America are driven largely by their bottom lines, they are not likely to persist in exposing a serious business partner to bad press. Consequently, such stories are played down or not covered at all.

Second, the behemoth media and telecom companies have strong monetary incentives to cooperate with the government -- such as the receipt of lucrative military defense contracts, tax breaks, and relaxed ownership and antitrust rules. For example, the recent merger of Bell South with AT&T was possible only because the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), presently chaired by Kevin Martin, a Bush appointee with close ties to the White House, approved the merger.

Maybe the allegations that they participated in a vote rigging scheme for American idol and that they spammed their customers will prove to be just too juicy for our tabloid loving establishment media to resist. Maybe this time AT&T may actually get the unwanted negative publicity that they so richly deserved for spying on their customers.

Sadly, in the upside down world that we live in today, where a man who authorized torture is given the same respect by our establishment media as that given to our president, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if AT&T suffers more negative consequences for rigging American Idol votes than they ever did for illegally spying on Americans.

Update: Looks like the establishment media is going to give AT&T another pass. They are now reporting that the vote rigging scandal is "overblown." Here is the evidence they cite to support their view that this vote rigging is overblown:

1. it was just a few "overeager" AT&T employees who brought the phones to the Kris Allen viewing parties. (it was not AT&T policy is was just a "few bad apples")

2. AT&T employees giving texting lessons at these Allen parties is no different than citizens who band together as a voting bloc. (yeah, right)

3. It was the Allen fans who went to the trouble to get AT&T at their party (they were smart enough to cheat)

4. Fox has a system to discard "power votes" (oh a system. Did the "system" work?)

5. conspiracy theorists should note that Allen's rendition of the "awful" final song outranks Lambert's fantastic rendition of Mad World on Itunes according to rankings of single downloads for May 25. (conspiracy theorists? how about AT&T employees frantically downloading to "prove" voting was not rigged?).

6. Imperfect science but Fox keeps voting as fair as possible (yeah, how?)

7. Let's put this in the rear view mirror. (let's look forward, not backward)

Wow. This sounds like a lot of the same type of comments we've heard about other "scandals."

We have a few bad apples, people accused of being conspiracy theorists, let's look foward not backward, etc. What we don't have is any evidence that AT&T didn't rig the voting.

A Memorial Day Tribute to All of Our Fallen Heroes

2009-05-25T10:20:00.019-04:00

Sailor and Girl at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington, D.C. - May - 1943

A salute to all the brave men and women in our military who fought and died in the service of our country.

May you all rest in peace. We will never forget the sacrifices you made for the rest of us.

Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal." - Anonymous

Here are two different videos where taps are played. The first video is from an old movie From Here to Eternity. While this is a fictionalized account of what happened at Pearl Harbor during WWII I always thought this scene, where Montgomery Clift's character played taps, was one of the most beautiful renditions of Taps that I've ever heard. It's a very emotional scene and I actually tear up every time I watch it.

The second video is a current video that is more of a tribute to honor all of our fallen heroes rather than just an individual salute to a specific soldier that the first video represents. I think watching both of them gives one a better sense of the full range of emotions that are present on this day.

TAPS

Day is done,

gone the sun,

From the hills,

from the lake,

From the skies.

All is well,

safely rest,

God is nigh.

Go to sleep,

peaceful sleep,

May the soldier

or sailor,

God keep.

On the land

or the deep,

Safe in sleep.

Love, good night,

Must thou go,

When the day,

And the night

Need thee so?

All is well.

Speedeth all

To their rest.

Fades the light;

And afar

Goeth day,

And the stars

Shineth bright,

Fare thee well;

Day has gone,

Night is on.

Thanks and praise,

For our days,

'Neath the sun,

Neath the stars,

'Neath the sky,

As we go,

This we know,

God is nigh.

Wash. Post Lied to Readers About Max Baucus & His Health Care Reform

2009-05-24T09:00:00.053-04:00

The Super massive Black Hole at the Center of our Galaxy

Back on May 18, 2009, Perry Bacon Jr. participated as the Washington Post's representative in their Post Politics Hour discussion. At one point during that discussion Mr. Bacon was asked about single-payer health coverage and this was his response:

Perry Bacon Jr.: The Post is not covering single-payer (like the rest of the media) because the President of the United States has repeatedly ruled it out as an option. I wrote recently about a meeting he had with some House Democrats who were pushing the issue and he again said no

So there you have it - our media corporations are censoring information crucial to the public discussion about health care reform simply because the government doesn't support it.

Whether this censorship is self-censorship by our corporate controlled media or whether it's due to government pressure is unknown. But the results are clear - rather than reporting all of the facts to the public, our establishment media is instead tailoring it's reporting to support the president's view on health care just like they've been tailoring their reporting to fit the president's view that there should be no criminal prosecutions for torture.

Today the Washington Post continues their policy of not reporting about single-payer health care. Not only didn't they mention single-payer health care in the Shailagh Murray/Ceci Connolly piece about Senator Max Baucus but because they didn't, they out and out lied to their readers about what they call "the Baucus approach to health care reform."

For Baucus, Health Care is the Issue of a Lifetime

Legislation Could Define His Career, His Party.

The Washington Post says in the above headline that health care is the issue of a lifetime for Senator Baucus. That may be, but for average Americans, the health care reform debate is not about selfishly polishing our legacy or defining our career, it's about getting quality, affordable health care where we are not at the mercy of the greedy health insurance industry. And unlike Mr. Baucus, for some Americans this truly is an issue of a lifetime - their lifetime- a lifetime that frequently gets cut short because of the greed of others. In view of the seriousness of this issue for so many average Americans it is especially galling to see the Post deliberately lie about and hide key facts in this article.

The majority of the Murray/Connolly article attempts to rehabilitate the well deserved, bad reputation that Democratic Senator, Max Baucus has earned for not supporting Democratic principles on high profile issues. Murray and Connolly actually go out of their way in their piece to give readers the impression that Senator Baucus is a western maverick who gets in trouble with his party only because he sticks up for principle and because of his strong belief in bi-partisanship. They of course fail to tell the readers that Senator Baucus is a darling of the health care insurance and pharmaceutical industries and that he has received enormous amounts of campaign donations from these players because of his strong support for their agenda - you know something that readers might want to know about when deciding whether they should believe what he says about health care reform issues.

But this omission of relevant facts about Senator Baucus' background is a small lie compared with the blatant lie told by the Post about "the Baucus approach to health care reform." That lie is truly a whopper.

For more than a year, Baucus has schooled himself -- and many on the committee -- on the daunting complexities of the U.S. health-care system, a sector that represents one-sixth of the economy. His approach has been to pull together stakeholders and hold them as long as possible; no idea is ruled out, no policy change dismissed.

This statement by Murray and Connolly that was approved for publication by the Post is just factually false. In fact, it’s a bald-faced lie. Max Baucus ruled out the idea that there should be a policy change to a single-payer system for health care before the discussion even began. Not only did he rule out the idea but he and the rest of the Committee made sure that not one representative who supported the idea of single-payer, that incidentally the majority of the public supports, would even be allowed to sit on the panel of so called “stakeholders” who testified before the Committee.

But these groups had a seat at the table:

The insurance industry was at the table.
The Business Roundtable was at the table.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce of Commerce was at the table.
Blue Cross Blue Shield was at the table.
The Hertiage Foundation was at the table
Corporate liberals like Andy Stern, Ron Pollack, and AARP were at the table.

Baucus and his Committee, like the Washington Post, were determined that the pubic would not even so much as hear about the idea of single-payer much less that the idea would be given fair consideration in the debate to reform health care.

When nurses and doctors protested this undemocratic exclusion of not having a spokesperson, who supported the single-payer view, represented on the Baucus health care reform panel the Washington Post didn’t even bother to run their own story about it. Instead they ran a small AP piece that was hostile to single-payer (they characterized it as “government run” health care) that gave very few details about what actually happened and why. And now today the Post is once again failing to inform their readers about relevant facts because of their policy not to report on single-payer.

Max Baucus excludes single-payer representatives from having a seat at the table for discussion on health care reform and instead of being challenged by the Washington Post, as he should have been, he is awarded with a puff piece by them designed to enhance his reputation because the Post sees itself not as a watchdog for the public but as a propaganda mouthpiece for the president’s “protect the insurance industry” agenda. And sadly, the Post is not alone. The majority of our establishment media are doing the exact same thing, as this study by FAIR documents.

The establishment media censorship of single-payer is more in line with the kind of propaganda we'd expect from Pravda then it is with what we'd expect from a FREE PRESS that historically prided itself on serving the democratic principle of the public's right to know. In this Washington Post piece today the readers are delibertately lied to about Max Baucus in order to continue with the Post's policy of not reporting about single-payer. For a country like the United States that fancies itself as the world's leading democracy, fully capable of spreading democracy around the world, this is an absolute disgrace.

Cross Posted at Oxdown Gazette

Update: I also found this hilarious yet depressing chat answer in another Washington Post discussion where Garance Fanke-Ruta refers a questioner from Princeton (who's asking about single-payer) to Ceci's Connolly's blog. Yeah, the very same Ceci Connolly who helped write today's Max Baucus piece where she and Murray lied about "the Baucus approach to health care reform."

Princeton, N.J.: You may think single-payer health care has no chance. But this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if the facts are not available to the people.

We see article after article on process, but never any discussion of content. Since the wealthy health insurance industry has the power to suppress the facts, we only have the media, you, to get the truth out.

Garance Franke-Ruta: Thanks for your faith in the power of the fourth estate! One good place to get more of the substance of the debate is our new Health Reform 2009 aggregating page and Ceci Connolly's Daily Dose blog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/

When Will the Cheneys Finally Admit That Waterboarding is Torture?

2009-05-22T20:27:00.020-04:00

Liz Cheney tells Norah O'Donnell that Waterboarding is Not Torture

Dick Cheney claimed in his speech yesterday that Waterboarding is Not Torture

President Obama has banned the harshest tactics that the CIA employed in the interrogation of suspected terrorists captured after 9/11, with his Justice Department labeling waterboarding, a simulated-drowning tactic used in many interrogations, as "torture."

"Torture was never permitted,"

Here's what conservative radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller says about waterboarding:

If the Cheneys can't even tell the truth about what waterboarding is, why would anyone believe them when they tell us that waterboarding and other methods of torture are essential for our protection?

Swopa has an excellent piece up at Firedoglake about waterboarding and hypocrisy that's a MUST read.

Is Mark Halperin Really The Best "Public Face" for Time Magazine?

2009-05-22T14:23:00.022-04:00

Carnival barker at the Vermont State Fair - 1941

On May 20, Time magazine's Swampland ran a piece about Nancy Pelosi called Pelosi Probably Right. In that piece the reporter, Jay Newton-Small, put to shame the establishment media's more "experienced" reporters by actually reading the statements of Porter Goss, Richard Shelby, Nancy Pelosi, Leon Panetta and Bob Graham and comparing them. You know, something anyone who knows anything about reporting would do before jumping to conclusions in order to create a narrative that agreed with their own political bias.

When Ms. Newton-Small read those statements she reported that even Porter Goss was parsing his language in his op-ed piece and was not directly contradicting Pelosi. Her conclusion after reading all of the statements was that Pelosi was probably telling the truth. Now for those of us who no longer trust our establishment media, the story in Swampland was nothing new to us. We've known about how carefully Goss chose his words in his Washington Post op-ed and we've known about how all of the statements and other evidence did not support the establishment media's narrative that assumed that Pelosi was not telling the truth. We knew it because of the wonderful reporting done by Marcy Wheeler and others that have focused on reporting facts.

What's also notable about this piece in Swampland is that Time's Mark Halperin evidently didn't bother to read the Pelosi, Graham, Goss or Shelby statements like Ms. Newton-Small did because he's been reporting this story incorrectly since it started. He also evidently doesn't read his own magazine because he appeared on the Morning Joe show the day after the piece in Swampland was reported yet he never bothered to set the record straight during the two segments on Morning Joe where Pelosi was trashed. He never mentioned the Newton-Small story that Time includes in the MUST READS section on the front page of it's website.

The day after Pelosi's initial press conference, Halperin wrote this piece in Time. Two of his three things "to watch for" were about Pelosi:

Mark Halperin's three things to watch for in politics for Friday, May 15.

1. Watch to see how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handles herself today. The press conference she had yesterday on what she knew about the government's enhanced interrogation techniques got her into more trouble, so watch to see if she's willing to answer more questions today to clear up some of the contradictions and allegations swirling around her.

2. Watch to see how people around Pelosi treat her. See what liberal bloggers, her constituents, the White House, Republicans and Democrats say about her today and whether there seems to be a strong sense that she's really in trouble. In particular, watch to see whether any prominent Democrats raise questions about her credibility on the briefings and in general. (Halperin reported on plenty of Republican comments, a few comments by a select group of Democrats, the WH, no liberal bloggers, no constituents).

Mr. Halperin never revised his "things to watch for" on Pelosi (like whether maybe Pelosi was truthful) and he obviously never reported what liberal bloggers were saying or he would have reported what Newton-Small reported even earlier than she did. Halperin started out with the premise that Nancy Pelosi was in trouble on this issue because he assumed she did not tell the truth and that's how he's covered it, both on Morning Joe and at Time. It's clear from his "reporting" that he never changed his initial narrative and when facts were reported that supported Pelosi's comments he just didn't report them because they didn't fit his narrative. He was evidently more concerned with selling entertainment and a political view than he was in reporting all the facts so that readers and viewers could make an informed decision about the story. Here are the pieces he did for Time since he laid out his narrative, beginning with the most recent one that he reported on today that shows that even two days after the Newton-Small piece in Time he's still ignoring the facts she laid out and is still working off his "narrative."

Stonewall

House Dems Shut Calls for Pelosi Probe

Potus Praises Pelosi

Speakers Brawl

Penn to Pelosi: "Close the Door" on CIA Controversy

Boehner: Pelosi Needs to Come Clean

Pelosi Wants to Move Forward

Panetta: CIA Didn't Lie

Pelosi Newted

What Now?

Pelosi on Waterboarding: CIA Misled Me

Thank goodness Ms. Newton-Small doesn't use the Mark Halperin method of reporting. Rather than creating a narrative about Pelosi and then reporting on what fits the narrative, she reported on the facts in her story (substance) even if they led in a direction that contradicted the widely used faux narrative of people like Halperin.

Maybe Time magazine needs to question the wisdom of lending Mr. Halperin to Morning Joe in light of the fact that he's not a very good emissary for the magazine. His bias and sloppy work is being noticed by average Americans and that certainly won't help Time's image. Maybe Time needs to place Mr. Halperin on a shorter leash so that instead of making TV appearances where he can yuck it up with his buddies he can have more time to sharpen his basic reporting skills. Maybe they can have him sit with his colleague, Jay Newton-Small, and let her educate him about basic reporting that he's either evidently forgotten or never learned in the first place. Or better yet, why don't they hire Marcy Wheeler to replace Mark Halperin. She's obviously a much better reporter on her worst day than Halperin is on his best.

Here are two videos from Thursday's Morning Joe show where Nancy Pelosi was repeatedly trashed yet Halperin never mentioned the facts laid out in the Newton-Small piece.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'll continue to watch for Halperin's appearances on Morning Joe to see if he ever sets the record straight on the Pelosi story or if he sticks to his "narrative," come hell or high water.

Media Presents False Choice: Protecting Americans vs. Protecting American Values

2009-05-21T12:56:00.009-04:00

Here is the video from today's Obama speech.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And Cheney's speech.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And of course, Liz Cheney's spin on both speeches

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On CNN, Kyra Phillips sets up the discussion of these two speeches as:

Protecting Americans vs. Protecting American Values.

This is a false choice and the establishment media has been relentless in pushing it. They should be totally ashamed of themselves for pushing Republican talking points instead of reporting facts.

I will post my thoughts on these two speeches and how the media covers them within the next day or two.

Whose in Charge at the DOJ - The President or the Attorney General?

2009-05-20T21:40:00.025-04:00

Michael Issikoff reported on the Rachel Maddow show tonight some really discouraging things about a meeting that Obama held today with Human Rights and Civil Liberties groups. I was especially dismayed to hear about Obama's hostility to any suggestion that there be legal accountability for torture. It was even more disturbing to hear that Obama and not AG Holder may be the one who is determining who to prosecute or NOT prosecute when it comes to torture. We already had political interference at the Justice Department during the Bush era, we don't need it to happen again in an Obama administration.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here are some other reports about the meeting:

Sam Stein at Huffington Post

"In an interview with the Huffington Post, Massimino detailed what she described as a "lively and detailed and serious" discussion on some of the days most vexing national security issues. Over the course of roughly an hour and fifteen minutes, Obama, along with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Attorney General Eric Holder, advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, foreign policy hand Dennis McDonough, and counter-terrorism chief John Brennan, held court with a group of academics, as well as officials with the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Asked whether the president had pacified some of the concerns she brought to the White House on Wednesday, Massimino said that she was pleased with the opportunity for engagement. Beyond that, she still registered concerns."I think that many of us were disappointed by the announcement about the military commissions and wondered what the reasoning was behind that. And to be honest, I am still wondering having been in this meeting today. I don't think that this fits the overall framework that the president had articulated about using our values to reinforce a counter terrorism strategy against al Qaeda."

From the AP Story

An official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to disclose the decision, told The Associated Press the administration has decided to bring Ghailani to trial in New York. He was indicted there for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa _ attacks that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

It was not immediately clear when the transfer would occur.Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was categorized as a high-value detainee by U.S. authorities after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and transferred to the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba two years later.

This from CBS:

The meeting was supposed to be entirely off the record, but after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs vaguely mentioned it in his daily briefing, some attendees felt betrayed and then began to speak about it.

The Weekly Standard Rubs It In

Obama Engages in Pre-Speech Placation of Human-Rights Groups

"So, um, guys..Really, I meant to call before now."

I imagine this meeting felt like the first post-break-up coffee with an embittered ex. It's Obama's unpleasant duty to lie to them, let them yell, and validate their feelings. It's their place to yell, feel momentarily assured, and walk away knowing deep down inside that he doesn't really care about them anymore. Oh, the angst! The melodrama! The cold, neglected, half-drunk latte that symbolizes the lost passion.

The Washington Post didn't have a stand alone story about the meeting but they did discuss it in this story:

Obama yesterday invited to the White House leaders of about a dozen human and civil rights organizations as well as law professors. Administration participants in the 90-minute session included Holder, White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Several participants discussed the meeting on the condition of anonymity. One said Obama argued that there was no trade-off between American values and national security, but that GOP demagoguery in Congress was dominating the issue. Another said Obama seemed irritated that some of those who attended the meeting had recently compared his policies to those of Bush.

Anthony D. Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has used that comparison, declined to discuss what Obama said but in an interview after the meeting repeated the comparison.

"President Obama's decision to continue George Bush's policies essentially means that they become his own," Romero said. "And if he continues down this path, these policies will certainly become known in the history books as the Bush-Obama doctrine." Romero described the discussion as "freewheeling" and said Obama was "clearly deeply steeped in the issues. But he had little interest in revisiting his recent decisions."

The New York Times is also reporting on the meeting:

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about “the long game” — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

There was also this about Eric Holder in the Washington Independent:

In a keynote speech at the opening of the West Point Military Academy’s Center for the Rule of Law last night, Attorney General Eric Holder made a point of breaking with the Bush administration by affirming the United States’ commitment to international law and acknowledging that the United States has not always lived up to those legal commitments. But even as he extolled the the military officials who’ve stood up for the rule of law, he carefully avoided mentioning the controversial legal policies initiated by the Bush administration that his own Justice Department continues to support. And he failed to explain how the Obama administration can credibly claim to uphold the rule of law when it refuses to investigate the most egregious legal violations by its predecessor

Holder is now under great pressure to restore the law-abiding reputation that the United States lost during the Bush years. Whether he can do that will rest in part on how he responds to the Bush administration’s torture and abuse of detainees – all clear violations of domestic and international law. So far, he has skirted the issue, although he’s consistently claimed that “no one is above the law.”

One test will come Thursday, when the Department of Justice faces a court deadline to produce three controversial memos prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration that reportedly provided legal justification for its harshest interrogation policies. If those legal justifications are flimsy, as is widely expected, they could serve as additional evidence of unethical and illegal conduct by the department. Previous OLC memos justifying extraordinary executive power, torture of prisoners and the suspension of the Bill of Rights during wartime have been harshly criticized, even by former Bush officials.

I don't usually read Maureen Dowd's column but the title of this one, Cheney Grabs a Third Term, intrigued me so I took a peek. How sad for all of us, Dowd is unfortunately spot on about Obama in her column and the reporting on the off the record meeting with Obama doesn't change that perception, sadly it only enhances it. I hope Dowd and the disappointing comments we're hearing about the meeting are wrong but I fear the worst.

“You’re running national security now and everyone knows it,” Rummy says. “You got Obama to do an about-face on the torture photos. He’s using our old line about how it would endanger the troops. He’s keeping our military tribunals. His Justice Department invoked our state secrets privilege to try to get that lawsuit on torture and rendition dismissed. He’s trying to stop any sort of truth commission, thank goodness. He’s got his own surge going in Afghanistan. He’s withdrawing from Iraq more slowly. He’s extended our secret incursions over the Afghan border into Pakistan.

”Dick smiles on one side of his face. “Transparency bites,” he snarls.

“By golly, yes,” Rummy says. “We controlled Junior by playing on his fear of looking like a wimp just as his dad did. And now we’re controlling Boy Wonder by playing on his eagerness to show that the Democrats are tough on national security. He’s a sucker for four-star generals, can’t resist anyone in uniform. Petraeus and Odierno speak and he jumps. If we want to roll him, we just send in the military brass flashing their medals.”

Update: Here is the Michael Issikoff piece from Newsweek.

Chris Matthew's View on Guantanamo Prisoners: "Why Don't We Just Execute Them"

2009-05-20T20:00:00.007-04:00

Have you no shame, Chris Matthews?

How could you even think something so totally disgusting, much less say it on national television? Do you actually believe that we have a right to execute people just because we consider them dangerous? What's wrong with you? What makes you think that you can treat any human being, even a terrorist, as sub-human ?

Are you so afraid of terrorists that you actually believe the fear mongering used by a bunch of cynical Washington politicians who are obviously using the closing of Guantanamo for their own political purposes?

Shame on you for even suggesting this morally repugnant idea.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Morning Propaganda - Courtesy of Morning Joe

2009-05-19T11:42:00.013-04:00

Joe Scarborough and Rudy Guilliani tried their best on yesterday's Morning Joe show to advance a "new" argument to defend torture. For this argument they reached back in time to the 1980s to tell the viewers that the same people who wanted to "coddle" criminals in the 1980s and 1990s are the very same people who are now obsessed with the rights of terrorists and not the rights of Americans. But evidently Scarborough and Guilliani didn't tell Carlos Watson that this was the theme for the segment because Watson jumps into the conversation and disagrees with them. He points out that their argument is overly simplistic and he also commits the cardinal sin of challenging the effectiveness of torture. Now anyone who has watched Morning Joe knows that you don't challenge the view of the grand PooBah, Joe Scarborough, on the effectiveness of torture or you suffer the consequences. In this case the consequence was immediate. Watson was treated to a vicious attack by Joe Scarborough because Watson had the temerity to challenge Joe's view that torture works.

I've got to stop you right there. How do you dare come on this set and say it's not effective. That's just not the truth and if you have any evidence that it is not effective let me know right now.

This bullying technique that is so often used by Scarborough when anyone disagrees with him causes the insecure and easily malleable Watson to back down a bit and he ends up partially agreeing with Scarborough that torture may be effective. Watson then tries to stand up again by saying that we don't know the answer to the question about whether waterboarding is effective to which Scarborough snarls:

Actually I do know the answer and America will know the answer when the documents are declassified. I DO know the answer to that question.

Now how is Scarborough so cock sure of himself about whether torture works? He gives us a clue about a possible source for his information about the effectiveness of torture in another comment in the video:

I've talked with some past CIA directors who agree that the ticking time bomb scenario is actually easier to handle than what the CIA handled on Sept. 12.

I see, the very people who have dirty hands over torture are the ones who are using the eager Scarborough as their mouthpiece to disseminate the view that torture works.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Because Carlos Watson injected some truth into the discussion he ruined the planned narrative of the day so Scarborough and Guilliani were forced to revert to Plan B to defend torture.

Joe Scarborough, like most of our torture apologists in the media, won't talk directly about Ali Soufan's testimony but it's obvious from watching the discussion on Morning Joe from yesterday that he realizes that Soufan's testimony put a BIG hole in the "torture works" narrative that he and other like him have been shoveling out to viewers. Listen to the ridiculous conversation between Scarborough and Guilliani where they both try to get around Soufan's devastating testimony without mentioning the actual testimony. They try to pretend that the actionable intelligence that Soufan and others in the FBI obtained without torturing was somehow inferior to what the CIA got through torture. Of course they present no evidence for their statements just bombast and delusional theories that are totally illogical.

Guilliani: Frankly waterboarding or extreme measures of interrogation are more effective for future oriented information than they are for past (Mika says "right") oriented info because you can more easily lie about what happened in the past.

Scarborough: ...terrorists love talking about what they did (Mika chimes in "exactly"), they take great pride in it that's why FBI briefers can find out what happened in the past.

Guilliani: It's easier to lie about the past. ..it's much more ambiguous than the future. It's easier to lie about the past. The future is going to happen. There are two terrorists - one knows about the past the other one knows about the future. The one that knows about the past will tell me what he thinks I want to hear. The one that knows about the future can't tell me what he thinks I want to hear because if he tells it to me wrong the next day or day after I have immediate verification of that and I'm gonna go back at him with those same techniques. It is much more reliable because it much more verifiable when you're dealing with future information. My contention about waterboarding is not that it should be a method that we use generally or regularly I just don't like taking the method away completely from the arsenal of the CIA and all the rest of the agencies.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

We've known for decades that information obtained through torture is notoriously unreliable.

STATEMENT BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY E. SOYSTER, USA (Ret.),
FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA), 1988-91"

Experienced military and intelligence professionals know that torture, in addition to being illegal and immoral, is an unreliable means of extracting information from prisoners...

...There are always those who, whether out of fear or inexperience, rush to push the panic button instead of relying on what we know works best and most reliably in these situations.

We've known this and yet Guilliani actually advocates that regular techniques are fine for things that happen in the past but you have to use torture for things that may happen in the future because it's easier to lie about what happens in the past. Say what? He then makes the illogical argument that a prisoner will tell you what you want to hear about past events but if he lies about a future event while being tortured you can get immediate verification the next day or the day after and repeat the torture. Immediate verification? Nonsense. He says that using torture, which gives notoriously unreliable information, makes it easier to verify statements.

Quite frankly what Guilliani says in this video has to be one of the silliest things I've heard yet from torture supporters.

Guilliani even resorts to misleading viewers about torture being used for recruiting. He tells viewers that he's been involved with terrorist investigations since the 1960s and he's never heard a terrorist say he was recruited because of torture. What he doesn't tell viewers is that he was not involved in any terrorist investigations after it was revealed to the world that we tortured. So of course he didn't hear from any terrorist that they joined up because of torture.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Unlike Guilliani, Matthew Alexander was involved in interrogating prisoners after the world found out we tortured our prisoners. Here's what he says about using torture as a recruiting tool:

Former VP Dick Cheney has requested the release of additional memos showing that torture and abuse saved American lives by preventing terrorist attacks. If the Obama administration decides to release these memos, then I suggest they also release statistics from Iraq showing the number of foreign fighters that were recruited because of our policy of torture and abuse. It was tracked. I know because I saw the slides and because I heard captured foreign fighters state this day in and day out. The government can also release the statistics that show that 90% of suicide bombers in Iraq were these same foreign fighters. These foreign fighters killed hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers.

This is Alexander's bio:

Matthew Alexander spent fourteen years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. An “investigator turned interrogator”, he deployed to Iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.

Washington Post Withholds Critical Info from their Pelosi/CIA Reporting

2009-05-18T14:06:00.030-04:00

Over the weekend the Washington Post went on a full scale attack against Nancy Pelosi. Almost all of their Pelosi news stories, analysis pieces or opinion columns were highly critical of Pelosi and some of the pieces all but called her a liar.

What you didn't see mentioned in any of the Washington Post pieces from Friday to Monday, however, was that Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to Congress was supported by former CIA Deputy Inspector General, Mary McCarthy, who made the same claim to the Washington Post back in 2006. McCarthy was a key source for the Post's Pulitizer Prize winning series by Dana Priest on the CIA Black sites.

Fired Officer Believed CIA Lied to Congress
Friends Say McCarthy Learned of Denials About Detainees' Treatment

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, May 14, 2006; A01

snip

That CIA officer was Mary O. McCarthy, 61, who was fired on April 20 for allegedly sharing classified information with journalists, including Washington Post journalist Dana Priest. A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that "CIA people had lied" in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading.

snip

Whether McCarthy's conviction that the CIA was hiding unpleasant truths provoked her to leak sensitive information is known only to her and the journalists she is alleged to have spoken with last year. But the picture of her that emerges from interviews with more than a dozen former colleagues is of an independent-minded analyst who became convinced that on multiple occasions the agency had not given accurate or complete information to its congressional overseers.

snip

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat.
McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel had worked to secure a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency's creation of "ghost detainees" -- prisoners removed from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross -- because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices.

While the 2006 article doesn't specifically mention the 2002 briefings, the fact that you have a former CIA Deputy Inspector General who is accusing the CIA of lying to Congress in briefings should certainly make what Nancy Pelosi said about the CIA misleading Congress much more credible.

Ms. McCarthy was a source for the Post's Pulitizer Prize winning series on the CIA Black sites and yet no one at the Post who wrote a story or column this weekend bothered to report on this earlier story that confirmed what Pelosi was saying? Why not?

Instead of telling readers that both Pelosi and this former CIA official claimed that the CIA lied to Congress the Post instead wrote pieces this weekend that tried to paint Pelosi as a liar and the CIA as the truth tellers. Why?

We had a story by Paul Kane where he made this statement:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday charged the CIA with knowingly misleading members of Congress about the interrogation practices, even as she acknowledged for the first time that she learned six years ago that waterboarding was being used on detainees.

While Kane's piece is the most balanced of all the Post's reporting this weekend, this statement is misleading at best. In an AP story appearing in the Post the same day, Julie Hirschfeld Davis documents that Pelosi told reporters back in 2007 that she found out in 2003 that Jane Harman had been briefed that the enhanced interrogation techniques were being used. Kane is either playing word games to claim that Pelosi only said this for the first time in 2009 because Pelosi didn't specifically say "waterboarding" in 2007 and only said "enhanced interrogation techniques" or he just got it wrong. By the way because Bush didn't admit to using waterboarding until 2008 Pelosi would not have been able to divulge the name of the specific technique of waterboarding back in 2007. She would have had to use the words enhanced interrogation techniques to describe it. Evidently Mr. Kane never read Ms. Davis' piece in the Post because he never corrected his own piece.

Dec. 9, 2007: Pelosi, now the House's speaker, first publicly acknowledges having been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques in 2002 and learning in 2003 of their use. Responding to a news report that said Pelosi was among top lawmakers who had been briefed in 2002 about waterboarding, she issues a statement saying she had been briefed once in 2002 "on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future," and told that Bush's team "had concluded that the techniques were legal." She also acknowledges learning in 2003 that Harman had been briefed that "the techniques had in fact been employed." She references Harman's letter of objection and says it was "a protest with which I concurred."
May 14, 2009: Pelosi herself says for the first time that she was specifically told in 2002 that waterboarding had not been used, and accuses the CIA of misleading her and the Congress. She also confirms that she learned of its use in February 2003. CIA Spokesman George Little says the CIA's description of Pelosi's briefing was "true to the language in the agency's records," adding, "It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the United States Congress."

On the same day as the Kane and Davis pieces appeared in the Post we also had an "analysis" piece by Dan Balz. Mr. Balz starts out his piece by giving only two reasons for Nancy Pelosi holding her press conference and both of the reasons he gave were negative. Mr. Balz evidently never considered the fact that she might want to set the record straight instead of having the media get it wrong, again.

Pelosi's performance in the Capitol was either a calculated escalation of a long-running feud with the Bush administration or a reckless act by a politician whose word had been called into question. Perhaps it was both.

Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, despite the press conference she gave the media is still getting it wrong. Mr. Balz joined Mr. Kane in misrepresenting the facts. This is what he says about her statement:

For the first time, Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged that in 2003 she was informed by an aide that the CIA had told others in Congress that officials had used waterboarding during interrogations.

Now while Mr. Balz is technically correct that this is the first time we knew that it was an "aide" who told Nancy Pelosi in 2003 that the CIA had briefed others that waterboarding had been used, this is not the first time that Pelosi said she knew that harsh interrogation techniques had been used. Mr. Balz, like Mr. Kane, didn't report the 2007 Pelosi statement. Because he didn't report it he gives readers the false impression that Pelosi is somehow changing her story, when she isn't. Indeed, Mr. Balz even accuses her of giving shifting accounts.

The speaker's charges about the CIA's alleged deception and her shifting accounts of what she knew and when she knew it are likely to add to calls for some kind of independent body to investigate this supercharged issue, though Obama and many members of Congress would like to avoid a wholesale unearthing of the past at a time when their plates are full with pressing concerns.

Dan Balz also made this bizarre statement:

But in attempting to defend herself, Pelosi took the remarkable step of trying to shift the focus of blame to the CIA and the Bush administration, claiming that the CIA accounts represented a diversionary tactic in the real debate over the interrogation policies.

There is nothing remarkable here except for Dan Balz calling it remarkable. What the GOP, CIA and establishment media are doing to Pelosi IS a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the Bush administration and the CIA, who were up to their necks in torture, and try to make the conversation about what Pelosi may or may not have known. Nancy Pelosi is not the one shifting the blame she is merely trying to return the blame where it rightfully belongs before it was incorrectly shifted to her. While knowing what Congress knew is important, it is not more important than knowing who created, authorized and ran the torture program.

Balz closes out his piece ignoring Pelosi's 2007 statement again.

Pelosi is not out of the woods. She could have saved herself some trouble by admitting earlier that she had been informed that the CIA was using waterboarding. (you mean like she did in 2007?).

There were a number of other pieces in the Post over the weekend that were highly critical of Pelosi. There were two AP analysis pieces that were both skeptical of Pelosi's version of the briefing. You had several commentary pieces that were scathing in their criticism of Pelosi's truthfulness. Here's one comment from a David Ignatius piece

If you read the CIA's careful 10-page summary of the 40 briefings it has given to Congress since 2002 on "enhanced interrogation techniques," it's pretty hard not to conclude that Pelosi is shading the truth to retrospectively cover her backside.

Whether by design or accident, the Washington Post left out key information (Pelosi's 2007 statement, comments by Senators Graham, Goss & Rockefeller and CIA deputy IG McCarthy's accusations about CIA lying in their briefings to Congress) from their multiple pieces about Pelosi this weekend that the readers deserve to know about. The Post also has a duty to explain to it's readers why this happened and to set the record straight or we might begin to believe that this is a deliberate CIA misinformation campaign, similiar to what happened to Barry Goldwater back in 1984, only this time instead of the New York Times being used to disseminate the disinformation, it's the Washington Post.

Update: Emptywheel also critiques the Washington Post's Pelosi coverage

Update 2: Battochio has an excellent piece up at Vagabond Scholar: Torture Versus Freedom