A distressed friend posted a Facebook comment that the GOP changed around 2014, perhaps the last straw for her. After some reflection, I posted the following thoughts of my own …
742 total views, no views today
A distressed friend posted a Facebook comment that the GOP changed around 2014, perhaps the last straw for her. After some reflection, I posted the following thoughts of my own …
742 total views, no views today
Fox News, The National Review, and Rush Limbaugh all say The Khorasan group doesn’t exist. Most right wing commentators tell us this is further proof the Obama Administration lied, just to justify, Bush-style, the anti-ISIS air war over Iraq and Syria.
I saw a Facebook newspaper scan purporting to be from a Canadian journalist, but I couldn’t find it again when I went back to look for it. It said and suggested the same thing.
They’re pimping opinion from more respected sources.
Glen Greenwald says the media vastly over-hyped this. “Literally within a matter of days, we went from “perhaps in its final stages of planning its attack” (CNN) to “plotting as ‘aspirational’” and “there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works” (NYT).”
Al Jazeera, which employs reporters who are actually very smart, says “Something about the name Khorasan, which the US says is a group of al-Qaeda veterans, doesn’t feel right.” They had contacts, whom they couldn’t name either of course, who said “Khorasan? I don’t know that name. I don’t know who they are.”
Writing for Yahoo, Kaye Foley said “It is a small network of an estimated 50 or so al-Qaida veterans who set up shop in Syria, benefiting from the cover of civil war and the protection of the Syrian al-Qaida affiliate al-Nusra Front. Although the group was brought to public attention in the past week, Attorney General Eric Holder said in an exclusive interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric the U.S. has been watching Khorasan for two years.”
Even the Administration seems to be downplaying early claims US fighter planes severely crippled a “Khorasan Group” cell operating in the region. It seems a group, actually calling itself “Khorasan,” may not even exist.
What further proof do we need, you say? Ask yourself first: what do we really know?
None of the partisan news sources above have cited their sources, if they have any, or disclosed any documentation to substantiate their claims, on either side. So the attacks from the right and the antiwar left are speculative.
No one doubts that Al Qaeda has attacked the United States before and would like to try it again. We also know there are hundreds of Al Qaeda splinter groups, including ISIS. ISIS was disowned because it refused to follow orders of the Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahir, currently trying to muster the parent group.
“The Khorasan Region” may refer to an ancient historical area including Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Pakistan, or to a military terrorist area of current interest in Syria.
If Al Qaeda is operating a secret group in the Khorasan region – “DUH” – and if national or international security agencies have identified a specific threat, and that splinter group does not have a name, “Khorasan Group” would be a logical working name for US intelligence services to specifically identify that group of interest.
Why would that secret group, if it exists, keep its identity and existence secret? – “DUH!”
But neither our security forces nor the US Administration can afford to reveal their sources without compromising intelligence “assets.” There will be no hard intelligence sources outside the intelligence community, and they cannot reveal that. I think everyone, left and right, understands that.
I conclude no civilian sources have any bona-fide hard intelligence and aren’t likely to get any. The US intelligence services and top level Administration may have it, but they’re not likely to say so.
Media hype, yes. Fox News and right-wing partisanship, yes. Any hit against Al Qaeda is a good hit. As for the rest of the hype, for the rest of us, we may never know.
869 total views, no views today
Just when we thought the HHS “Contraceptive Kerfuffle” was resolved! So-called “social conservatives” from the religious right are attempting to hijack the issue from the Catholic Bishops to put a two-pronged political and religious spin on it.
Well, Catholics having been somewhat mollified, we should have been able to predict this would only prompt the religious right “social conservatives” to step in where Bishops care not to tread. Brooks explained the religious right would be opposed to any aspect of the HHS bill anyway, since the original proposal concretized their claim that the whole “Obamacare” program is an unwarranted government intrusion upon their religious freedom, not to mention the untouchable private sector.
As we’d expect from any religion-driven political movement, this is partly political and partly because in the view of the religious right, reproductive preventative services of any kind are a violation of the word of the Creator who blessed only their interpretation of our founding state papers. We only need a Supreme Court to rubber-stamp doctrinaire edicts from the great pulpit on high. The constitutional separation of church and state is being broken down, piece by piece.
In other words, in the “social conservative” view, religious freedom must trump personal freedom of choice every time. In that view, religious freedom requires an imperative to impose upon others sharia, i.e. religious law, by force of political legislation. Never mind that this is unconstitutional in the United States.
Do you want fries with that? Did you know that the very organization which aggressively defames gays and lesbians has its own anti-defamation league? The irony is that we find freedom of speech and religion being used here as a tool to silence personal liberty. See:
566 total views, 1 views today
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.”
— The Walrus and The Carpenter, Lewis Carroll
How long will our existing two-party system last? What do the parties really stand for? When will elected officials stop governing on the one-way, top-down model? Everybody wants to know, and no one has the answers. All we can do here is look at the one party that continues to change and surprise, even if those come as unpleasant surprises to so many of us. What’s going on?
Republicans are scrambling to find someone articulate enough to stand up to Barack Obama in debate, yet look good wearing the party’s ultraconservative new clothes. Gingrich has a tarnished past and is viewed as somewhat volatile and unpredictable, but he can certainly handle debate. Ron Paul by all accounts would have been viewed as a crackpot only a few short years ago, and the more you look at his platform and ask the question “so how would this work?” the more dubious it looks.
But Ron Paul has an unaccountably strong following. Why? Ron Paul is articulate; he can explain things all of the other candidates fumble, even though they are generally all sipping from the same slipper. Why is only Ron Paul giving answers that seem to make sense to the Republican base, even if they only make sense when we don’t ask what would happen next?
Ron Paul has been called the “godfather of libertarianism.” How did we get from a fringe backwater political philosophy to a serious national candidacy?
This isn’t the forum to discuss libertarianism, a generalized political philosophy with 18th century roots which anchors the individual (not governments) as the unit of all social transactions, advocates minimization of government, prohibits the use of force in settling disputes, and usually has a strong platform on individual rights. A “free market” is viewed not just as an adjunct to those principles, but as indispensably rooted in them. In the U.S., libertarianism is more apt to affiliate with “right wing” policy, where in Europe one may still see variants such as “libertarian socialism.”
The old-time U.S. Libertarian Party never expected to win popular acceptance, so they didn’t have any identifiable next-step plan in the event that should ever happen. What seems odd is that, under the present success of the Paul candidacy, which may properly be regarded as a huge and unexpected popularity boost for the libertarian philosophy, they still don’t.
Over the years I’ve come to see how nations succeed by creating a culture and environment that brings all their citizenry into the participatory fold. Nations that leave their children under-educated, create exclusionary castes, shelter their elite classes, and cut loose their middle classes are, historically, nations on their way out. As corporations use to spout, “people are our most important asset.” What conservatives have forgotten in the past 50 years is that squandering people is not like squandering money. You cannot simply go out and get more. The just society is also the most efficient when everybody is a player. And efficiency is exactly what capitalism was supposed to be all about, was it not?
2012 is the first election year in memory when we the electorate could actually really use a primer to better understand some of the libertarian political tenets. First, we’ll survey some snippets of libertarian ideology. Afterwards, we’ll sample some of what Paul would like to do to implement them.
In 2012 we’ll face another contest between the two main US political parties. The Democratic Party seems to be the last safe haven for the moderate, leaving the old-school liberal in a kerfuffle. The Republican Party is the new, mean, aggressive soldier force for corporate America and the wealthy. Many people who are neither corporate not wealthy still believe this is a good cause that will trickle down for the rest of us.
Ron Paul breaks the mold.
This means, uh-oh doodie, talking about the last vestiges of capitalism’s theoretical underpinnings, as preserved through the dark ages of participatory democracy by the high priests of old Ayn Rand style libertarianism. That would be Ron Paul if it were anyone. Paul is the one candidate who most closely explains most platform positions of all the others, because he appears to be the only one who understands the theory, and he’s the only one advocating it. Continue reading
740 total views, 1 views today
And finally, the party that has a political take on everything. Where is the Tea Party in the wake of Hurricane Irene?
Well, in the St. Petersburg Times article “Michele Bachmann rally draws over 1,000 in Sarasota, but some prefer Rick Perry” we’re hearing from a couple of their candidates:
“I spoke to Rick Perry Thursday night,” said Wes Maddox, a GOP activist in Tampa who went to Texas A&M with Perry, who is expected to make his first Florida stop Sept. 13 in Tampa Bay. “He said, ‘You tell them (in Florida) help is on the way.’ That’s what the governor’s message is – help is on the way.”
And according to the same source, Michele Bachmann said:
“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”
How fatuous. Does Bachmann really think God has joined her Tea Party to intervene in partisan politics? If so, doesn’t that make her Tea Party The Party of God? How ironic she’d paint their god as an obsessive-compulsive klepto.
Millions of Americans who have paid into the Social Security fund their entire working lifetimes were angered to hear this new breed of political opportunist call Social Security benefits “entitlements.” That was just a warning shot across our bow.
Where is the consistency in a Tea Party that mocks the working class, our once and former middle class, with taunts of “entitlement?” Millions of unemployed and displaced were ruined by the ongoing global financial hurricane, itself spawned by corporate carpetbaggers masquerading as “free enterprisers.” Newly poor Americans may soon find themselves in the ranks of the chronically unemployable and dispossessed. They will be dependent wards of the welfare state that those carpetbaggers, who helped create the very conditions that fuel the poverty/welfare cycle, detest. Those Americans might be surprised to hear themselves called welfare cheats and social parasites.
Who is next? When do we get to hear Tea Party rants about “entitlements” for the victims of Irene, Katrina, mine disasters, victims of wacko shootings, and other “nanny state parasites?”
Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breath free … if “help is on the way,” as Perry, who as governor of Texas lacks jurisdiction over the Eastern Seaboard, was said to promise: let the Almighty sweep the carpetbaggers out to sea like cockroaches in a storm drain. In the long run, marginalizing our fellow citizens with outsourcing, corporate mismanagement and rampant corruption, toxic assets and Bernie Madoff style investment schemes, all the while painting us as bloodsucking socialist parasites, just won’t cut it. Heed the roar of reality. “Arab Spring” won’t begin to cover the revolt.
393 total views, no views today
In another century and simpler time (1999) I wrote my signature article about the Kansas Board of Education (KBOE) — dissecting our massive modern schism between science and biblical literalism. We didn’t even have the term “science denial” in those comparatively innocent days.
Darwin’s world of science clashes once again with the recidivist views of those who would turn the pages of the world body of knowledge back to the Roman Catholic Inquisition of 1615. That nearly executed Galileo for heliocentric blasphemy.
How have we fared since? We deplore all sorts of agenda-driven rhetoric when the source is the Taliban extremism of Mideastern Islamic fatwas. We somehow condone it as just another opinion if it comes from Christian fundamentalism and Holy Roller biblical literalism.
American regional sectarianism is celebrated with equal parts amusement and proof of our rich cultural tradition of diversity and tolerance, but no one so far has seriously suggested the private religious beliefs of one or more of those regional cults should drive national government policy.
Nor has anyone yet seriously challenged Thomas Jefferson who wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” [Wikipedia]
Libertarians preach that “this kind of [science-oriented] government interference is intolerable”, yet their evangelical supporters have brought interference in education and dumbing-down of our children to a whole new level.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously quipped “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” He’s currently enjoying a well-deserved revival.
As commentators in science, media and education note with alarm, we find GOP frontrunner candidates Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann on record as questioning both global warming and evolution itself. Evangelical Texas governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry told a school child on national TV that evolution was a theory that has “got some gaps.” So as to avoid conveying the false impression that Texas encourages the same science education that propelled America into the post-Sputnik Age of the 1950’s, he claims schoolchildren there are taught both “theories” as if both have equal credibility. There’s grave danger that science denial will actually storm through the doors of the White House in 2012.
The respected conservative Dr. Charles Krauthammer (a political commentator and Harvard-trained physician presumably well grounded in science) stated yesterday on Inside Washington that Global Warming has to be looked at seriously, but is still a theory. Qualifying that, he explained that man-made CO2 injection into the atmosphere is geologically unprecedented, but Earth has self-healing counter-mechanisms such as carbon sequestration (all true enough) … so we should look at the phenomenon more carefully before investing trillions in greener energy resources.
“I’m perturbed when I hear Republicans talk about Evolution as a theory like Keynesian economics,” Krauthammer says. Scientists say “it’s so” of global warming and Krauthammer says “it probably is,” but he questions the scientific models predicting the scope and intensity of potential disaster.
That may work in practice, but it won’t hold up in theory.
To the anti-science Republican Party that invented the “if it walks like a duck” theory of fact validation, it would seem the “it’s just a theory” dismissal of global warming would be more plausible if the polar cap were icing over, the Northwest Passage refroze, polar bears were thriving on an ice floe paradise, ocean levels were dropping, air quality was as good as Mauna Kea’s globally, and Phoenix was hitting summertime highs of 86.
In a bizarrely dangerous reversal of separation of church and state, science education is now politicized to a degree that wouldn’t have been tolerated a decade ago or two. Covering this epidemic was this morning’s PBS “Need to Know,” which presented a short section on the herculean effort of the Texas Board of Education (SBOE) to rewrite history and science in the Texas classroom.
Episode #168H Duration: 56:46 STEREO
TEXAS TEXTBOOKS – Despite Governor Perry’s statement that Texas schools teach evolution and creationism, Texas recently voted not to add creationism or intelligent design to its science texts. But the actions of the state’s school board continue to be closely watched by the nation. NTK caught up with the Board last May, as it was considering changes to be made in its social studies curriculum – changes that critics said inserted politics and religious beliefs into textbooks. Shot in Austin, Mt Pleasant and Bryan Texas. Interviews include Don McLeroy (SBOE), Thomas Raitliff (SBOE), and Kathy Miller (TX Freedom Network).
For anyone who has followed science denial for the last decade, there is little new in the theory of revisionism here, but the level of micro-management has escalated in the choice of religiously “correct” science and history and even in the choice of English textbook words used to describe those studies.
For example, SBOE members objected to the frequent textbook use of the word “propaganda” to describe U.S. Government efforts to rally public support for the World War I and II war efforts. To them, “propaganda” only connotes the sort of lies the bad guys promoted in wartime Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union, or anything President Obama says. The SBOE voted to substitute a neutral word like “public information” in Texas history books.
PROPAGANDA: Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect. — Dictionary.com
“Propaganda” is also used to educate about the need for rationing, conservation, job creation and other vital public concerns. It is a legitimate dictionary word with a rich historical backdrop. In point of fact, a government information campaign to “Buy War Bonds” is propaganda whether we approve or not. As for the negative connotation of the word, maybe it hits too close to home. That is exactly what the SBOE is doing, and it must be stopped.
612 total views, no views today
If the noises heard from the far fringe right all sound like something we’ve heard before, there’s a reason why, but the reason is older than many who might read this post.
The current Tea Party phenomenon is certainly the spiritual successor to the “a communist behind every tree” John Birch Society of the mid-twentieth century – if not its firstborn progeny. Conspiracy theories, demonizing slander and slurs, populist flag-waving and Bible-thumping, and wacko nut-case theories and rumors: you can find it all at a local Tea Party. Voters in South Carolina even became convinced that your social security number means that bankers secretly bought you at birth.
The October 18 issue of the New Yorker contains a recommended primer on the subject: Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party’s Cold War roots, by Sean Wilentz. The spiritual and ideological link to the old Birchers becomes a ‘why didn’t I think of that‘ moment; there’s also a history of the far right conservative movement which can be a bit of a stem-winder — but well worth the effort. Check the New Yorker link out while it is still available.
More reading on this topic: Wikipedia
519 total views, no views today
Before you read this commentary, which is not entirely complimentary to Charlton Heston or the NRA, please read the source material itself, which is his speech “Winning The Cultural War”, addressed to students at Harvard Law School. Then, with the idea in mind that there are two sides to every story, read our analysis, and ask yourself if there isn’t more going on here than meets the eye.
DISCLAIMER: the speech, linked in the box below, was forwarded to us via internet email. While its contents appear to be authentic and intact, we haven’t seen an original with which to compare it. Judge for yourself. Caveat lector.
Charlton Heston certainly gave an interesting speech to the students at Harvard Law School. I wonder what they made of it. Continue reading
537 total views, no views today
Lou Sheldon’s Stealth Moderate In Washington
So I was, like, walkin’ downtown with these guys, OK? and this one dude, he goes, “Hey man you know that Matt Fong dude? I know sumpin’ on him.”And I’m, like, “Yeah man, I been watchin’ him, but he ain’t sayin’ anything you know where he’s at, or nothin’. He one of them Moderates, know what I mean?”And can you believe it, he actually goes to me, “No, man, he ain’t. He’s one of them Christian Coalition type dudes, I seen it in the paper.”And I go, “No man, you don’t read no papers, you been rollin’ and smokin’ them papers you know what I mean?”
And he’s, like “No man I seen it! He’s one of them, man, I seen it in the San freakin’ Francisco Examiner, too. It was, like, all over the place. I swear to you dude!”
And I’m like freaked, and he’s going “Ha ha ha ha ha …”
The above conversion is fictitious, but the subject and the news source are not.
678 total views, 1 views today
Dubious Pursuit Of Justice Award
September 1998 American Rifleman
Liberty Hall, PhiladelphiaThe National Rifle Association held its 1998 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in this venerable old location. “Put our differences behind us and get on with the fight against the real enemy …” was the watchword of this convention.Invited to attend was Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), speaking on behalf of equal rights for all Americans. Lott is most currently in the public spotlight for his outrageous comparison of gay Americans to “alcoholics” and “kleptomaniacs”.The focus of the NRA, of course, is 2d Amendment rights to bear arms.
“You are the mainstream of America”, the NRA quoted him as saying to NRA members at their banquet honorarium. “The Bill of Rights is a package deal — you aren’t allowed to pick and choose the parts.”
Unless, of course, you’re allowed to pick and choose when you’re allowed to pick and choose — or is Trent really giving away the inclusivity farm?
320 total views, no views today