That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)


and that Republicans, is why government is so damn big - because no one disciplines themselves.

No Chinese Communist war on culture

RIght Wing Social Engineering is what Gingrich called it. And that is exactly what is is. For years the right has been distracting people from looking behind its' curtains with loud instrospective inducing complaints of "media Bias", "activist judges", and "Bleeding hearts liberals agenda", and "Overreaching government", who want to create "Death panels" to "kill grandma".


But the truth is that THEY have been the Activist judges (see Gore Vs Bush), or (CItizens United) - Companies are People? THEY have been the media bias (check out Murdoch being caught red handed eavesdropping on emails and phone calls, influencing and bribing the very people who are supposed to protect us - politicians, and law 'enforcement' officials with his extortion minded media coverage. THEY have been pursuing a right wing social agenda evidenced by Gingrich's unwelcome admission of "a right wing social engineering" project to kill medicare as we know it. THEY have been the overeaching govenment with its illegal war crimes and wars on sovereign governments, WITH EVERCHANGING RATIONALES. Karl Rove said, ( AND I PARAPHRASE) "America is an empire now . We do what we want, create the narrative we desire and you can study it."

Suck on that.

Now we have the power to create our own future of success. Especially now that we know what we have been working against. A Communist Chinese style war on our culture. So maybe you are not so lazy as the republicans would like you to think, because a "weak" person is not going to fight the above. Why was Nixon the first to visit Communist China? He was envious of their ways.

That fact is that we have only been reacting to the horrible cutthroat nature of the Republican agenda which amounts to War on the culture of good. Permanent slave state. Difference is that we have seen behind the curtain. The evidence is right there. Our eyes are open. We are not afraid any longer. NO PLANET OF THE APES MOVIE IS GOING TO STOP US NOW.

The fact is we got to this point by being TRUTHFUL, COMPASSIONATE AND TOLERANT. The way of Falun Dafa. That is what moves us forward. Try it you might like it.

TO OWS: stop the madness. Stop trade with China until it is democratised.

Why do we refuse to normalize with Cuba but are happy with China. Hypocrisy and greed of course.

opposition research on OWS

Forum Post: Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford attack OWS
Posted 6 hours ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 10:46 a.m. EST by bensdad
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:53 AM EST by Jonathan Larsen (crossposted from MSNBC's "Open Channel" blog) A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”

The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

Two of the memo’s authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker; Cranford joined CLGC this year after serving as the speaker’s assistant for policy. A third partner, Steve Clark, is reportedly “tight” with Boehner, according to a story by Roll Call that CLGC features on its website.

Jeff Sigmund, an ABA spokesperson, confirmed that the association got the memo. “Our Government Relations staff did receive the proposal – it was unsolicited and we chose not to act on it in any way,” he said in a statement to "Up."

CLGC did not return calls seeking comment.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, “My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street.”

The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

advertisement advertisement advertisement

The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo. “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.”
Part of the plan CLGC proposes is to do “statewide surveys in at least eight states that are shaping up to be the most important of the 2012 cycle.”

Specific races listed in the memo are U.S. Senate races in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada as well as the gubernatorial race in North Carolina.

The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”

"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”

Police chief, NY Supreme Ct judge agree: police are causing the violence

Police chief, NY Supreme Ct judge agree: police are causing the violence

Posted by Charles II on November 17, 2011

This is an absolutely stunning interview. Judge Karen Smith completely discredits the press. Police Chief Norm Stamper indicts the police. (And separately, Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis joins Occupy Wall Street!)

AMY GOODMAN: … For a discussion on policing and the Occupy Wall Street movement around the country, we’re joined by two people. Chuck Wexler is the director of the Police Executive Research Forum. And Norm Stamper is with us, the former police chief of Seattle, who recently wrote an article for The Nation magazine, titled “Paramilitary Policing from Seattle to Occupy Wall Street.”

I want to start with Norm Stamper… Your thoughts today?

NORM STAMPER: Well, we made huge mistakes back in [the Battle of Seattle in] 1999, and I’m afraid they’re being repeated today across the country, in Seattle, in Oakland, and in all other cities where there have been confrontations between the police and members of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norm Stamper, in your article you mention that you think that there are institutional problems, structural problems in policing, that no matter who the political leaders are or what the top brass are, that these problems continue to crop up and appear to be getting worse.

NORM STAMPER: I certainly do believe that. I think the drug war, which has put police officers against young people and poor people and people of color, the war on terrorism, the domestic dimensions of that war, have all served to increase the militarization of America’s police forces. And this is particularly tragic because, prior to these developments, we were on a path to create what I would call authentic partnerships with the community. That means no more unilateral decision making. It means, for example, today, police officers and Occupy movement leaders understanding the diffusion of that leadership, getting together and carving out rules of engagement, if you will, that will help protect public safety, public health, and also assure civil liberties, human rights and some degree of social justice.

(Click for more)

AMY GOODMAN: As I said, we’re also joined on the phone by Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum that coordinated the conference call with mayors and police officials around the country. Can you talk about what’s happening today—the Occupy Oakland, the massive police response, the kind of police response we saw in Seattle with the pepper-spraying of not only Dorli Rainey, but many other people directly in the face—the conversation that took place, and why you coordinated this call, Chuck?

CHUCK WEXLER: … I think a lot of the police officers had a lot in common with, you know, the demonstrators, in terms of the concerns about the economy and working-class people and so forth. But I think, you know, over time, in some cities, the nature of the demonstration has changed… in some cities, it has—that the hand of the police has been forced by, you know, either violence or the changing nature of what’s been happening on the ground.

…

AMY GOODMAN: Norm Stamper, your response?

NORM STAMPER: Well, I have great respect for Chuck, and I do believe that since 1999 and the Battle in Seattle there have been many changes. My concern is, many of those changes have been for the worse. The officers, for example, in Oakland were dressed as my police officers were in Seattle, which is, in effect, for full—in full battle gear. We were using military tactics. I authorized the use of chemical agents on nonviolent offenders. I thought I had good justification at that time. I did not. The police officer in me was thinking about emergency vehicles, fire trucks, aid cars being able to get through a key intersection. The police chief in me should have said, “This is wrong,” and vetoed that decision. I will regret that decision for the rest of my life. We took a military response to a situation that was fundamentally nonviolent, in which Americans were expressing their views and their values, and used tear gas on them. And that was just plain wrong.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Chuck Wexler, I’d like to ask you about that… the way that the—some of the police forces are dealing with the press, and of the—because the press are supposed to be there to be able to be the eyes and ears of the public in these events, but increasingly you’re getting reporters arrested….

CHUCK WEXLER: …you can have 90 percent of the people are there peacefully, and you have this small contingent—and I think, Norm, what you had in Seattle is you had this group of anarchists that somehow was able to cause such disturbances that it forced a reaction, that perhaps was an overreaction, but I don’t think the police were prepared for it….

AMY GOODMAN: So, Norm Stamper, respond to that issue, why you still think you were wrong, that you’re taking issue with Chuck Wexler here, that given the situation in 1999 you now say you did the absolutely wrong thing.

NORM STAMPER: … There is no question about what anarchists, by definition, or for that matter, even recreational rioters, who are simply sitting in a bar and see the action and get attracted to the downtown area—we had some of that—can help distract attention away from the cause itself and create major public safety issues for the police. Here’s my point: if the police and the community in a democratic society are really working hard—and it is hard work—to forge authentic partnerships rather than this unilateral, paramilitary response to these demonstrations, that the relationship itself serves as a shock absorber. Picture police officers helping to protect the demonstrators. Picture demonstrators saying, “We see people on the fringes, for example, who are essentially undemocratic in their tactics. And so, we need to work together to resolve that issue.” These resolutions are clearly not easy. One of the things that complicates the picture enormously is when a woman like Ms. Rainey is pepper-sprayed. When innocent people who are there to protest what I consider to be very legitimate grievances against corporate America, against a government that has, in many respects, been bought off by corporations, the police have a responsibility to be neutral. It should be apparent that I’m not neutral, but I’m no longer a cop. And police officers on the streets really do need to be neutral referees, and they need the help of their civilian, if I may use that term, partners.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of neutral referees, I wanted to bring a judge into this discussion, retired New York Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith, who worked as a legal observer early Tuesday morning here in New York. I saw her right on the corner of Wall Street shortly after police raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment. Judge Smith, what did you see?

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Well, I arrived about 1:30, 1:40 in the morning, got out and walked to Dey and Broadway. And the police were in full riot gear. I mean, it was a paramilitary operation if there ever was one, I mean, which sets off—here it is, 1:30 in the morning, what we call a stealth eviction, 1:30 in the morning, and they were just lined up two blocks from—on either side from the park, so that nobody could get near, this solid wall of police.

I was wearing—and I brought this—a hat, which says the “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer.” And as you can see, in color, it’s quite bright. And at night—

AMY GOODMAN: It’s fluorescent green.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): It’s fluorescent green. And then I was wearing it, and I had a pad and a pen, and I was there to take down the names of people who were arrested so we could follow them through the system and just observe what was going on. And as I’m standing there, some African-American woman goes up to a police officer and says, “I need to get in. My daughter’s there. I want to know if she’s OK.” And he said, “Move on, lady.” And he kept pushing—they kept pushing with their sticks, pushing back. And she said—and she was crying. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, he throws her to the ground and starts hitting her in the head. And I walk over, and I say, “Look, cuff her if she’s done something, but you don’t need to do that.” And he said, “Lady, do you want to get arrested?” And I said, “Do you see my hat? I’m here as a legal observer.” He said, “You want to get arrested?” And he pushed me up against the wall.

And, you know, it was late at night. There was a lot going on. People were—all of a sudden, there was like a cordon of police pushing everybody into Dey Street between Broadway and Church. And it seemed like they were setting everybody up to get arrested. And then they started—some people broke away, some of the police, and started running after people. I moved away and then decided that I needed to get on the other side. I received a call that there were things developing on Pine and Broadway, and so I moved all the way east to go around the police and then ended up on Pine and Broadway, which is really where I ran into you.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, you had a personal interest, as well. Your son was also one of the participants in Occupy Wall Street.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Yes, my son was a—he’s a staff person for SEIU 1199. And they were there in support. They were not going to get arrested, but they wanted to show the demonstrators and the occupiers that—and they’ve been supportive all along as one of the unions. And he was there. And I was watching carefully to make sure that he did not get hurt, as well. I was very concerned.

At Pine and Broadway, it was sort of a standoff. People were—there was a lot of confusion. People didn’t know what was going on. There were some people that may have sat on some police cars just in comfort, but nobody was—I heard later on reports—talk about objectivity of the press—you know, that they were jumping up and down and they were taunting the police. The only time I ever saw on—when I first got there on Dey and Broadway, they were just saying, “Shame on you,” you know, to the police, and—but that was it. And down on Pine and Broadway, at least until about 4:30 in the morning, I didn’t see any provocation whatsoever.
…
JUAN GONZALEZ: And I’d like to ask Chuck Wexler, this whole issue of the police chiefs trying to exchange information, was there any involvement of the Department of Homeland Security or the federal officials in the discussions with the various police chiefs?

CHUCK WEXLER: Not on our conference call at all.

…

AMY GOODMAN: … But I did want to ask you, how involved is FBI and Homeland Security in these discussions, Chuck Wexler?

CHUCK WEXLER: We haven’t had—they haven’t been involved—maybe they’re involved at the local level, but nationally, at least on our conference calls, I don’t think—they didn’t have a role.

JUAN GONZALEZ: There were some press reports that there were Homeland Security presentations urging that these arrests be conducted late at night.
…

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Karen Smith, you retired in 2010 as a Supreme Court judge, so you obviously have dealt, over many years, with the police department and police officials. Your sense—when we spoke a couple of days ago, you also talked about your sense that there was a really hostile or tense situation from the very beginning with how the police were responding to the protesters. Could you talk about that?

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Yes, well, I don’t know if Mr. Stamper was the one who said this, but I think it was structural. You—at night, 1:00 in the morning, people dressed in riot gear. There were trucks, remember, lined up for the sanitation to just throw people’s things in—computers and everything. And now people, I’m told, they can’t get their stuff. There was a them and us. I, I mean, worked with police officers for years. There are very—I agree that there are very good ones. It’s not individuals. It’s a system that’s being set up of us and them.

And the other thing that needs to be brought out—and I think it was in the court case in front of Judge Stallman, who was a colleague of mine—is how often do you get the police and the state enforcing private property rights? The contradictions are tremendous, just that. I mean, as you pointed out in your article I read in some—and also even David Letterman last night, you know, points out, you know, it’s OK for prostitutes, drug dealers, and now we’re having our Christmas fair, where they’re putting up tents. You know, but that’s for profit. So that’s OK.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain that, because maybe people in other parts of the country don’t understand.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): Oh, at Christmas time in New York, and I think around the country, there are these little craft things that are set up for private businesses, and they put up tents, and they’re there—they have to leave by 11:00, but they’re—

AMY GOODMAN: Tents all over, for example, Union Square.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): All over Union Square.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In the parks, yes.

JUDGE KAREN SMITH (ret.): In the parks, Columbus Circle. So that’s OK. But—and I don’t know what evidence was presented, because I wasn’t in court the other day, about the so-called sanitation violations that were the basis of the state using its authority to come in. But in the end, they were enforcing private property interests. And that’s really what—the message, I think, from the whole Occupy Wall Street’s about.

…

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Stephen Graham into the discussion right now. We started speaking to him yesterday. He wrote the book Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism. Just in from Britain, in Philadelphia.
…
STEPHEN GRAHAM: …the so-called homeland security market is a real—is in real boom town—boom time, excuse me. I mean, in a world where actual defense contracts are often being reduced, a lot of the big companies are moving into civilian applications. They’re moving into these non-lethal weapons, moving into all of the technologies of crowd control and civilian disturbance control. And that has to be added to, of course, the much bigger markets that are growing in terms of broader questions of surveillance and security for buildings, for cities, for special events, as we see these systems established more and more in terms of everyday spaces and everyday bits of cities. So, I haven’t got figures at hand, I’m afraid, but it’s multibillion-dollar markets that are projected to grow globally at very, very high rates over the next 15 years, according to some of the recent market research reports.

AMY GOODMAN: Norm Stamper, if you’re still on the line with us, former police chief of Seattle, does what Stephen Graham is saying ring a bell for you? Does it resonate with your experience?

NORM STAMPER: Well, it certainly does. I might even add to that mix the increased privatization of the prison industry in the United States, where people are in fact making huge sums of money on the backs of those arrested for nonviolent drug offenses. And we’re talking really in the millions in this country. So I think there’s that that needs to be considered, as well.

About the non-lethal tools at the disposal of local law enforcement, many of those were developed in the wake of a controversial shooting. We understand that cops got a dangerous job. It’s delicate. It’s demanding. There are situations that call for life-and-death decision making, oftentimes with no real time to contemplate options and possibilities. Let’s find non-lethal alternatives to that firearm. So, the motive is good. The question is, to what extent are those non-lethal weapons being abused today? We have seen far too many examples of tasers, for example, used in situations where no force was necessary. It’s just simply a way to get somebody to move faster or to get out of a car when they’re passively resistant.

So, it’s important, I think, to understand the complexities of everything that we’re talking about. For example, there are many compassionate, decent, competent police officers who do a terrific job day in and day out. There are others who are, quote, “bad apples.” What both of them have in common is that they occupy, as it were, a system, a structure that itself is rotten. And I am talking about the paramilitary bureaucracy….

you gotta shoot rabid dogs

Bill Dyer : 06/30/11 20:29
Mr. McCarthy, you've made a number of fine points here, but with due and genuine respect, you're confusing things that ought be kept straight.
All of what you wrote about Kadafi's history is correct. His history has been to use Libya's vast oil wealth as a state supporter and exporter of international terrorism, of which the U.S. has been the chief target.
You're also right on the mark about the weakness of his "conversion" and "cooperation." Any possibility of his continuing to justify the civilized world's forbearance, however, evaporated when he turned heavy weapons on his own population.
It astounds me that you can know, and articulate, all that history so well and yet insist that there are "no vital U.S. interests at stake."
The U.S. doesn't have a vital interest in protecting Libya's civilian population, merely a humanitarian interest; I would agree with you, I think, that such humanitarian interest is insufficient to justify American military intervention.
Be we clearly, obviously have a vital interest in ensuring that Kadafi is now removed from power. We simply cannot permit this oil-funded terror-exporting again-out-of-control madman to remain in power.
You seem to think the determination of whether we ought to remove Kadafi from power — to effect regime change — depends in turn upon whether we wish to support the particular "rebel" forces who are, mostly independently, trying to oust Kadafi. Those issues must be analyzed separately.
It's entirely possible as a logical matter — and I believe it is the most sound weighing of competing concerns — to conclude that we have a compelling American interest in changing this regime without necessarily also having a compelling interest in what comes after.
Nothing but our own sense of overarching responsibility, our own sense of ourselves as "good guys," says that we have any responsibility to rescue the Libyan populace from what comes after Kadafi.
We can break it without buying it. We can take out Kadafi and walk away. Certainly for all of world history before WW2, that was among the options for conquering nations.
What ought to happen is that we use our superior military capability — especially with regard to precision use of force with less collateral damage than our NATO allies can limit themselves to — to take out Kadafi, and then dump the result into the laps of our NATO allies, especially the French and Italians (who have the strongest historical interests in Libya) for such nation-building exercises, if any, as they deem justified by their then-existing vital interests. And their continuing interests are likely to be greater than ours because they are the traditional and logical (logistical) market for Libyan energy production.
Now of course, it may turn out that despite our NATO allies' efforts, or because of the lack thereof, Kadafi's successors turn out to be as bad or even worse than he's been. No one should try to sell any scenario for what America should do now as implying any guarantee that we won't have to effect regime change there again in the future.
But frankly, showing that we can (which everyone now knows) and will (which nobody now believes) decapitate a regime and then (mostly) walk away from the results might be a really good and cost-effective way to influence regime leaders not just in Libya but elsewhere.
We should play to our strengths. We are exceedingly good at blowing up bad guys without killing very many of the innocents with whom they surround themselves.
You seem to think this inevitably has to become a sustained, expensive counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism effort of the sort in which we've engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's just not so.
Think of it not as nation-building, but a grand SWAT-team raid, or an exercise in removing a rabid animal from a populated area. Obama may not be capable of that mental flexibility, but you certainly are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

it does not make you tough to hurt these people

Occupy Wall Street: Sergeant Shamar Thomas Yells At NYPD Officers After Times Square Protest (VIDEO)

First Posted: 10/17/11 01:04 PM ET Updated: 10/17/11 01:51 PM ET



Ny News , Nypd , Wall Street Protest , New York News , Occupy Wall Street , Occupy Wall Street Times Square , Police Brutality , Shamar Thomas , United-States-Marine-Corps , New York News

SHARE THIS STORY

After the violent clashes between police and protesters at Saturday's massive Occupy Wall Street demonstration in Times Square, a marine who served in Iraq delivered an impromptu speech in front of some NYPD officers, denouncing their crowd-control methods and police brutality. "This is not a war zone!" he yells at NYPD officers. "These are unarmed people."

A crowd eventually gathers around the marine, identified as Sergeant. Shamar Thomas, who served with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion USMC in Iraq. Thomas, a New York native, then explains that his father served in Afghanistan, his mother served in Iraq and that he doesn't like seeing cops hurting the people he and his family fought to protect:



On his YouTube channel, where the video of the speech is posted, he writes:

I took an Oath that I live by. am NOT anti-NYPD. I am anti- Police Brutality. I am no longer under contract with the USMC so I do NOT have to follow military uniform regulations. I DON'T affiliate myself with ANY GROUPS or POLITICAL ORG. I affiliate myself with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that's it. I REFUSE to affiliate with anything that SEPARATES. There is an obvious problem in the country and PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be allowed to PROTEST without Brutality. I was involved in a RIOT in Rutbah, Iraq 2004 and we did NOT treat the Iraqi citizens like they are treating the unarmed civilians in our OWN Country. No one was brutalized because our mission was to 'WIN the hearts and minds.' why should I expect anything less in my OWN Country.
Earlier this month a group of veterans calling themselves OccupyMARINES came out in support of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now entering their thirtieth day. They write on their Facebook page, "Marines support the movement. We will support demonstrators with organization, direction, supply and logistics, and leadership." It is illegal for active duty soldiers to protest in uniform. It appears all of the OccupyMarines are retired.





FOLLOW HUFFPOST NEW YORK ON
Facebook:
Like
15K
Twitter:
GET ALERTS
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS STORY
Send Corrections
Send us a Link
Contact us
Send a Tip
Send Photos/Videos
Comment

All true

Functionally Obsolete

The Republican party.

the hijacking of an atrocity

September 11, 2011, 8:41 AM
The Years of Shame
Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

yeah it's evil. There ARE standards.

"....News Corp. revels in its anti-establishment view ....Indeed, in some ways it is a culture in rebellion against the decorous and straightlaced world." yeah. It's evil.

Republicans hate the middle class because they vote Democrat

Maybe the reason Republicans want to take away any edge that the middle class may have to pull themselves out of financial duldrums is because a powerful middle class would probably vote against the republicans. We only want capitalists who will support the republicans.

Acted on the instructions of 'others'

Glenn Mulcaire has already expressed his sincere regret to those who have been hurt and affected by his activities and he repeats that apology most sincerely.
He was effectively employed by News of the World from 2002 to carry out his role as a private investigator.
As he accepted when he pleaded guilty in 2007 to charges of phone interception he admits that his role did include phone hacking. As an employee he acted on the instructions of others.
Advertisement

There were also occasions when he understood his instructions were from those who genuinely wished to assist in solving crimes. Any suggestion that he acted in such matters unilaterally is untrue. In the light of the ongoing police investigation, he cannot say any more.

Norway Terrorist Not Christian But Fort Hood Terrorist Muslim?

Jon Stewart Rips Fox News' Hypocrisy: Norway Terrorist Not Christian But Fort Hood Terrorist Muslim? (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post Katla McGlynn First Posted: 7/28/11 09:38 AM ET Updated: 7/28/11 12:12 PM ET



On Wednesday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart put aside the debt ceiling debate to focus on the recent terrorist attacks in Norway, or at least how Fox News responded to them. Once again Stewart found an opportunity to point out hypocrisy on the network, once again coming from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly.

Several Fox News pundits including Laura Ingrahm and O'Reilly have accused the mainstream media of "Playing up the Christian angle" when reporting bomber Anders Behring Breivik's profile and attacks. Ingrahm rejected the idea that he represents any Christian sect, fringe or otherwise. While Stewart agreed Breivik's actions were not Christian, he couldn't believe how misdirected the focus was on the story:

"Yes, the massacre in Norway is a tragic story... About the persecution of Christians."
Stewart continud to point out exactly why the media is discussing Breivik's self-declared Christianity, and reassured Ingrahm they're "not doing it to get at you." Perhaps Breivik's 1,500 page manifesto and Powerpoint video paying tribute to Christian crusaders is what gave people the idea that he was a religious extremist. Just maybe.

But the biggest hypocrisy Stewart uncovered came from Bill O'reilly's double standard when discussing religious terrorists. While he insists Breivik is not a Christian ("What, because he says he is? come on!"), he has no problem saying the Fort Hood gunman is Islamic. His defense? Nidal Hasan carried a business card that said he was a solider of Allah. Stewart had to throw up his hands:

"See the difference? That guy printed up 'Soldier of Allah' business cards! The other guy only printed up an Army of Christ manifesto."
WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
In the Name of the Fodder
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Republicans hate america because they love money more.

The republicans view that debt reduction is the only way forward to put our GDP on a positive footing is forgetting that America is still the most dynamic and active economy in the world and to think that investing in the markets that have the most fertile ground( the middle class) is wrong is also un- american. They Hate America because they love money more.

extreme views are legitimate but to implement them with actions that hurt others is not

Jens Stoltenberg, Norway Prime Minister, Says Oslo Tragedy Response Will Be 'More Democracy'

IAN MACDOUGALL and KARL RITTER 07/27/11 11:50 AM ET

OSLO, Norway — Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg vowed Wednesday that his countrymen will fight back against the twin terror attacks with "more democracy" and said an independent commission is being formed to investigate the massacre and to help survivors and relatives.

Norwegians will defend themselves by showing they are not afraid of violence and by participating more broadly in politics, he told reporters.

"It's absolutely possible to have an open, democratic, inclusive society, and at the same time have security measures and not be naive," he said.

Stoltenberg underlined his commitment to openness, defending freedom of thought even if includes extremist views such as those held by the 32-year-old Norwegian who confessed to Friday's bomb blast at government headquarters and to the shooting massacre at a Labor Party youth camp hours later. At least 76 people were killed.

"We have to be very clear to distinguish between extreme views, opinions – that's completely legal, legitimate to have. What is not legitimate is to try to implement those extreme views by using violence," he said.

"I think what we have seen is that there is going to be one Norway before and one Norway after July 22," he said. "But I hope and also believe that the Norway we will see after will be more open, a more tolerant society than what we had before."

He later announced the independent commission, saying "it is important to be able to clear up all questions about the attack in order to learn from what happened."

The parties in parliament have agreed to earmark an unspecified amount of money to cover some of the funeral costs, he said. A national memorial will also be created.

The vicious attacks in the placid, liberal country have left Norwegians appalled and shaky, but determined to move forward. Some government workers were planning to return to work in their offices in the buildings where the bomb blasts blew out most windows.

Advertisement

Denmark said Wednesday a 43-year-old Danish woman, Hanne Balch Fjalestad, had died in the attacks, marking the first confirmed foreign death.

She was working as a first aid medic at Utoya island. She leaves behind four children, including a 20-year-old daughter, Anna, who survived the island shooting.

Anders Behring Breivik has confessed to the attacks, saying he was trying to save the Western world from Muslim colonization.

Earlier, the leader of Norway's Delta Force defended the special operations team, saying the breakdown of a boat didn't cause a significant delay in efforts to reach the island.

Police have come under close scrutiny over how long it took them to reach the island after first reports of shots being fired at the island youth camp Friday. Although the island is only about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from the Norwegian capital, police needed 90 minutes to get to the scene.

A media helicopter was already hovering over the island when police arrived. Marius Arnesen, a cameraman for broadcaster NRK who shot video of the massacre at Utoya island, told The Associated Press that his helicopter arrived some time between 6 p.m. and 6:10 p.m. Police say got to the island at 6:25 p.m.

Police were already grappling with the wide damage inflicted in the downtown government quarter. When word of the shooting came, police drove rather than take a helicopter because the crew of the sole chopper available to them was on vacation. Then the first boat they tried to take to the lake island broke down.

Anders Snortheimsmoen told reporters the team immediately jumped into another, better boat. He said his team arrived at the harbor at the same time as local police and the boat mishap caused no delay.

Once they arrived, Snortheimsmoen told the AP, his officers nearly shot Breivik because they feared he might be wearing an explosive belt. The decision was made by a "very narrow margin," he said.

Police later offered a detailed account of Breivik's arrest, saying he surrendered readily. Squad leader Haavard Gaasbakk told reporters police yelled at the gunman when they drew near and the shooter lay down his weapon and held his hands high over his head.

"When we get closer to the place where there's shooting we started to use our voices, yelling 'armed police' to draw the attention to us," Gaasbakk said.

"We come to a forested aread and the suspect stands there right in front of us with his hands high above his head," Gaasback said.

Justice Minister Knut Storberget praised the team at the news conference, saying it had helped "limit the tragedy."

Norwegian media are suggesting that police knew Breivik's identity even before they reached the island, tracing him through a rental car company from which he rented the panel van in which the bomb was planted.

Dag Andre Johansen, Scandinavian CEO of Avis car rental company, told the AP that Breivik had rented two vehicles, including a Volkswagen Crafter van. He said police contacted the company after the bombing and got Breivik's identity confirmed. But he declined to say whether that contact came before Breivik was arrested on the island.

Many in Oslo felt a new twinge of worry on Wednesday morning when parts of the capital's rail and bus complex was evacuated because of a suspicious abandoned suitcase. Police later said no explosives were found and that the evacuation order had been lifted. The Norwegian news agency NTB said a bus driver turned in the alarm after seeing a passenger leave the suitcase and walk into the station at a fast clip.

Police officially released the first four names of victims on Tuesday, and Norwegian media published the names and photos of some of the other victims. At least some were immigrants or their descendants.

Tens of thousands of Norwegians have rejected the suspect's anti-immigrant rhetoric, laying thousands of flowers around the capital in mourning. Entire streets were awash in flowers, and Oslo's florists ran out of roses.

Norway's Crown Prince Haakon and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere attended a packed memorial Tuesday in the World Islamic Mission mosque in Oslo. After the ceremony, Pakistani-born Imam Najeeb ur Rehman Naz said the massacre had brought Norwegian residents of all backgrounds closer together.

"Everyone realizes that terrorism and this kind of activity doesn't have anything to do with any religion," he told the AP. "They are individuals who can be found in any community who don't represent the majority at all."

Many of those killed were involved in the governing Labor Party, which suspect Breivik rails against in his manifesto for allowing Muslims to immigrate to Norway.

Hypocrasy by Mr. O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly: Media Labeling Norway Killer Breivik 'Christian' Because 'They Don't Like Christians' (VIDEO)




Bill O'Reilly sternly criticized the media for describing Anders Behring-Breivik, the man who has admitted to committing the mass killings in Norway, as a Christian, saying that such a thing was "impossible."

O'Reilly singled out the New York Times, which called Breivik a "Christian extremist" in an article. Breivik also referred to himself as a Christian, as did the Norwegian police, and his 1,500 page manifesto has been described as coming from a Christian perspective. In the manifesto, he writes that he does not have a "personal," religious relationship with Christ, believes in Christianity "as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform," which he says "makes [me] Christian."

To O'Reilly, though, it was "impossible" that Breivik is a Christian.

"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said. "The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."

He said that the reason the media was calling Breivik a Christian was because "the left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are." O'Reilly called this notion "dishonest and insane," saying that no government was backing Breivik's ideology.

O'Reilly also said that the media "is pushing the Christian angle [because] they don't like Christians very much because we are too judgmental," and that the press want to "diminish" social and religious conservatives.

WATCH:

Ailes tries to talk Christie into u\running for President but CHristie wants no investigation of the press

Chris Christie Sued Over Communication With Roger Ailes

BETH DeFALCO 07/25/11 02:00 PM ET


TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was sued Monday over his administration's refusal to release correspondence between the president of Fox News and the governor or his staff after a report that the head of the network tried to persuade the first-term GOP governor to run for president in 2012 last summer.

Fox News President Roger Ailes has denied urging Christie to run for president. But speculation continues over whether Christie would jump into the race, even though he has repeatedly said he will not.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed suit Monday on behalf of John Cook, a reporter for Gawker Entertainment LLC, who sought the information under state's Open Public Records Law.

The governor's office initially refused to confirm any records existed and said that, if they did, they would be exempt from state's open records law based on "executive privilege" as a reason to withhold records from the public. Executive privilege is intended to protect the governor and other elected officials from disclosing records that contain advice to them about their official public duties.

After the lawsuit was filed Monday, the governor's office denied that there were any other records besides a calendar entry.

"Please be advised that this office is in possession of no other records responsive to your request," Raymond Brandes, an attorney for the governor, said in a letter sent to the ACLU and Cook on Monday

In the letter, Christie's office confirmed that he and his wife, Mary Pat, attended a private dinner on Sept. 11, 2010, in New York but declined to comment beyond the letter.

A New York Magazine story in May reported that Ailes, like many others, tried to persuade Christie to run against President Barack Obama in 2012. Following that article, Gawker's Cook filed the public records request.

Ailes, who created Fox, the network of choice for many Republican viewers, in 1996, is a former media consultant for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Advertisement

"The public has a right to know whether the head of America's most-watched cable news channel is advising a sitting governor on state matters," Gawker's Cook said in a statement. "If the emails on the state system between the governor and Ailes don't relate to Christie's functions as governor, then they can't be hidden from the public."

In its filings, the ACLU-NJ argues that for executive privilege to be invoked the governor must include an index of potential records and explanation of why executive privilege applies to a judge to privately examine.

"New Jersey needs a system in place to separate executive privilege from carte blanche," ACLU president Frank Corrado, who is representing Cook, said in a statement. "Executive privilege exists to help a governor carry out constitutional obligations, not to diminish the constitutional right to a free press."

Emails sent to Fox News seeking comment not returned on Monday.

Christie was due in Iowa on Monday to speak at an education conference and headline a political fundraiser for a congressman. The trip did little to quell the presidential talk.

Rebekah Brooks Arrested/ Can't stop whats coming.

Until Friday, Brooks was the defiant chief executive of News International, Murdoch's British newspaper arm, whose News of the World tabloid stands accused of hacking into the phones of celebrities, politicians, other journalists and even murder victims. In the tumultuous last two weeks, she had kept her job even as Murdoch shut down the 168-year-old tabloid and tossed 200 other journalists out of work.


If she was guilty of anything, said her colleagues, it was of not knowing what her subordinates were doing.

The company’s version of who was to blame for what happened at the News of the World has been implicitly challenged in a fundamental way by the decision of the Metropolitan Police to arrest Rebekah Brooks on suspicion of alleged involvement in phone hacking and corruption.

Palin Strikes OUT

Just so we're clear, this is nowhere near as indeterminate as the author implies. THIS is why this email is so effed up: 'Remember though: "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts"' SAID THE WOMAN WHO WAS SPEAKING ON GOD'S BEHALF. The total lack of self-awareness necessary to quote this passage in this context, the absolute, unqualified failure to listen to the words coming from her own mouth, it's absolutely stunning when you think about it. "I'm going to write a note where I tell people what god is thinking, and in it, I'll make sure to mention that the bible clearly states that you can't know what god is thinking." Poof. That was my brain. If this is an interpretive exercise, and you interpret this as anything other than completely INSANE, you need your logic circuits examined.

truth - like it or embolden the enemy.

Those who dislike truth and work to hide it are traitors to themselves giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening them. Truth as it is needs to be established to provide credibility for future projects to build off of it.

Too big to fail means above the law

Too big to fail means "above the law". Let's see how that works out for you.

Too big to fail means above the law

Too big to fail means "above the law". Let's see how that works out for you.

China: U.S. 'Internet War Being Waged Against Multiple Nations'

China: U.S. 'Internet War Being Waged Against Multiple Nations'

06/ 3/11 12:01 PM ET

BEIJING — The Chinese military accused the U.S. on Friday of launching a global "Internet war" to bring down Arab and other governments, redirecting the spotlight away from allegations of major online attacks on Western targets originating in China.

The accusations Friday by Chinese military academy scholars, and their urging of tougher policing of the Internet, followed allegations this week that computer hackers in China had compromised the personal Gmail accounts of several hundred people, including government officials, military personnel and political activists.

Google traced the origin of the attacks to the city of Jinan that is home to a military vocational school whose computers were linked to a more sophisticated assault on Google's systems 17 months ago. China has denied responsibility for the two attacks.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the United States had raised its concerns with China over the latest allegations. He said the allegations were serious but made no comment on reports of China's involvement.

Writing in the Communist Party-controlled China Youth Daily newspaper, the scholars did not mention Google's claims, but said recent computer attacks and incidents employing the Internet to promote regime change in Arab nations appeared to have originated with the U.S. government.

"Of late, an Internet tornado has swept across the world ... massively impacting and shocking the globe. Behind all this lies the shadow of America," said the article, signed by Ye Zheng and Zhao Baoxian, identified as scholars with the Academy of Military Sciences.

"Faced with this warmup for an Internet war, every nation and military can't be passive but is making preparations to fight the Internet war," it said.

While nuclear war was a strategy of the industrial era, Internet war is a product of the information age, the article said. Such conflicts stand to be hugely destructive, threatening national security and the very existence of the state, it said.

China needs to "express to the world its principled stance of maintaining an 'Internet border' and protecting its 'Internet sovereignty,' unite all advanced forces to dive into the raging torrent of the age of peaceful use of the Internet, and return to the Internet world a healthy, orderly environment," the article said.

ADVERTISEMENT
China already heavily filters content and blocks numerous foreign websites, a system known as the "Great Firewall of China." The police employ a large force of Internet monitors to scour the Web for content deemed illegal or subversive, and those users transmitting sensitive contact can be charged with sedition or other crimes.

A number of foreign governments say they've been targeted by hacking attacks from China, although Beijing routinely denies undertaking such operations and says it too is a victim of such activity.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters attacks such as the one alleged by Google were a primary reason why the State Department had for the first time created a cyber-security coordinator.

The FBI said it was investigating Google's allegations, but no official government email accounts have been compromised. Google said all the hacking victims have been notified and their accounts have been secured.

FOLLOW

Too big to fail means too big to be prosecuted.

Too big to fail means too big to be prosecuted. that's how precious our economy is to the powers that are trying to maintain. Too big for judgement. huh. interesting. How much money was lost in the bailouts in the spirit of capitalism. probably inestimable. Trillions easily.

Fluffer

SHannon Moore calls Sarah Palin, a "punchline", says that she is a quitter who doesn't like to work, and is a political "fluffer".

Palestine needs to turn the other cheek.

the Palestinians need to start with recognizing Israel. That is apparently what the world does not think you will do and it will give you a moral solid ground to which you will be able to have an effect on your deliberations with Israel. you would be in the enviable position of being the first to turn the other cheek. only good things can happen from that.

what the right is "untethered" to the real world.

Reality based community. - The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

epistemic closure...

Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. Agnotology: Ignorance; not merely the absence of knowledge but an outcome of cultural and political struggle.



on Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis program to destroy medicare this is what Newt Gingrich had to say "...right wing social engineering..."

Agnotology: Ignorance; not merely the absence of knowledge but an outcome of cultural and political struggle.

where the line is

I think that you should not benefit so much that your benefit stops another human being from financially being able to cultivate himself as a person.

Newt tries to eat his foot

Pontificated Andrew Card, former chief of staff to President Bush, on Obama's visit to ground 0 after taking out Bin Laden. "I think he has pounded his chest a little too much. He can take pride in it, but he does not need to show it so much."

This from the guy who was assistant to Pres. Bush when he went on the aircraft carrier to celebrate "missions accomplished" complete with a banner on the ship behind him as he stood at the microphone podium that said as much.

As Chris Matthews said "at least Obama waited until he had done something before he said anything...."

change you deserve

Heres the problem with the so- called "bush doctrine" (which can be boiled down to "strike first" if a threat is detected. First of all it's a slippery slope as to what constitutes a threat.

You need a Psychic or a mind reader to tell you the future, what's supposedly going to happen.   How reliable are those really?   Are you really going to start wars based on a a psychics reading?

Second, moral certainty of reaction is weakened according to the Christian principals (to which the right is always trying to hide behind and so staunchly believe in) as a reaction can only be taken from an action.  You can't even decide to turn the other cheek because an action never happened - just a human limited reading of intent - again, a mind reader, a psychic.      In effect you have taken away our ability to practice our faith.  That's bad. 

Man should be judged by his actions alone - not his intent, because unless you are God, you can not truly know what a man's intent is. That is between man and god. You have to allow intent to be judged by god, other wise you have blocked god's judgment, and appointed yourself. Because you never know - a person might 'find religion" and intend not to do what everyone thought he would do.

Thirdly, any intelligence which was used to justify preemptive action has to be 200 percent accurate with absolutely no doubt, with corroboration. It has to be held to an even higher standard to justify preemptive action. Which is basically impossible.

And for those of you who insist that your safety is more important than god's principles that is where your problems come from - from your twisted sense of entitlement.

so what. Bin laden is dead

Today the headlines in the news is that Osma Bin Laden is dead. There are parties in the streets in New York and its all over the news. you know the constant news cycle thats repeated every top of the hour. They are all saying yay he's dead.

Big freakin deal. I'm not buying it.

Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,” Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” So what is everyone getting all excited about?

There are so many other problems out there, the economy, three wars, China the greatest threat to the earth, and the millions of OSAMA copycats. I just can't get that excited about it. end of story.

Are the Tornadoes God’s Judgment Against Conservative States?

Are the Tornadoes God’s Judgment Against Conservative States?
By: Blue Texan Thursday April 28, 2011 10:30 am

Tweet6

by matt.o'hara

After Haiti was hit with by a devastating earthquake in 2010, killing over 200,000 innocent people, Pat Robertson claimed it was God punishing that country for its “pact with the devil.” The Texas-based Republican activist Pastor John Hagee famously blamed New Orleans’ devastation by Katrina on “homosexuals.” Jerry Falwell, in the wake of 9/11, said the attack that killed over 3,000 Americans was God’s way of punishing us for harboring abortionists, feminists, and the ACLU.

And just recently, Glenn Beck said that the earthquakes and tsunami in Japan was God’s rebuke of that country’s behavior.

I’ll tell you this — whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus, there’s a message being sent. And that is, ‘Hey you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.’

Elizabeth Hasselbeck helpfully served as an Amen Chorus to Beck, adding,

I believe God speaks to all of us in ways.

OK.

Well, the states hit the hardest by the tornadoes are all Republican strongholds: Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia. Surely, that can’t be a coincidence.

So is God punishing these conservative states because they’re not taking care of the poor, the elderly and the sick, as Jesus commanded?

Somehow, I doubt we’re going to hear Glenn Beck or John Hagee speculate about this today.

that was not intended to be a factual statement

The Road to Hell is Also Paved With Bad Intentions
Posted: 04/13/11 10:27 AM ET
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Read more
Politics News
SHARE THIS STORY

76
24
8
4
Get Politics Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story
As a young man, Jon Kyl, the Republican junior senator from Arizona, was convicted of selling heroin, and he spent eight months in federal prison.

This remark was not intended to be a factual statement. Rather, it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl, a Republican senator, is from Arizona.

Yes, that was unfair. But just because Jon Kyl wasn't actually convicted of drug crimes doesn't mean he hasn't committed any legal abuses. Make no mistake, in his early days in Arizona state politics, he was reprimanded for 12 ethics violations, though avoided expulsion on a technicality, changing the spelling of his name which originally was "John Kyle."

This remark was not intended to be a factual statement, either, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl doesn't have the letter "H" in his name.

Joking aside, there is something I do admire Sen. Kyl for. It is his deft skill manipulating the English language to avoid responsibility for making a gross smear on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Addressing his senate colleagues, Mr. Kyl had said that abortions accounted for "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does" -- though the actual, truthful number is 3 percent. When later confronted over these shamefully inaccurate remarks now in the official Congressional Record, he hid behind his staff, which commented that "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."

Forgetting for a moment that this isn't even an attempt at an apology, there only two options here: either Jon Kyl takes you for an idiot, or himself.

To be fair to Jon Kyl and sympathetic, he has unfortunately been painfully distracted lately, due to a bitter divorce he's going through, brought about by the exposure of a 12-year, secret affair with his secretary.

Just to clarify, this remark is not intended to be a factual statement, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl has a secretary.

A case could be made that Jon Kyl knew his senate statement was a lie when he gave it, or at least that he didn't care whether it was false or not. But even if one chooses to graciously accept that it was just a horrific mistake -- we all know what a proper reply should have been. We all know how we ourselves would have apologized. We would have said --

"I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I relied on information given to me, and I should have checked it myself. I apologize to Planned Parenthood, to my Senate colleagues, and to the American public. I will immediately correct the Congressional Record. And will strive to make sure such a horrible error doesn't occur again."

We wouldn't have had a lackey say for us -- "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement."

Jon Kyl's lie and lying response reminds me of an election several years back for the Writers Guild Board of Directors. An unsigned letter was mailed that smeared each candidate on an opposition slate. Later, one of the non-attacked candidates was asked for his reaction to the anonymous smear of his opponents. Not wanting to defend his opponents, he said with a thoughtful, sad expression, "The fact that it got all the names and some of the ages right is what made the letter so hurtful."

All I could think was, "No! The fact that it got all the names right is what made the letter -- a smear."

It was the same attitude weaving through Jon Kyl's own smearing statement and smarmy, staff reply. It's as if the truth doesn't matter. That anything can be said if it helps you. And if you're forced to address the lie, dismiss it as not being intended to be the truth.

Of course it's not intended to be the truth. It was intended to smear!

This is an attitude that permeates the conservative movement these days. Democrats can lie, too, and when they do, it's just as wrong. But these days, the "say whatever you want," "truth be damned" weight has been falling more heavily on the Republican and conservative side. Perhaps because they're the ones in attack mode. Perhaps because the truth that Social Security, Medicare, universal healthcare, and public education all actually help people causes Republicans political trouble.

Whatever the reason, when the truth hurts you, and you choose to say anything to win, the truth doesn't matter.

To make a point attacking President Obama, Bill O'Reilly describes U.S. troops massacring Germans at Malmedy during WWII -- when the truth is the exact opposite. To prove a rally was popular, Glenn Beck shows a photograph of the crowd -- when the truth is that the photo was taken years before. To terrify the GOP base, Sarah Palin and others lie that Democrats want to kill old people. And on and on the spiral downward goes.

But of course, truth actually does matter. And we should not only expect it of our children, but also our politicians and social voices. Yes, I know that's a lot to expect. So, let's make it easy and start small --

Let's expect it of Jon Kyl.

That remark is intended to be a factual statement.

stretching out Chompsky

On Libya and the Unfolding Crises
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert
ZNet, March 30, 2011
1. What are US motives in international relations most broadly? That is, what are the over arching motives and themes one can pretty much always find informing US policy choices, no matter where in the world we are discussing? What are the somewhat more specific but still over arching motives and themes for US policy in Middle East and the Arab world? Finally, what do you think are the more proximate aims of US policy in the current situation in Libya?
A useful way to approach the question is to ask what US motives are not. There are some good ways to find out. One is to read the professional literature on international relations: quite commonly, its account of policy is what policy is not, an interesting topic that I won't pursue.

Another method, quite relevant now, is to listen to political leaders and commentators. Suppose they say that the motive for a military action is humanitarian. In itself, that carries no information: virtually every resort to force is justified in those terms, even by the worst monsters -- who may, irrelevantly, even convince themselves of the truth of what they are saying. Hitler, for example, may have believed that he was taking over parts of Czechoslovakia to end ethnic conflict and bring its people the benefits of an advanced civilization, and that he invaded Poland to end the "wild terror" of the Poles. Japanese fascists rampaging in China probably did believe that they were selflessly laboring to create an "earthly paradise" and to protect the suffering population from "Chinese bandits." Even Obama may have believed what he said in his presidential address on March 28 about the humanitarian motives for the Libyan intervention. Same holds of commentators.

There is, however, a very simple test to determine whether the professions of noble intent can be taken seriously: do the authors call for humanitarian intervention and "responsibility to protect" to defend the victims of their own crimes, or those of their clients? Did Obama, for example, call for a no-fly zone during the murderous and destructive US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, with no credible pretext? Or did he, rather, boast proudly during his presidential campaign that he had co-sponsored a Senate resolution supporting the invasion and calling for punishment of Iran and Syria for impeding it? End of discussion. In fact, virtually the entire literature of humanitarian intervention and right to protect, written and spoken, disappears under this simple and appropriate test.

In contrast, what motives actually are is rarely discussed, and one has to look at the documentary and historical record to unearth them, in the case of any state.

What then are US motives? At a very general level, the evidence seems to me to show that they have not changed much since the high-level planning studies undertaken during World War II. Wartime planners took for granted that the US would emerge from the war in a position of overwhelming dominance, and called for the establishment of a Grand Area in which the US would maintain "unquestioned power," with "military and economic supremacy," while ensuring the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. The Grand Area was to include the Western hemisphere, the Far East, the British empire (which included the Middle East energy reserves), and as much of Eurasia as possible, at least its industrial and commercial center in Western Europe. It is quite clear from the documentary record that "President Roosevelt was aiming at United States hegemony in the postwar world," to quote the accurate assessment of the (justly) respected British diplomatic historian Geoffrey Warner. And more significant, the careful wartime plans were soon implemented, as we read in declassified documents of the following years, and observe in practice. Circumstances of course have changed, and tactics adjusted accordingly, but basic principles are quite stable, to the present.

With regard to the Middle East -- the "most strategically important region of the world," in Eisenhower's phrase -- the primary concern has been, and remains, its incomparable energy reserves. Control of these would yield "substantial control of the world," as observed early on by the influential liberal adviser A. A. Berle. These concerns are rarely far in the background in affairs concerning this region.

In Iraq, for example, as the dimensions of the US defeat could no longer be concealed, pretty rhetoric was displaced by honest announcement of policy goals. In November 2007 the White House issued a Declaration of Principles insisting that Iraq must grant US military forces indefinite access and must privilege American investors. Two months later the president informed Congress that he would ignore legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Iraq or "United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" -- demands that the US had to abandon shortly after in the face of Iraqi resistance, just as it had to abandon earlier goals.

While control over oil is not the sole factor in Middle East policy, it provides fairly good guidelines, right now as well. In an oil-rich country, a reliable dictator is granted virtual free rein. In recent weeks, for example, there was no reaction when the Saudi dictatorship used massive force to prevent any sign of protest. Same in Kuwait, when small demonstrations were instantly crushed. And in Bahrain, when Saudi-led forces intervened to protect the minority Sunni monarch from calls for reform on the part of the repressed Shiite population. Government forces not only smashed the tent city in Pearl Square -- Bahrain's Tahrir Square -- but even demolished the Pearl statue that was Bahrain's symbol, and had been appropriated by the protestors. Bahrain is a particularly sensitive case because it hosts the US Fifth fleet, by far the most powerful military force in the region, and because eastern Saudi Arabia, right across the causeway, is also largely Shiite, and has most of the Kingdom's oil reserves. By a curious accident of geography and history, the world's largest hydrocarbon concentrations surround the northern Gulf, in mostly Shiite regions. The possibility of a tacit Shiite alliance has been a nightmare for planners for a long time.

In states lacking major hydrocarbon reserves, tactics vary, typically keeping to a standard game plan when a favored dictator is in trouble: support him as long as possible, and when that cannot be done, issue ringing declarations of love of democracy and human rights -- and then try to salvage as much of the regime as possible.

The scenario is boringly familiar: Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Ceauşescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and many others. And today, Tunisia and Egypt. Syria is a tough nut to crack and there is no clear alternative to the dictatorship that would support US goals. Yemen is a morass where direct intervention would probably create even greater problems for Washington. So there state violence elicits only pious declarations.

Libya is a different case. Libya is rich in oil, and though the US and UK have often given quite remarkable support to its cruel dictator, right to the present, he is not reliable. They would much prefer a more obedient client. Furthermore, the vast territory of Libya is mostly unexplored, and oil specialists believe it may have rich untapped resources, which a more dependable government might open to Western exploitation.

When a non-violent uprising began, Qaddafi crushed it violently, and a rebellion broke out that liberated Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, and seemed about to move on to Qaddafi's stronghold in the West. His forces, however, reversed the course of the conflict and were at the gates of Benghazi. A slaughter in Benghazi was likely, and as Obama's Middle East adviser Dennis Ross pointed out, "everyone would blame us for it." That would be unacceptable, as would a Qaddafi military victory enhancing his power and independence. The US then joined in UN Security Council resolution 1973 calling for a no-fly zone, to be implemented by France, the UK, and the US, with the US supposed to move to a supporting role.

There was no effort to institute a no-fly zone. The triumvirate at once interpreted the resolution as authorizing direct participation on the side of the rebels. A ceasefire was imposed by force on Qaddafi's forces, but not on the rebels. On the contrary, they were given military support as they advanced to the West, soon securing the major sources of Libya's oil production, and poised to move on.

The blatant disregard of UN 1973, from the start began to cause some difficulties for the press as it became too glaring to ignore. In the New York Times, for example, Karim Fahim and David Kirkpatrick (March 29) wondered "how the allies could justify airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi's forces around [his tribal center] Surt if, as seems to be the case, they enjoy widespread support in the city and pose no threat to civilians." Another technical difficulty is that UNSC 1973 "called for an arms embargo that applies to the entire territory of Libya, which means that any outside supply of arms to the opposition would have to be covert" (but otherwise unproblematic).

Some argue that oil cannot be a motive because Western companies were granted access to the prize under Qaddafi. That misconstrues US concerns. The same could have been said about Iraq under Saddam, or Iran and Cuba for many years, still today. What Washington seeks is what Bush announced: control, or at least dependable clients. US and British internal documents stress that "the virus of nationalism" is their greatest fear, not just in the Middle East but everywhere. Nationalist regimes might conduct illegitimate exercises of sovereignty, violating Grand Area principles. And they might seek to direct resources to popular needs, as Nasser sometimes threatened.

It is worth noting that the three traditional imperial powers -- France, UK, US -- are almost isolated in carrying out these operations. The two major states in the region, Turkey and Egypt, could probably have imposed a no-fly zone but are at most offering tepid support to the triumvirate military campaign. The Gulf dictatorships would be happy to see the erratic Libyan dictator disappear, but although loaded with advanced military hardware (poured in by the US and UK to recycle petrodollars and ensure obedience), they are willing to offer no more than token participation (by Qatar).

While supporting UNSC 1973, Africa -- apart from US ally Rwanda -- is generally opposed to the way it was instantly interpreted by the triumvirate, in some cases strongly so. For review of policies of individual states, see Charles Onyango-Obbo in the Kenyan journal East African (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103280142.html).

Beyond the region there is little support. Like Russia and China, Brazil abstained from UNSC 1973, calling instead for a full cease-fire and dialogue. India too abstained from the UN resolution on grounds that the proposed measures were likely to "exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya," and also called for political measures rather than use of force. Even Germany abstained from the resolution.

Italy too was reluctant, in part presumably because it is highly dependent on its oil contracts with Qaddafi -- and we may recall that the first post-World War I genocide was conducted by Italy, in Eastern Libya, now liberated, and perhaps retaining some memories.

2. Can an anti-interventionist who believes in self determination of nations and people ever legitimately support an intervention, either by the UN or particular countries?

There are two cases to consider: (1) UN intervention and (2) intervention without UN authorization. Unless we believe that states are sacrosanct in the form that has been established in the modern world (typically by extreme violence), with rights that override all other imaginable considerations, then the answer is the same in both cases: Yes, in principle at least. I see no point in discussing that belief, so will dismiss it.

With regard to the first case, the Charter and subsequent resolutions grant the Security Council considerable latitude for intervention, and it has been undertaken, with regard to South Africa, for example. That of course does not entail that every Security Council decision should be approved by "an anti-interventionist who believes in self-determination"; other considerations enter in individual cases, but again, unless contemporary states are assigned the status of virtually holy entities, the principle is the same.

As for the second case -- the one that arises with regard to the triumvirate interpretation of UN 1973, and many other examples -- then the answer is again Yes, in principle at least, unless we take the global state system to be sacrosanct in the form established in the UN Charter and other treaties.

There is, of course, always a very heavy burden of proof that must be met to justify forceful intervention, or any use of force. The burden is particularly high in case (2), in violation of the Charter, at least for states that profess to be law-abiding. We should bear in mind, however, that the global hegemon rejects that stance, and is self-exempted from the UN and OAS Charters, and other international treaties. In accepting ICJ jurisdiction when the Court was established (under US initiative) in 1946, Washington excluded itself from charges of violation of international treaties, and later ratified the Genocide Convention with similar reservations -- all positions that have been upheld by international tribunals, since their procedures require acceptance of jurisdiction. More generally, US practice is to add crucial reservations to the international treaties it ratifies, effectively exempting itself.

Can the burden of proof be met? There is little point in abstract discussion, but there are some real cases that might qualify. In the post-World War II period, there are two cases of resort to force which -- though not qualifying as humanitarian intervention -- might legitimately be supported: India's invasion of East Pakistan in 1971, and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, in both cases, ending massive atrocities. These examples, however, do not enter the Western canon of "humanitarian intervention" because they suffer from the fallacy of wrong agency: they were not carried out by the West. What is more, the US bitterly opposed them and severely punished the miscreants who ended the slaughters in today's Bangladesh and who drove Pol Pot out of Cambodia just as his atrocities were peaking. Vietnam was not only bitterly condemned but also punished by a US-supported Chinese invasion, and by US-UK military and diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge attacking Cambodia from Thai bases.

While the burden of proof might be met in these cases, it is not easy to think of others. In the case of intervention by the triumvirate of imperial powers that are currently violating UN 1973 in Libya, the burden is particularly heavy, given their horrifying records. Nonetheless, it would be too strong to hold that it can never be satisfied in principle -- unless, of course, we regard nation-states in their current form as essentially holy. Preventing a likely massacre in Benghazi is no small matter, whatever one thinks of the motives.

3. Can a person concerned that a country's dissidents not be massacred so they remain able to seek self determination ever legitimately oppose an intervention that is intended, whatever else it intends, to avert such a massacre?

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that the intent is genuine, meeting the simple criterion I mentioned at the outset, I don't see how to answer at this level of abstraction: it depends on circumstances. Intervention might be opposed, for example, if it is likely to lead to a much worse massacre. Suppose, for example, that US leaders genuinely and honestly intended to avert a slaughter in Hungary in 1956 by bombing Moscow. Or that the Kremlin genuinely and honestly intended to avert a slaughter in El Salvador in the 1980s by bombing the US. Given the predictable consequences, we would all agree that those (inconceivable) actions could be legitimately opposed.

4. Many people see an analogy between the Kosovo intervention of 1999 and the current intervention in Libya. Can you explain both the significant similarities, first, and then the major differences, second?

Many people do indeed see such an analogy, a tribute to the incredible power of the Western propaganda systems. The background for the Kosovo intervention happens to be unusually well documented. That includes two detailed State Department compilations, extensive reports from the ground by Kosovo Verification Mission (Western) monitors, rich sources from NATO and the UN, a British Parliamentary Inquiry, and much else. The reports and studies coincide very closely on the facts.

In brief, there had been no substantial change on the ground in the months prior to the bombing. Atrocities were committed both by Serbian forces and by the KLA guerrillas mostly attacking from neighboring Albania -- primarily the latter during the relevant period, at least according to high British authorities (Britain was the most hawkish member of the alliance). The major atrocities in Kosovo were not the cause of the NATO bombing of Serbia, but rather its consequence, and a fully anticipated consequence. NATO commander General Wesley Clark had informed the White House weeks before the bombing that it would elicit a brutal response by Serbian forces on the ground, and as the bombing began, told the press that such a response was "predictable."

The first UN-registered refugees outside Kosovo were well after the bombing began. The indictment of Milosevic during the bombing, based largely on US-UK intelligence, confined itself to crimes after the bombing, with one exception, which we know could not be taken seriously by US-UK leaders, who at the same moment were actively supporting even worse crimes. Furthermore, there was good reason to believe that a diplomatic solution might have been in reach: in fact, the UN resolution imposed after 78 days of bombing was pretty much a compromise between the Serbian and NATO position as it began.

All of this, including these impeccable western sources, is reviewed in some detail in my book A New Generation Draws the Line. Corroborating information has appeared since. Thus Diana Johnstone reports a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on October 26, 2007 by Dietmar Hartwig, who had been head of the European mission in Kosovo before it was withdrawn on March 20 as the bombing was announced, and was in a very good position to know what was happening. He wrote:

"Not a single report submitted in the period from late November 1998 up to the evacuation on the eve of the war mentioned that Serbs had committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, nor there was a single case referring to genocide or genocide-like incidents or crimes. Quite the opposite, in my reports I have repeatedly informed that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive, their law enforcement demonstrated remarkable restraint and discipline. The clear and often cited goal of the Serbian administration was to observe the Milosevic-Holbrooke Agreement [of October 1998] to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community to intervene. ... There were huge 'discrepancies in perception' between what the missions in Kosovo have been reporting to their respective governments and capitals, and what the latter thereafter released to the media and the public. This discrepancy can only be viewed as input to long-term preparation for war against Yugoslavia. Until the time I left Kosovo, there never happened what the media and, with no less intensity the politicians, were relentlessly claiming. Accordingly, until 20 March 1999 there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate measures undertaken thereafter by the international community. The collective behavior of EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, gives rise to serious concerns, because the truth was killed, and the EU lost reliability."

History is not quantum physics, and there is always ample room for doubt. But it is rare for conclusions to be so firmly backed as they are in this case. Very revealingly, it is all totally irrelevant. The prevailing doctrine is that NATO intervened to stop ethnic cleansing -- though supporters of the bombing who tolerate at least a nod to the rich factual evidence qualify their support by saying the bombing was necessary to stop potential atrocities: we must therefore act to elicit large-scale atrocities to stop ones that might occur if we do not bomb. And there are even more shocking justifications.

The reasons for this virtual unanimity and passion are fairly clear. The bombing came after a virtual orgy of self-glorification and awe of power that might have impressed Kim Il-Sung. I've reviewed it elsewhere, and this remarkable moment of intellectual history should not be allowed to remain in the oblivion to which it has been consigned. After this performance, there simply had to be a glorious denouement. The noble Kosovo intervention provided it, and the fiction must be zealously guarded.

Returning to the question, there is an analogy between the self-serving depictions of Kosovo and Libya, both interventions animated by noble intent in the fictionalized version. The unacceptable real world suggests rather different analogies. 5. Similarly, many people see an analogy between the ongoing Iraq intervention and the current intervention in Libya. In this case too, can you explain both the similarities, and differences?

I don't see meaningful analogies here either, except that two of the same states are involved. In the case of Iraq, the goals were those that were finally conceded. In the case of Libya, it is likely that the goal is similar in at least one respect: the hope that a reliable client regime will reliably supported Western goals and provide Western investors with privileged access to Libya's rich oil wealth -- which, as noted, may go well beyond what is currently known.

6. What do you expect, in coming weeks, to see happening in Libya and, in that context, what do you think ought to be the aims of an anti-interventionist and antiwar movement in the US regarding US policies?

It is of course uncertain, but the likely prospects now (March 29) are either a break-up of Libya into an oil-rich Eastern region heavily dependent on the Western imperial powers and an impoverished West under the control of a brutal tyrant with fading capacity, or a victory by the Western-backed forces. In either case, so the triumvirate presumably hopes, a less troublesome and more dependent regime will be in place. The likely outcome is described fairly accurately, I think by the London-based Arab journal al-Quds al-Arabi (March 28). While recognizing the uncertainty of prediction, it anticipates that the intervention may leave Libya with "two states, a rebel-held oil-rich East and a poverty-stricken, Qadhafi-led West ... Given that the oil wells have been secured, we may find ourselves facing a new Libyan oil emirate, sparsely inhabited, protected by the West and very similar to the Gulf's emirate states." Or the Western-backed rebellion might proceed all the way to eliminate the irritating dictator.

Those concerned for peace, justice, freedom and democracy should try to find ways to lend support and assistance to Libyans who seek to shape their own future, free from constraints imposed by external powers. We can have hopes about the directions they should pursue, but their future should be in their hands.

oMg not MORE political freedom....

BEIJING, March 29 (Xinhuanet) -- Anti-government protesters again took to the streets of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Monday. The demonstrations come a day after embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh scrapped an offer to step down by year's end.

During a TV interview Saturday, Saleh warned Yemen was "a ticking time bomb". He added that without him in power, the country would descend into civil war.

The formal withdrawal by the President, seems to indicate, that an attempt to negotiate a transfer of power to end the crisis has failed.

The protesters complain of corruption, the lack of jobs, and are seeking MORE political freedom. They're demanding President Saleh step down immediately.

unspeakable

japan whirlpool

scary, rhythmic, humming, physical chaos

03/11/2011 7:45 PM A New Yorker's On The Ground Account From The Earthquake
Via BoingBoing:

It began as a light tremor, something that one becomes oddly accustomed to when living in Japan. But then the deceptively gentle tremor kept going... and going... and going. Until the bemused giggles of my Japanese office mates gradually turned into full on screams of fear as everyone tried to duck under the nearest desk. But what really brought the thought that this might be my last Friday was the fact that the quake didn't obey the rules of good luck and suddenly stop once we all ducked under the desks. No. The quake lasted a very, very long time. Not unlike an animal's howl, the quake went from a deep rumble and gradually built up to a thunderous and sustained wave of rhythmic, humming, physical chaos. It lasted about five minutes by my guess. And if you've ever experienced an earthquake, you know that five minutes is an eternity compared to the run-of-the-mill quake. It was scary.
What I find most odd is that I'm not hearing the major cable news channels mention the fact that we experienced a similar (albeit far weaker), very long precursor earthquake earlier in the week. Clearly, that was the warning shot leading to the hit we sustained today.

a bad habit of telling the truth at the wrong time

Clapper lambastes Russia; wait, isn’t Joe Biden in Russia?
By Carol Felsenthal - 03/10/11 03:58 PM ET
Vice President Joe Biden is in Russia, lecturing officials there on the need for reform but emphasizing his earlier and friendly metaphor, echoed by his boss Barack Obama, that it is time for the U.S. to “push the reset button” in its relationship with Russia. While in Moscow, Biden also met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

While Biden is in Moscow, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He tells visibly stunned senators that the biggest threats to our nation are Russian and China. Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) suggests that in his opinion, Iran and North Korea are more menacing to the U.S.

Soon thereafter, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) goes on Fox News and calls for Clapper’s resignation. “Three strikes and you’re out” — the first strike, Graham explained, was seeming not to know, while being interviewed on ABC, that men allegedly planning a terrorist attack had been arrested in London, and the second was describing Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular.”

About the only worse example of flatfooted timing would have been if Clapper had delivered his remarks last January while President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House State Dinner.

violence does not help god say's the pope

By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY -- Violence committed in the name of God or religion is a "favorite instrument of the Antichrist," Pope Benedict XVI writes in a new book on the life and teachings of Jesus.

"Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity," Benedict writes. "On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be. It serves not humanity, but inhumanity."

The passage appears in Jesus of Nazareth -- Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, which was published in English and seven other languages on Thursday (March 10), with an initial printing of 1.2 million copies.

According to its American publisher, Ignatius Press, 90,000 copies of the English edition had been sold before publication.

The book is a sequel to the pope's 2007 bestseller, Jesus of Nazareth, which explored Jesus' public ministry from his baptism to the Transfiguration. In the trilogy that he began before his 2005 election as pope, Benedict studies the Gospels in light of the work of other scholars, including those who have sought to discover the "historical Jesus."

In pre-publication excerpts that were released March 2, Benedict wrote that the Jewish people were not responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, and their descendants have not inherited blame for his death.

humph who does she think she is criticising the U.S. media...

business says GOP is dumb

GM Posts First Profitable Year Since 2004.
More In Business: Mortgage Settlement... Oil Shortage Coming?... New Home Sales Plunge... .
Foreclosed Homes Grew Even More Affordable Last Year.
Toyota Recalls 2.17 Million Vehicles.
Blacks, Hispanics Fall Far Behind In Retirement Savings.
State, Local Tax Share Falls For First Time Since 2000.
Goldman Sachs Says GOP Budget Plan Will Hurt Economy
The Huffington Post Yepoka Yeebo First Posted: 02/24/11 09:45 AM Updated: 02/24/11 11:16 AM

Inspiring
Greedy
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Infuriating
Read More: Alec Phillips, Budget, Chuck Schumer, GDP Spending Cuts, Goldman Sachs, Gop, Obama Administration, Republican, Timothy Geithner, Business News share this story
24012332419 Get Business Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this storydigg
reddit
stumble The GOP spending cuts have been criticized again.

A Goldman Sachs economist has warned that the $60 billion package of spending cuts proposed by the Republicans to counter President Obama's proposal could slow economic growth.

And if budget wrangling between the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated House of Representatives led to a shutdown? That, according to Goldman, could cost $8 billion a week, the Financial Times reported.

Goldman's warning follows Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner's recent claims that the Republican plan would cost jobs.

In the confidential report, obtained by ABC News, among other news outlets, Goldman Sachs economic forecaster Alec Phillips said the GOP plan could slow economic growth by up to 2 percent. Even a compromise deal, with $25 billion in cuts could slow growth by 1 percent.

In its latest spending plan, the White House predicted GDP growth of 2.7 percent this year.

Goldman's analysis contradicts the GOP's "cut-and-grow' fantasy," Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) told Reuters. "This nonpartisan study proves that the House Republicans' proposal is a recipe for a double-dip recession," Schumer added.

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe Republican spending measures were proposed in opposition to White House budget plans released earlier this month, spurring fears that there would be no compromise before temporary measures funding the government run out on March 4.

Without a budget solution, the U.S. government could be shut down. Based on similar government closures in 1995 and 1996, Goldman says a shutdown would cost the U.S. economy $8 billion in reduced spending.

Earlier this month, the White House presented a budget focused on reducing the deficit and spurring growth. President Obama's plan included funding cuts for a variety of programs that assist the working poor, and help the needy heat their homes.

The aggregate of the cuts, the Goldman report said, according to ABC News, could briefly slow growth:

"Federal spending cuts deserve the most attention... discretionary spending cuts of $25bn and $50bn below the CBO baseline for FY2011 and FY2012 respectively--would shave nearly one percentage point off of the annualized rate of real GDP growth in Q2, but would fade quickly with a negligible effect on growth by year-end."
In response, early on Saturday morning following an all-night session, the House of Representatives voted 235-189, to pass legislation that would slash $60 billion in government spending between now and the end of September, setting up a showdown. The President has vowed to veto the plans.