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.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, November 28, 2011
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.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
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.”
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.”
Friday, November 18, 2011
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….
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….
Friday, October 21, 2011
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
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
Monday, October 17, 2011
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
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
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, August 8, 2011
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.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
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.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
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:
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:
Monday, July 25, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, June 13, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
