Thursday, April 30, 2009

Like I Was Saying...

Like I was saying about the tea bagger party on April 15th:

“The entire episode would be utterly and hysterically funny if it were not for the strong likelihood that some of the attendees are the same unstable sort as Richard Poplawski. He was the sociopathic conservative without a conscience who murdered three cops in Pittsburgh. Poplawski’s racist head was filled with crap like Beck’s poisonous lies about Obama coming to take his guns away from him.”

Sure enough, one of them, in Oklahoma City at that, popped up with his crazy ugly anger and got arrested. Daniel Knight Hayden, or to those in Twitter World Citizen Quasar, was on a mission. He tweeted his vision for all his fellow Reich Wing gun nuts, conspiracy nuts, and general all around paranoid Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers.

The messages sent in the few days running up to his idea of a glorious D-Day went like this:

“Secret Homeland Security Threat Assessment Labels Gun Owners Potential Terrorists

Danish Scientist on TV: Nano-thermite Behind Collapse of WTC Buildings on 9/11, Not Planes

I made 15 copies of "The Obama Deception" which I will hand out. ALSO made 100 flyers...We shall SEE what happens

Maybe it's time to die. Let's see if I can video record the Highway Patrol at the entrance to the Oklahoma State Capitol...

I WISH I had someone to watch my back with MY camera... And post it on the internet. Since i live on this sorry fucking state,that is as good a place as ANY to die and start a WAR. WEshallsee

Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let's see what happens”

His big day was coming and he was desperate for attention

“START THE KILLING NOW! I am willing to be the FIRST DEATH!

After I am killed on the Capitol Steps, like a REAL man, the rest of you will REMEMBER ME!!!

Send the cops around. I will cut their heads off the heads and throw the[m] on the State Capitol steps.”

I hope the judge was right when he sent Citizen Quasar to a halfway house. Let’s hope this guy can be medicated back to reality. I just don’t happen to think they have strong enough anti-psychotic drugs to treat ODS.

And like I was saying in my post Monday about how we learn:

"Yes, that’s how we learn. And that’s how future presidents learn. They learn to break any law that gets in their way of exercising whatever abuse of power they wish.Remember what we learned from Nixon? “When the president does it that means it is not illegal.”

And sure enough, on the very day I posted that, Iraq war monger Condi Nixon, er... Rice, told students at Stanford these little gems:

“The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

There you go. By definition, if the president does it, it’s not illegal, or did not violate any law. The president IS the law. Since the decider decided it, then it must be legal.

Even the dreaded “Communist dictator” Hugo Chavez never so blatantly asserted such a clear crossing of the line to tyranny.

And wasn’t it the perfectly predictable republican projection from Karl Rove when he said investigation of Bush war crimes is what you’d expect from “mirrored sunglass wearing banana republic dictators”

The lessons are once again clearly visible to us. The delusional Reich Wingers see their fellow Americans as enemies. And they embrace totalitarianism for the cause of their megalomaniacal authoritarian cult.

As recent GOP defector Arlen Specter said, “...the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right.”

I think moderates, liberals, and anyone else who pays attention are learning that.

Unfortunately we will be seeing more and more evidence of rampant Obama Derangement Syndrome. Let’s hope the flu never reaches that level of pandemic contagion, or we are all in trouble.

Monday, April 27, 2009

How We Learn

Last Monday President Obama went to visit the CIA. He needed to buddy up to the agency and let them know he was still on their side.

"What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it's hard -- not just when it's easy," he said, "Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn.”

Oh, yes, the United States is special. You’re special. I’m special. The torturers are special. Yes, we are ALL special! We violate our nation’s values, ideals, (and laws) call them mistakes instead of crimes, and now look forward to moving on. Let’s look forward to our bright shiny future where America has failed to hold anyone accountable for violating the Geneva Convention and committing criminal acts that we prosecuted people for in the past.

Yes, that’s how we learn. And that’s how future presidents learn. They learn to break any law that gets in their way of exercising whatever abuse of power they wish.

Remember what we learned from Nixon? “When the president does it that means it is not illegal.”

Now we are learning something from Obama. If the president allows it to go unpunished that means it’s not a crime.

Don’t you just love learning how to be good Americans from politicians?

He also told them no agent would be charged for face slapping, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, wall slamming, stress positioning, wall shackling, or confining detainees in small boxes with insects. Nor would they be held liable for waterboarding detainees on an average of six times a day. Why not? Well, because they were “just following orders”, of course. Not only did Obama assure them the famous Nazi Nuremberg Defense was good enough to be their get-out-of-jail-free card, he softened the whole deal with a nicer term. Nobody was tortured. No, nothing so savage and brutal, it was merely a few “mistakes” that were made.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the idea of not prosecuting underlings in order to get the information to hold their superiors accountable. I just don’t see how anybody will face justice here without pressuring the agents into revealing the chain of orders for torture.

Oddly, some of the advocates of looking forward actually used the word torture.

Recently House Minority Leader John Boehner, accidently I’m sure, uttered a bit of truth slippage. “Last week, they released these memos outlining torture techniques—that was clearly a political decision.”

On Sunday corporate media insider David Broder wrote in the Washington Post, “The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.”

How about that? If torture is approved by deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places, then it’s all fine and legal. All you need are a few hand picked, sycophantic, cold blooded lawyers to make your brutality legitimate.

Of course this is mere child’s play after you successfully deceived the country into a politically motivated illegal war of aggression that may well last another six years.

Broder continued, “One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.
Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

Is that where we want to go? I don't think so. Obama can prevent it by sticking to his guns.”

Aren’t you relieved to learn all this is only about policy disagreements? And if we’ve learned nothing else during the past eight years, we can be sure George W. Bush certainly IS a man of honor.

But there’s another voice out there. Someone with personal experience in the interrogations wrote a piece in the April 23rd edition of the New York Times.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.

He wrote: “For seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false.”

But, then again, how can this insignificant peon know better than our wise and fearless media and political leadership?

I understand Obama is reluctant to open the huge can of worms. It’s a political powder keg. Maybe the Justice Department will initiate an investigation, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

As William Butler Yeats wrote, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Now, haven’t we all learned a lot from these mistakes? I don’t know about you, but I sure am feeling a lot prouder, and smarter, for being an American.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Post Tea Chat

I have always been interested in hearing from people with differing perspectives. We have a conservative visitor who seems to believe in civil discourse and has provided us with some post tea time conversation. I think our discussion would make a nice post and I’d like to thank Dan for sharing his views with us.

I find your claim incredulous. Am I supposed to believe “an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice”, would steadily chip away the podium on which he ‘supposedly’ stands?

I have to give you credit in regards to your subtle (sometimes not) attempts to marginalize the Tea Parties. You stripped a page from Napolitano’s script when she so timely warned us of “radical right-wing extremist” (and Obama claimed to know nothing of the Tea Parties). I find it laughable as well as hypocritical, that hard-core liberals who have made a history of protest can in good conscience cast stones at those protesting. Perhaps just beyond the realm of your comprehension lie those protesting their concerns about trillions of dollars and debt for future generations as well as expressing their frustration as they watch the government bail out large corporate entities. (Only a fool can believe that taxes will not go through the roof once the ‘recovery’ takes place). Many are also fair tax proponents, of course that would be a problem for those forty-fifty percent that don’t currently contribute federal tax dollars, but still receive refunds.

I’ve stayed too long…now back to reality. I trust never-never land will rest in your capable hands.


Thanks for your input. Your podium metaphor isn't quite clear to me.

You said, I "stripped a page from Napolitano’s script when she so timely warned us of “radical right-wing extremist”. No, I didn't.

And besides, I would credit someone for any page I would strip them of. BTW, nice post you got over there.;-)

In fact, violent right wing radicalism has been around for a long time.

US News and World Report: 2005:

"In the 10 years since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, roughly 60 right-wing terrorist plots have been uncovered in the United States, according to an upcoming report by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. The plots, all foiled by law enforcement, reportedly included violent plans by antigovernment militia groups, racist skinhead organizations, and Ku Klux Klan members to use various types of chemical bombs and other weapons."

And we all know of the recent right wing politically motivated killings of Tennessee Unitarians and Pittsburgh cops.

Face it, Dan. Right wingers are more violent than libs and moderates. It's in their authoritarian nature.

You may be surprised to learn liberals detest the bank bailouts, too.

American corporatism has always been the offspring of Republicans and right leaning, big business Dems.

Remember when the righties called us traitors for protesting Bush's lying us into a war that has cost us the first trillion dollars of the Bush debt?

Where was the outrage from the conservatives when Bush started the TARP corporate welfare program?

And just who are the ones casting stones anyway, those accusing Fox/corporate lobby sponsored shills as dancing puppets of their corporatist masters, or those accusing demonstrators of treason?

Don't get me wrong, I believe you love your country, but you appear to love conservatism more.


I have to admit I’ve bookmarked your site; the entertainment value is priceless.

The podium reference was rather tongue-in-cheek. You claim to support traditional values. As a side note, the Wikipedia entry for right-wing mentions “an adherence and obedience to traditional values”.

I was not suggesting you had plagiarized Mrs. Napolitano’s work, only that you used the same tired scare tactics. All veterans must be ‘right wing’ and since they know how to use weapons, we add one and one and come up with four. (the extra two came from the logical assumption that right wing=angry and deranged). Only by using such poisonous terms as “Reich wing” will the conservative right ever include such hate groups as the skin-heads and KKK. On the lines of hating, I don’t suppose you caught Janeane Garofalo’s interview (a fine representation of a hate-filled lib)

Tarp funds were certainly not a unanimous choice on either side, but it is worth noting the bill carried through the house with a nearly two to one margin Dem/Rep 172/91.

No matter your position on the Iraq war only the ‘Bush-haters” have turned it into a lie. I’m assuming by the “Bush lie” you mean W.M.D.’s (“boo…hiss…dirty words”). It was a very popular lie as it seems Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, and Madeline Albright also told the very same lie back then. Hindsight will always be 20/20 and a short memory serves it well.

It is no secret President Obama believes in a heavily involved government: socialized health care (one look at the mismanagement of the V.A. program should send us running) and the refusal to accept repayment of tarp money (is the president erring on the side of caution or do I smell a big, fat pot of socialism brewing?)

I do love my country, just as our founders intended it to be, with a small, limited role for government.


It’s nice to know you find entertainment value in my anti-authoritarian satire.

Didn’t you know liberals have traditional values, as well as anti-authoritarian values? Along with justice and truth, one of my favorite values is “blessed are the peacemakers”. Is that traditional enough?

You say I used the same tired scare tactics. Do you mean stuff like “mushroom clouds”, “Saddam’s aerial drones that will drop chemicals and anthrax on us”, “nukular aluminum tubes” , “Saddam’s connections to al-Qaeda”, “We know where the WMD’s are”, and “they hate us for our freedom” kind of scare tactics? The Bush cartel spewed lies by the hundreds, and they punished anyone who contradicted them. Ask Joe Wilson and his covert (confirmed by the Director) intelligence operative wife who was treasonously exposed by Rove, Cheney and his thug sidekick Libby. And unlike some Dems who may have thought Saddam had the weapons, but wanted inspectors to do their job, the Bush lies were intended to frighten and anger Americans into supporting his war of aggression directed at a nation that did not harbor al-Qaeda and posed no threat to the US.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq had less to do with protecting US citizens than with consolidating political power and winning re-election, along with transferring, or redistributing, enormous wealth to his and Cheney’s war profiteering friends. He has pretty much admitted his “war president and political capital” idea in his book before he became president. Maybe it even had something to do with oil. It sure looked like the perfect plan to funnel our tax dollars directly into the pockets of mercenaries and other connected business interests. There’s that trickle up economy for you.

This reminds me, what do conservatives think of Eisenhower’s concern over the influence of the military industrial complex? I have always been curious about that. Taxes on the rich were higher during his time than they were under Clinton, you know. Was Ike a Socialist?

I’m glad you’re sensitive to the use of poisonous terms. We heard a lot of them lately. Traitors, America haters, Appeasers of terrorists, Socialist, secret Muslim, Obama pallin’ around with a terrorist, far left wackos, “real Americans” as opposed to moderates and liberals. The list goes on. I have explained my term Reich Wingers to be authoritarian fanatics, hateful, ignorant, violent, racist, bigots, book burning, commie-obsessed holdovers, and other intolerant types. Most conservative folks are not Reich Wingers.

What did I ever say against the vets? And are you advocating shutting down the V.A.?

You need to re-calibrate your negative emotion gauge if you are equating Janeane Garofalos’s anger with the rage and hatred from skin heads and Klansmen.

There are many of us who are neither Obama maniacs nor sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Yes, Obama is a Democrat who believes government can solve some problems. I also see him as a company man working with corporatist interests. I have objected to any authoritarian stand he takes, such as FISA, rendition, no rights for detainees, etc.

I love my country, but I fear our rogue government when it ignores the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.

Conservatives seem to like to have it both ways. Big Government can’t do anything right, yet “small government” must wield the world’s mega military machine effectively and wisely. Government must not interfere with the corporate agenda no matter the impact on the public and environment. Small government must be able to send paramilitary armored assault teams of cops to kick in the doors of peaceful protesters and forcibly detain credentialed journalists. Remember the tactics at the GOP Convention?

There’s no role for government to regulate Big Business, but we need government to dictate the behavior of responsible consenting adults in their homes. They have no objection to warrantless NSA and CIA surveillance of US citizens. It is as if the Second Amendment was as far as they read into the Bill of Rights. Waterboarding is torture when someone else does it, (We’ve prosecuted against it) but not when we do it. And the Right accuses the Left of “moral relativism”.

There is a long list of contradictory disconnects at play here. Here is one of my favorites. Two thirds of US corporations pay no income taxes. Yet through lobbying and campaign donations they buy representation in the government. There you have it. Big Business has representation WITHOUT taxation! The rest of us get the shaft, buddy. Workers’ rights to collective bargaining are being crushed. Is it any wonder the middle class is shrinking and the poor are multiplying? This is not democracy, it is corporatism and it leads to fascism.

Some of us want to have government work for the public interest, as in education, health care, infrastructure, police, fire, courts, and municipal services.

On the other hand the right wants no regulation, and no legal oversight. Government is to facilitate the interests of Big Money or get out of the way. It is their golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.

If the government works for the public, then call it socialism if you must. Just understand that when the tea baggers shriek “socialism” and “communism” over a 3 percent tax restoration for the rich it makes them look like selfish greedy idiots.

Remember “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars”?

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Tea Time

The day for the big right wing American protest has come at last. The “tea parties” promoted by Fox Propaganda and corporate lobbyists for the past weeks have finally been staged around the nation. Staged, of course, would be the operative word here, and usually in socialist tax supported public parks.

These protests were very unlike the anti-war protests glaringly not covered by Fox and most corporate media. While the demonstrations largely ignored by media were motivated from a sense of justice, compassion and truth, these folks were aroused by their hatred of Obama, resentment over losing a fair election, and plain old selfish greed.

Outraged Americans turned out by the dozens at various localities. The group fronted by Gruppenfuhrer Glenn Beck was gathered in front of the Alamo.

Now, before you get too excited about my little SS tag on Beck, let me tell you about the gathering of tea baggers featured on Ed Schultz’s show the other day. A man was declaring that the American people were being brainwashed by the Obama Commies through the new digital conversion boxes on their TV sets. After this frightened and ignorant fellow screamed about the kids being brainwashed by Commie professors at college as well, a fellow Reich Wing woman was heard off camera yelling, “Burn the books!”

Gee, where have we heard that kind of talk before?

Except for the TV part, this scene was played out by masses of “good Germans” in the 1930’s.

Gruppenfuhrer Beck’s irate idiots were the lucky ones to be entertained by Ted Nugent performing a rather white teenage high school version of Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner.

And speaking of white didn’t those crowds look as white as a Klan rally minus the robes? These were the same ilk, no doubt, who shouted, “Kill him!” and “Terrorist!” at Sarah Palin rallies.

So there they were, a bunch of Fox-brainwashed fools, most of them who have NOT had their taxes raised by Obama, shouting and protesting about paying taxes. I don’t suppose their simple little minds could explain how we are to pay for their beloved wars without taxes.

But, why would that matter? These mobs, composed of buffoons who most likely just had their taxes LOWERED by Obama, were out to vent their anger against...Obama.

Remember crazy old Krauthammer and his cute little name for liberals’ outrage at Bush’s lies, war, torture, and destruction of civil liberties? He called it “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.

What we now have is a remarkable case of mass “Obama Derangement Syndrome”. Now we see who’s really deranged.

The entire episode would be utterly and hysterically funny if it were not for the strong likelihood that some of the attendees are the same unstable sort as Richard Poplawski. He was the sociopathic conservative without a conscience who murdered three cops in Pittsburgh. Poplawski’s racist head was filled with crap like Beck’s poisonous lies about Obama coming to take his guns away from him.

I enjoy a good laugh at arrogant fools as much as the next guy, but there’s a sick gnawing sense of dread lurking in my gut.

How many more Reich Wing domestic terrorists were groomed for their evil mission today?