July 26, 2014

You are mistaken. It did happen. You didn't read my entire post,

including the edit I made on my own, before you posted, or Reply 18.

And you didn't mention 2009 to 2011 at all, though the years I had mentioned were 2007 to 2011.

ETA: Thanks for the great example of the fallacy of the "If Democrats did not do it, it could not have humanly be done in the real world" theory.

July 26, 2014

I call bs. It was totally understood.

Nonetheless, President Obama and the D of J decided not to prosecute anyone whose ass had been covered by "legal advice," even if the advice was not so legal and not even sought until after the acts had begun. The so-called legal advice was that interrogation techniques up to and including death of the person being interrogated did not violate applicable law.

The two Attorneys most involved in the "legal advice," aside from Gonzo, were Yoo and Bybee.

Bybee had called Gonzo about getting a judgeship. Gonzo told him to come to work giving these legal opinions and then people would see about his judgeship. After giving his bullshit cya legal opinions, Bybee was nominated and confirmed for a seat on the US Circuit Court of Appeals, where he now sits for life, unless and until someone prosecutes and/or impeaches him. Guess what? Neither has happened.

Yoo went on to--wait for it--teach law. Also to write books and law review articles, both of which may well get cited in legal opinions (if they have not already been), as well as get credence from students and scholars. Bybee and Yoo are well worth your reading their full wikis and otherwise researching, along with how the Obama administration used their legal opinions to exonerate everyone who supposedly had relied on them.


As to Yoo:

In June 2004, another of Yoo's memos on interrogation techniques was leaked to the press, after which it was repudiated by Goldsmith and the OLC.[18]

Yoo's contribution to these memos has remained a source of controversy following his departure from the Justice Department;[19] he was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in 2008 in defense of his role.[20] The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began investigating Yoo's work in 2004 and in July 2009 completed a report that was sharply critical of his legal justification for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques.[21][22][23][24] The OPR report cites testimony Yoo gave to Justice Department investigators in which he claims that the "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"[25]

The OPR report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects", although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department lawyer.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

No one would even send a letter to the bar associations of Yoo and Bybee suggesting that the bar association might want to look into their actions. And by the way, the degree of evidence necessary to back up such a suggestion is zero.

Now, if legal opinions that were leaked said waterboarding, even death, of the "suspect" was legal, even massacring a village would be legal, what exactly was not previously understood about the degree of brutality of the interrogations by the CIA?

And, while I know Abu Ghraib was not about interrogations or the CIA, wasn't that a fucking clue to everyone in the world, including Congress and the Obama administration, that gambling brutality just might have gone on in Rick's Casino the Bush Administration?

Why do we continue to accept this lame, corrupt bullshit?

When are we going to demand return to the rule of law?

July 24, 2014

No, that would be socialism, period.

Many people have doubts about socialism, in part because of what I mentioned in my prior post--how much time, energy and money we've spend discrediting socialism.

Those doubts are exactly why the RW throws around the word "socialism" when social programs that have nothing to do with ownership of the means of production are at issue.

And exactly why I think the left should not also use the word incorrectly. So doing only hurts the left and helps the right.

I don't know when people began thinking that what they feels a word means is more correct than the dictionary meaning of the word. I think dictionary definitions are important if we are going to actually understand what we and others are saying, instead of only assuming we're communicating on the same page.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

July 24, 2014

It means government ownership of the means of production, not just

some government program. That is its meaning and dictonary definition.

If Obamacare were truly socialist, government would be owning the hospitals, hiring doctors, nurses and maintenance staff, etc.

When the word is used loosely, it brings to bear in a program about 70 years and trillions of dollars spent by the USA combating the left and discrediting the left at home and abroad.

July 24, 2014

Why I never call myself a progressive, by merrily

When the DLC first formally organized, Koch Industries donated to it and one of the Koch brothers had a seat on its Executive Council.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

(According to Jean Mayer of The New Yorker, this was about the same time as the Koch brothers began planning the Tea Party.)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations

The first two full-time employees of the DLC were Al From and Will Marshall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Marshall later founded the Progressive Policy Institute. It's web home page used to say something like, "Welcome to the Progressive Policy Institute, the place for pragmatic progressives."

I haven't checked lately, but the last time I checked, it no longer said that. Perhaps Tom Tomorrow got to PPI?



Anyway, PPI was founded in 1989, only a few years after official formation of the DLC. In 2003, Marshall, who is still President of PPI, signed the PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

How's that for progressive? How's that for pragmatic?

June 26, 2014

I was with you 100% until the last sentence. The Founders were plutocrats.

Who but plutocrats would have kept abolition of slavery out of the Constitution and restricted the vote to about 3% of the then population of the colonies, only white male who could afford to own land AND pay a poll tax?

They set up the electoral college to elect the President and Senators were elected by state legislatures--also made up of plutocrats, at least more plutocratic than others. State legislatures also got to vote on ratification of the Constitution. The people got to vote only for Reps, but the Senate got to vote on ambassadors, treaties, convictions in impeachment, etc., as well as the ability to kill things passed by the House.

We've been brainwashed all our lives to practically worship these people, most of whom were wealthy, especially the slaveowners, slaves being the single most valuable thing in the colonies. But, I'm over the brainwashing.

True, they could have overthrown the British, then set up another monarchy, if they wanted. Instead, they invented something that had never existed in human history. (They did want to make Washington "President for Life," but he refused--and that's close to another monarchy with a Congress, instead of a Parliament.)

I'll give them brilliance. Geniuses, yes, but they weren't egalitarians by any means. And they feared "the mob," which is why the Senate got more powers than the House.

June 26, 2014

"You can thank President Clinton...

You can thank President Clinton...

...for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which was one of the drivers behind the domination of right-wing talk radio today.

And NAFTA - a huge sell-out of the working person in this country, and I would propose one of the reasons for the shrinking middle class we're experiencing now.

And the current "Third Way Democrat" who used to talk like traditional Democrats but economically (and for some, foreign policy) are just as bad as the Repubs. Rather than confront the fat-cats, he catered to them (for the most part.)

He may have done some good things (even broken clocks...), but NAFTA and the Telecom Act created HUGE holes in our society for which we may never recover completely.

And he and the establishment Dems expect me to get all excited about Hillary? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Thank you, eizenmahn. I quoted in full because I want to add this post to my journal. I hope you don't mind. If you do, pm me and I will delete it from my journal.

And then, there was the Fairness Doctrine. Until the Obama administration, Democrats were calling for its reinstatement by the Executive Branch. However, under Obama, the FCC killed it. Whereas before, it could have been resurrected by the Executive Branch, after Obama, it will take an Act of Congress. And we all know, as we knew when the FCC put the nail in the coffin, that it will never pass Congress.

And much more recently, the FCC blew it with the internet, too.

But, sure, let's make believe that only Republicans are to blame for all our ills. That's great for professional Democrats, not so much for ordinary Democratic voters.

June 25, 2014

No, I think we agree activism is important. Question is,

what kind of activism?

Demonstrations, marches, signing internet petitions, calling your Rep? Don't get me wrong, I do do some of that, even though, as I am doing it, I ask myself why am I doing this when I don't think it will matter. The answer is, because I can't help myself. But, I don't think that will do the job.

Some of the things that have occurred to me:

Two huge websites, one for the US, one for the world. Not to discuss anything but what is going on in activism at the moment and maybe to exchange ideas on the most effective kinds of activism.

Economic boycotts.

Demonstrations, but really big ones. It could be local for everyone. "Show up at your town halls with signs next week at lunch hour," for example.

Ten people show up at a town hall, pffft. Five or ten people show up at every town hall in the country, though--maybe something gets shaken up? Maybe by the tenth week or so, media will even admit it's happening?

Iching and True Delphi are good evangelists for acting local and I really want to do more of that, too.

Anyway, those are some things I Have been mulling.

And so on.

June 24, 2014

Hippie probably was not the correct term.

It was my shorthand for people who took part in quite a few peace marches, maybe civil rights marches in the 1960s. Not necessarily the druggie, Haight Ashbury types--"not that there's anything wrong with that," or the "Can you spare some change?" group.

The persistent demonstrators could have been accountants, for all I know. I do know for certain that some were doctors and lawyers. And members of the military, etc. And some kids of multimillionaires, too.

The ones I mean are the ones who believe with 100% certainty that they fought the peace and civil rights battles for 5, 10, 15 years and finally won. When I tell them maybe it only looked as though they won, maybe the same things would have happened if they stayed home, they get furious. I don't blame them.

Same thing for those who go to a lot of demonstrations today, though most demonstrations today seem kind of puny. Even those who don't demonstrate, but keep telling us to call the White House or sign this internet petition or call our Rep. If any of that did anything, the bill that went to Baucus would have had a public option.

No one seems to want to even consider for a minute that they may need to change their M.O. What was good enough for the 1960s (or so it seemed) is going to do wonders in 2009-2016 and maybe forever. Or so they seem to think.

Um, how is it been working for us, so far? If I ask, that, someone will point to some vote or other of his or her rep. However, that doesn't mean the rep changed his or her vote because of calls and internet petitions. It was how the rep was going to vote all along.

Not to mention the damned D.C. kabuki. "Here, Emma, this vote is going to pass no matter what. You live in blue state, so go ahead and vote No. " or "Gee, the Dems out there want this vote to pass, but screw that. Let's make sure it's damn close, though, so it's looks like we REALLY tried. If you are in a solid blue state, or very, very popular, vote no and help out your fellow Dems in the pale blue states who have to vote yes or get primaried next time."

Anyway, the bottom line is, whatever did or did not work in the Sixties, that was a long time ago. It's not working today, so we have to find things that might work. At that point almost everyone is pissed at me and I get reamed as negative. Why? Because I think we should stop doing things that don't work and try to think of things that might?

June 24, 2014

Not true. Then again, neither it is true that only centrists can win elections.

Don't you people ever get tired of pushing memes that are untrue?

Obama defeated Ciinton by portraying himself as well to the left of centrists. The fact that he governed as a centrist has nothing to do with what got him elected. And the climate in the country is shifting. You and the DNC need to keep that in mind as well.

Besides, I would wager that about 80% of the country never heard of the DLC and has no idea that the party has changed. All they know is Democrats--FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, yadda yadda. New Deal, Fair Deal, Social Security, unions, civil rights, Great Society. Not mortgage derivatives.

Each party could run a hobby horse and they would get roughly the same number of votes, just based on the bitter partisanship that has been ginned up by both sides. So, please don't tell me that only a centrist can win. It's imaginary.