Globalization, Clinton-style; or, how Hillary is denying the undeniable in Indiana

By Michael J.W. Stickings

McClatchy:

Hillary Clinton loves to tell the story about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

It's a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't.

If she were president, Clinton says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband's administration.

Hillary is featuring the story in a TV ad being aired in Indiana. And, in response to these allegations, the spin is coming fast and furious: It wasn't Bill's fault, it was Bush's. Bill didn't know the jobs would be moved to China. Indeed, as she put it on April 12: "We've got to elect a president next January [sic] who's going to remember Magnequench," the Valparaiso, Indiana company in question.

As ABC's Jake Tapper points out, however, "[w]hat Clinton doesn't tell voters is that Magnequench was originally sold to Chinese interests during her husband's administration, which okayed the move despite concerns about national security and eventual job loss. Experts say the Chinese acquired the 'technical sophistication' that created the magnets [for precision-guided missiles] long before George W. Bush took office." Senator Evan Bayh, her most important Hoosier backer, knows this: "[He] now glosses over the outrage he once expressed at the Clinton administration's approval of [the] 1995 sale."

(Make sure to read Tapper's piece, which includes some excellent reporting.)

In other words, Hillary has been conveniently misrepresenting what really happened (see Bosnia, snipers). The truth, contrary to the spin, is that:

-- It was Bill, not Bush, who approved the sale.

-- There was no guarantee that the jobs would never be moved.

-- There was no transfer of intellectual property.

The fact that there was no transfer of intellectual property works in Bill's defence. It was bad enough that jobs were moved, but at least the secret technology wasn't.

But, for Hillary, the misrepresentation is obviously far more appealing than the truth.

Better to blame Bush -- and, I agree, he is a justifiably easy target -- for job losses in Indiana and to claim that military-oriented intellectual property was sent to China. And, of course, to present herself as the one who will fight to protect homeland manufacturing jobs from the nefarious forces of globalization (and those evil Chinese).

But, then, running on a lie is nothing new to her, is it?

Do you hate the Clintons?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Over at TNR's The Plank, historian David Greenberg recently wrote that "the newfound Clinton-hatred is most assuredly not a product of the former president's purported negative campaigning against Obama. Quite the contrary, the idea that he has campaigned with particular negativity against Obama is itself the product, in part, of the Clinton-hatred coursing anew through the Washington establishment."

In other words, much of the opposition to Hillary from Obama supporters (Republicans, who admittedly hate all things Clinton, aren't at issue here) stems from deep-rooted hatred of the Clintons, not from how Hillary and her campaign have conducted themselves over the course of the current race for the Democratic nomination.

Which is just plain wrong.

Now, I'm not part of the Washington establishment, nor are most bloggers, but I do think there is a good deal of Clinton "hatred" out there, especially in the mainstream media establishment. Take Maureen Dowd, for example, or the way the Clintons are treated by the likes of Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Even here, though, I'm not so sure "hatred" is the right word for it. In the case of someone like Matthews, misogyny seems to be at the root of his opposition to all things Hillary.

But what about the rest of us? Are we Clinton-haters? Have we lined up behind Obama because we just can't stand the Clintons? And is our criticism of how Hillary and her campaign have conducted themselves merely a reflection of our own deep-rooted hatred? Is there no more to it than that?

In response to Greenberg, Chris Orr sums up nicely the progression that many of us Obama supporters have gone through over the course of the campaign:

As recently as December, I was agnostic about the Democratic primary. I had leaned Obama earlier in the year, but had been disappointed by his (apparent) failure to generate any kind of meaningful momentum throughout the fall. I was entirely happy with what then seemed the extreme likelihood that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. Over time that feeling has changed, and while I will still vote for Clinton in November if she is the nominee, I very much hope she is not. In part, this is because I have been impressed by Obama's performance, but equally it is because I have been depressed by Clinton's -- the idiotic and self-serving spin ceaselessly emanating from her campaign, the destructive post-facto lobbying to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and on and on. (Yes, Bill's South Carolina comments would show up on a comprehensive list of what disappointed me with his wife's candidacy, though it wouldn't be near the top.)

As recently as December, I made the case that Edwards was the best option for the Democrats. I had had my doubts about Obama -- too young, untested, too much hollow rhetoric (I thought at the time) -- and, besides, I had been a featured blogger at Edwards's One America Committee. It's not that I didn't like Hillary and Obama, it's just that I liked Edwards a lot more.

Otherwise, though, my experience mirrors Chris's. I thought a Hillary win was pretty much a foregone conclusion -- then again, I also thought a Romney win was the same on the other side -- and, for the most part, I was behind her. I even suggested a Clinton-Feingold ticket (and a Romney-Huckabee ticket on the other side, before it came out that the latter doesn't much care for the former). And I could point back to posts I'd written defending her -- with conviction -- against her opponents and their vicious smears (see, for example, here and here). Looking back through my old posts, I even said this about her last July: "I suppose I would describe myself as ambivalent about Hillary. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I will, of course, support her. But I'm not sure just how much I support her now. Certainly I wouldn't describe my support as "intense". At most, I admire and respect her."

But, well, things changed -- quickly -- and, after defending her after Iowa (and over the crying incident in New Hampshire), I endorsed Obama on Super Tuesday. And, since then, as many of you know, I have been critical, often relentlessly, of her and her campaign.

No, it's not Clinton-hatred, nothing of the sort. It's recognition of Obama's extraordinary qualities combined with disgust at how Hillary and her campaign have conducted themselves, especially since South Carolina.

I would still support her for president, of course, but, like many of her critics and opponents who have come to support Obama these past several months, it would take some time to get past my current repulsion.

Albert Hofmann died on Tuesday aged 102, synthesised LSD in 1938

SO, THE GUY WHO INVENTED ACID LIVED TO BE 102?...HMMM




The day, April 19 1943, became known among aficionados as “Bicycle Day” as it was while cycling home from his laboratory that he experienced the most intense symptoms.

Hofmann was working as a research chemist in the laboratory of the Sandoz Company (now Novartis) in Basel, Switzerland, where he was involved in studying the medicinal properties of plants. This eventually led to the study of the alkaloid compounds of ergot, a fungus which forms on rye.

In the Middle Ages, ergot was implicated in period outbreaks of mass poisonings, producing symptoms in two characteristic forms, one gangrenous (ergotismus gangraenosus) and the other convulsive (ergotismus convulsivus).
Article continues
advertisement

Popular names such as “mal des ardents,” “ignis sacer,” “heiliges Feuer,” or “St Anthony’s fire” — refer to the gangrenous form of the disease.

Hofmann’s studies led to many new discoveries such as Hydergine, a medicament for improvement of circulation and cerebral function and Dihydergot, a circulation and blood pressure stabilising medicine.

His interest in synthesising LSD was stimulated at first by the hope that it might also be useful as a circulatory and respiratory stimulant.

But when his molecule, known as LSD-25, was tested on animals, no interesting effects were observed, though the research notes recorded that the beasts became “restless” during narcosis. The substance was dismissed as of no interest and dropped from Sandoz’s research programme.

But five years later, acting on some intuition, Hofmann decided to resynthesise LSD. In his autobiography, LSD, My Problem Child (1979), he recalled that in the final stage of the synthesis, he was interrupted by some unusual sensations.

In a note to the laboratory’s director, he reported “a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness. At home I lay down and sank into a not unpleasant intoxicated-like condition, characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination.

"In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed, I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colours. After some two hours this condition faded away.”

Hofmann concluded that he must have accidentally breathed in or ingested some laboratory material and assumed LSD was the cause. To test the theory he waited until the next working day, Monday April 19 1943, and tried again, swallowing 0.25 of a milligram.

Forty minutes later, his laboratory journal recorded “dizziness, feeling of anxiety, visual distortions, symptoms of paralysis, desire to laugh”.

Unable to write any more, he asked his assistant to take him home by bicycle. “On the way home, my condition began to assume threatening forms.

"Everything in my field of vision wavered and was distorted as if seen in a curved mirror. I also had the sensation of being unable to move from the spot. Nevertheless, my assistant later told me that we had travelled very rapidly.”

Back home, when a friendly neighbour brought round some milk, he perceived her as a “malevolent, insidious witch” wearing “a lurid mask”. After six hours of highs and lows, the effects subsided.

Sandoz, keen to make a profit from Hofman’s discovery, gave the new substance the trade name Delysid and began sending samples out to psychiatric researchers.

By 1965 more than 2,000 papers had been published offering hope for a range of conditions from drug and alcohol addiction to mental illnesses of various sorts.

But the fact that it was cheap and easy to make left it open to abuse and from the late 1950s onwards, promoted by Dr Timothy Leary and others, LSD became the recreational drug of choice for alienated western youth.

An outbreak of moral panic, combined with a number of accidents involving people jumping to their deaths off high buildings thinking they could fly, led governments around the world to ban LSD.

Research also showed that the drug taken in high doses and in inappropriate settings, often caused panic reactions. For certain individuals, a bad trip seemed to be the trigger for full-blown psychosis.

Hofmann was disappointed when his discovery was removed from commercial distribution. He remained convinced that the drug had the potential to counter the psychological problems induced by “materialism, alienation from nature through industrialisation and increasing urbanisation, lack of satisfaction in professional employment in a mechanised, lifeless working world, ennui and purposelessness in wealthy, saturated society, and lack of a religious, nurturing, and meaningful philosophical foundation of life”.

Albert Hofmann was born at Baden, Switzerland, on January 11 1906, the elder of two children. Having graduated from Zürich University with a degree in chemistry in 1929 he took a doctorate on the gastro-intestinal juice of the vineyard snail.

After leaving university, he went to work for Sandoz Pharmaceuticals where he researched the medicinal properties of the Mediterranean squill (Scilla maritima), before moving on to the study of Claviceps purpurea (ergot).

As a result of the use of LSD as a recreational drug Sandoz found itself bombarded with demands for information from regulatory bodies along with demands for statements after accidents, poisonings, criminal acts and so forth from the press. For scientists unaccustomed to the glare of publicity, it became a headache.

“I would rather you hadn’t discovered LSD,” Hofmann’s managing director told him. In the end the decision was taken to stop all further production.

Hofmann laid some of the blame at the door of Dr Timothy Leary. In his autobiography, he described meeting Leary in 1971 in the railway station snack bar in Lausanne.

Hofmann began by voicing his regret that Leary’s experiments had effectively killed off academic research into LSD and took Leary to task for encouraging its recreational use among young people. Leary was unabashed.

“He maintained that I was unjustified in reproaching him for the seduction of immature persons to drug consumption,” Hofmann recalled, on the ground that American teenagers “with regard to information and life experience, were comparable to adult Europeans” and able to make up their own minds.

Hofmann continued to work at Sandoz until 1971 when he retired as Director of Research for the Department of Natural Products.

In addition to his discovery of LSD, he was also the first to synthesize psilocybin (the active constituent of “magic mushrooms”) in 1958.

He also discovered the hallucinogenic principles of Ololiuqui (Morning Glory), lysergic acid amide and lysergic acid hydroxyethylamide.

In retirement, Hofmann served as a member of the Nobel Prize Committee. He was a Fellow of the World Academy of Sciences, and a Member of the International Society of Plant Research and of the American Society of Pharmacognosy.

In 1988 the Albert Hofmann Foundation was established “to assemble and maintain an international library and archive devoted to the study of human consciousness and related fields.”

He disapproved of the appropriation of LSD by the youth movements of the 1960s, but regretted that its potential uses had not been explored. He had been due to speak at the World Psychedelic Forum in March, but ill health prevented him from attending.

Albert Hofmann was married and had three children.

KEELEY HAZELL - TOPLESS IN "NUTS" MAGAZINE

FINALLY - A MARIJUANA BOOK FOR KIDS ! ! !

One night, Jackie woke up past her bedtime.

She smelled something funny in the air, so she walked down the hall to her parent's bedroom



FROM "IT'S A PLANT"




“What’s that, Mommy?” asked Jackie. “Are you and Daddy smoking a cigarette?”

“No, baby,” said her mother. “This is a joint. It’s made of marijuana.”

“Mar-a-whahh?” asked Jackie, sleepily.

“Marijuana,” smiled her dad, “is a plant.”

“What kind of plant?”

“Well...” said her mom, “how about we go on a bicycle ride tomorrow, and I will tell you all about it. Okay?”

“Okay,” said Jackie.





Farmer Bob walked Jackie and her mom through his garden, stopping to point out the different plants.

He grew many! There were avocados, with ruddy skins like an alligator. They also saw a cactus, figs, pumpkins and even mint growing by a strawberry patch. Mmm!

Finally he reached a pot with a sweet, skunky smell.

“This,” said Bob, “is a marijuana plant.”

“This plant lives all around the world,” he said.

“It can grow very, very tall with long green leaves. Or, it can be short, fuzzy and purple! Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years just like fruits, beans and grains.”

“Is marijuana a fruit?” asked Jackie.

“You could say it is,” said Bob. “It grows flowers to make its seeds. I pick the seeds to make food and oils. Then I clip the flowers and dry them.”

“What do you do with the flowers?” asked Jackie.

“My friends eat them,” said Bob, “and smoke ‘em.”

“They smoke flowers?!”

“Yep. Doctors, teachers, artists, actors, even mayors and presidents. Marijuana makes some people feel happy. Other people say it’s ‘dreamy.’”

“Why do you use it, Farmer Bob?” asked Jackie.

“I don’t,” he said. “It just puts me to sleep!”

FINALLY - $180 BIRD POOP FACIAL MASK ???

NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Forget avocado, evening primrose oil or other exotic ingredients, the latest facial to hit New York is a mask made with bird excrement.

The Geisha Facial, available at Shizuka New York for $180, about $100 more than the shop's other facials, contains nightingale excrement.

The Japanese powder, also known as uguisu no fun, is rich in the amino acid guanine, said to brighten and cleanse skin. In the 18th century geishas and kabuki actors used the powder to clean heavy white makeup off their faces.

"I'm always trying to bring Japanese culture and tradition to my spa," said Shizuka Bernstein. "I heard my mother talk about this treatment when I was a little girl."

The Japanese manufacturers of the powder treat it with ultraviolet light to kill bacteria. Bernstein mixes the substance at her spa with finely-ground rice bran to neutralize its slightly musky odor.

She claims the mask helps women achieve a porcelain white quality to their skin.

"I was a little tentative at first," said Andrea Nieto, who recently received the treatment. "But there was no smell. It was creamy and rich."

Obama: "Reverend Wright does not speak for me."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been a lot of reaction today to Obama's remarks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright in response to the latter's self-promotional publicity campaign. Obama discussed his former pastor at length in his brilliant speech on race and politics, speaking highly of him even as he distanced himself from his more outrageous comments, but, given what Wright has said in recent days -- given how Wright has taken advantage of the situation to threaten Obama's campaign -- it was time to speak decisively once and for all.

Make sure to read the entire transcript of his remarks. Don't rely on the snippets upon which the news media dwell. Here's some of what he said:

Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He's built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people. And what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

Creature: "Barack Obama did what he had to do today. He told his former reverend off (for all the world to see, no less). It was sad, actually. Though the cynical out there will still say this was all politics and posturing by Obama, I don't think it was. Not at all. Politics would have been throwing Wright aside the first time around. Instead Obama made a valiant attempt at respect. It's a shame his former pastor wasn't having any of it.

Sullivan: "Cynics may scoff -- and certainly will. They will parse every nuance and try to paint Obama as another cynical, positioning pol. I don't believe it. He has more sincerity and integrity than the vast majority of politicians, more honesty, and more resilience in a very tough spot. And today, we found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president. It makes me want to see him succeed more than ever. It's why this country needs to see him succeed more than ever."

Obama did what he had to do, and he did it well. His opponents, including Hillary, will continue to try to take advantage of the controversy for political gain. To me, however, Obama was clear and conclusive. He is obviously a man of incredible magnanimity, but, simply put, he has had enough.

And we do indeed need him to succeed more than ever.

**********

Here's the clip:

Clemens and McCready; or, Rocket Roger and the teenage country music starlet

By Michael J.W. Stickings

An update to my post from last night, at the end of which I said I was looking forward to what McCready had to say about her relationship with Clemens. Well, here you go:

**********

From today's Daily News:

"I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News…

"Yes, I have known Roger Clemens for a long time," McCready said, reading from a prepared statement. "He's a kind and caring man. He's also a legendary athlete."

Well, okay, fine. Maybe he is "kind and caring," maybe he isn't. And he's certainly been one of the greatest pitchers ever -- though it's a bit early to start calling him a legend.

To get back to the matter at hand, though, have I mentioned she was 15 years old when the affair started?

Not good.

Normally, I might agree with Obama

By Carl

From the AP:

Democrat Barack Obama dismissed his rivals' calls for national gas tax holiday as a political ploy that won't help struggling consumers. Hillary Rodham Clinton said his stance shows he's out of touch with the economic realities faced by ordinary citizens.

Clinton and certain Republican presidential nominee John McCain are calling for a holiday on collecting the federal gas tax "to get them through an election," Obama said at a campaign rally before more than 2,000 cheering backers a week before crucial primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. "The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear."

I could go off in a direction that attacks Obama and point out how ludicrous it is for the "agent of change" who has voted for the Iraq invasion each and every time he's had the chance to vote on it,and "unifier" who has spent all campaign smearing arguably the most qualified candidate for President to talk about pandering, but that's not what I want to focus on.

No. Substance. Normally, I'm all for the gas tax, and indeed, have often thought it should be raised to cover infrastructure repairs and to encourage folks to buy smaller cars.

But here's a gas that impacts directly poorer Americans. Any increase that I've ever proposed has always included measures to try to get a rebate of the increase to those Americans who can afford it the least: the rural working class, who absolutely need their cars and can't afford an immediate purchase to trade up in mileage.

The idea behind progressive taxation is to shift the burden of taxes onto those who can best afford them. Taxes like the gaas tax are regressive: rich people don't drive anymore or less than poor people do.

And it's not like a sin tax, which while regressive, is avoidable with minimal expense to the person it impacts.

Too, Clinton attempts to balance the tax cut with a windfall profits tax, and you'll note the distinct silence from Congress as gas prices have skyrocketed and oil company profits have broken through the ceiling.

And this is the Democratic Congress we're talking about!

Obama is wrong here in that this is not pandering, but a recognition of reality: it's going to be hard enough to get farm workers to their jobs in the field, but this tax suspension will also help keep a lid on food prices, and how is that hurting America?

Once we've gotten past this summer, when sticker shock will have settled in and we can clear-eyed talk about what to do long term, then Senator Obama can introduce legislation to provide both environmental and economic relief to the American people.

In the meantime, he should let the lady speak.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Ozymandias

By Capt. Fogg

The excellent HBO miniseries John Adams concluded Sunday night with some ruminations by our second President about how the gritty history of the American revolution had, after only 50 years, been lost to the mythologizing processes of patriots and painters and poets. I'm not sure that he ever read Shelley's ironic poem of 1818, although he lived long enough. I'm sure however, seeing his classical education, that he knew that such things are eternal and ineluctable. Indeed, anyone with any kind of memory at all can see that the words and deeds of our current administration are lost to reinterpretation, redaction, braggadocio and denial in a far shorter period than a half century and eventually are reduced to ridiculousness.

If I still had a sense of humor about such things I would laugh at Flim-Flam George's latest attempt to blame the effects of his fiscal irresponsibility on the failure of Congress to solve our problems. They failed by looking the other way at Corporate swashbuckling, by bitching excessively about no-bid contracts to companies that pay no taxes and will not be investigated when billions disappear, by not taking the burden of inheritance taxes off the very, very rich and by ignoring a host of other really brilliant ideas like unrestrained spending and profligate borrowing, but of course I don't. I lost it some time ago and all I could wish for is to miraculously to survive the explosion of our sun just long enough to see the man vaporize into a wisp of plasma to be born by the solar wind into the infinite emptiness of the universe.

But I digress. The Bush Nebula is still Earthbound and the Occupation still awaits a definition of "victory."

"I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them,"

said the Sultan of Smirk today. Too bad they didn't block the "warpresident" entirely by impeaching him or at least keeping him from starting the war, but what we're seeing here, I fear, is the beginning of a tendentious falsification of history on a level not seen since the great Redactor put together the Bible.

Canonical History will be kind to George Bush, since it isn't really possible to be unkind in degree adequate to his stupidities, his iniquities and his weakness. Indeed, knowing this country and its love for self-ennoblement, he may be sneering down at us from Rushmore or gleaming at us from the face of a highly devalued Dollar before my grandchildren are old enough to be cynics. Some Parson Weems will emerge to write stories about his early honesty and there will be paintings of George the Brush Clearer and heroic marbles of the Commander Guy in his flight suit poking up through the desolate sands of post-apocalyptic America. Who will be there to laugh?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

National security items need continued scrutiny

By Carol Gee

The Bush administration's "Four Mikes and two Roberts" deservedly draw my regular scrutiny, and that of a number of important "big" bloggers, as well as an award winning NYT reporter. Scrutiny is mostly focused on government secrecy, national security and the rule of law. Today's post is a round-up of a few of the most interesting current news items, beginning with an excellent overview of the way these three issues come together: "Subsidizing Corporate Crime & Rewarding Constitutional Abuse, posted on April 24, 2008 by "dandelionsalad."

FDL Book Salon on a fine reporter's work regarding the rule of law: "emptywheel" writes on Eric Lichtblau's book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice. To quote:

Like a lot of people, I first really discovered Eric Lichtblau when he and James Risen exposed Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. . . Lichtblau reveals many new levels of details about the Administration's repeated use of paranoid levels of secrecy to hide the dubious nature of many of its counter-terrorism programs.

The Four Mikes -- Admiral Mike McConnell is the Director of National Intelligence. Former Judge Mike Mukasey is the Attorney General. Former U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff is the Secretary of Homeland Security. General Mike Hayden is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Two Roberts -- Former U.S. Attorney Robert Mueller was appointed to a 10 year term as FBI Director just a few days after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Former College President Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense, where Douglas Feith* worked during the earlier years of the administration.

These six men hold tremendous power over us all, for both good and ill.

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence -- Since the first of last year, the DNI has been leading the charge for Congress to make changes to the laws governing government spying. [Previous DNI posts: DNI also has been known to distort the truth; power to the wrong people; and a McConnell Primer on intelligence]. But not everything has gone the Director's way recently. Legislation is stalled in the House of Representatives. From TPM Muckracker comes the headline "GOP Still Pushing Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms," by Paul Kiel - April 25, 2008. One of the illegal spying cases seems to be going against the government. Wired-Threat Level headlined, "NSA-Spied-On Lawyers Get Day in Court and New Yorker Profile. Another government loss in court is reported in this story: "Court: Government Must Reveal Watch-List Status to Constantly Detained Americans," By Ryan Singel, April 24, 2008.

Mike Mukasey, Attorney General, Dept. of Justice: [Previous AG posts: Mukasey admits lie (1) also lies (2); Mukasey and the Fourth Amendment; Mukasey and wiretapping (1) also (2) also (3)]. A letter to Congress claims that intelligence operatives can still legally use prohibited interrogation methods to thwart terrorist attacks. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/27/08) discusses how Senator John McCain and the Military Commissions Act make this assertion possible. To quote:

That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them -- precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.

. . . McCain supported the MCA knowing that the President retained virtually unfettered discretion to decree that the interrogation methods we were using that are widely considered in the civilized world to be torture could continue. . . despite his media-sustained reputation as a righteous, principled opponent of torture, much of these disgraces are the direct by-product of John McCain's work.

Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security: ". . . a fingerprint is hardly personal data" -- [Previous HSA posts: On surveillance (1); and (2); wrong people for Katrina; On torture]. Canadians seem to have a much more firm regard for civil liberties than what has emerged in the Bush administration. Chertoff wants to "share databases of international air travelers' fingerprints with the Canadians, Brits and Aussies." (Source: WaPo) At Firedoglake -- by Christy Hardin Smith (4/25/08), "Make Civil Liberties Concerns A Priority? Blame Canada!" To quote:

Poor Michael Chertoff, wanton god of safety, debonair trollop of anti-terror, and man with a mission that has no room for a regard for individual liberties and the rule of law, has run into a speed bump of sorts on his quest for power . . . Those wacky Canadians clearly didn't get the memo that staying true to your founding principles or holding fast to the rule of law and ethics are so 1776.

Michael Hayden, CIA Director: "CIA Stonewall: Agency Won’t Release 7,000 Documents Related to Torture Program" (4/27/08). Though General Hayden was the one who revealed the existence of the CIA interrogation videotapes, there is still a fierce battle to keep the torture program's details a secret. Douglas Feith had a hand in setting up the interrogation system. Berkeley is letting him go. Hayden is left with all the mess. TPM Muckracker reports, *"Feith Loses Teaching Gig," by Paul Kiel (4/24/08). (See also Think Progress on Feith's torture stance distortions.)

FBI -- Robert Mueller, Director: TPM Muckracker -- "The FBI's Hands Off Approach to Torture," by Paul Kiel (4/24/08). FBI wants widespread monitoring of "illegal" Internet activity by dandelionsalad's Anne Broache (4/25/08).

National Security does not take care of itself. Protection from attack and protection of constitutional civil liberties needs continued congressional, press and citizen scrutiny. With a concluding perspective with just a bit of helpful humor, Ryan Singel of Wired Threat Level wrote this great little story on 4/25: "Which Gov Agency Should Be Your Computer's Firewall?" To quote (Singel's links):

First the NSA says it needs to examine every search and email on the internet to prevent an e-9/11 attack, then President Bush signs a secret cyber-security Presidential Directive to make that possible, while the Air Force has set up a cyber warfare division where cyber-security is played like a game of Space Invaders.

Not to be left out on the cybarmegeddon! action, the Department of Homeland Security plans to spearhead a "Manhattan Project" attempt to secure the internet. But there's no way FBI chief Robert Mueller is gonna let DHS honcho Michael Chertoff have all the bits, so this week he told a House committee that G-Men need to be living in the tubes, too.

Trends could be improving in the civil liberties protection area. Some in Congress have dug in their heels regarding the laws. There have been some favorable court decisions. More and more secrets have been revealed. Neocons have resigned. And the cold light of day shines increasingly on the breaches and problems thrown up by the current administration. And this is the year that Democrats could get their chance at reform.

References: South by Southwest Label "Civil Liberties or security."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Fighting against breast cancer... and also against breast cancer campaigns

By LindaBeth

I don't remember exactly what brought this issue to my attention-- it may have been this blog post I read, which prompted me to do some additional research. But I'm pretty irritated. And frustrated.

It's the Breast Cancer awareness campaigns and anti-breast cancer t-shirts that are being manufactured, bought and worn. Disclaimer: I am 100% in favor of fund-raising, awareness, education, what have you, about breast cancer.* That's not what this is about. However, the way advocacy is framed is just as important as the advocacy, for the "way you say it" speaks just as much as "what you say."

Why am I annoyed? The message of recent campaigns, advertising, and t-shirts are centered around the idea that we need to catch breast cancer early and research for a cure in order to save breasts. Silly me, I thought we fight against cancer to save lives. And if that weren't bad enough, the reason "the breasts" must be saved will make you puke a little in your mouth. Because men love 'em. Or in the sexuality-neutral terms of some of the tees, your sex partner enjoys them, or needs them to attain a sexual conquest status:

This tee is also interesting in how it appropriates a "sport" theme, used as a metaphor for sex that is wholly centered on what the male "gets" the female to do, especially considering the objectification of women in sport. Compare to this tee, also on a sport theme:

So, to recap, not only are saving the breast not the woman, the focus of the campaigns, but the reason for doing to isn't even about preserving the sexual pleasure that the woman's breasts give her, but is instead about their benefit to others, predominately to men -- not only your (presumed male) partner, but to the community of men at large. "We men" love "boobies," so we'll work real hard so you don't have to have them surgically removed. And we women should be "responsible" and look after them because the dudez love 'em. And we all know women should do things about their body because it's what men love. Not because, well, women might die!



I prefer this one:

Of course, the end message "look after your body" is correct, but the reason to do so is 100% absolutely wrong. It is an unfortunately and troubling result of how women's bodies are seen: as first and foremost for someone else's pleasure, as something to be looked at and not something that works, that does things, that has a functional purpose, and that gives the woman herself pleasure.

Rethink's "Booby Wall" starts off saying about it's call to upload images of your breasts: "this isn't Maxim... this is beautiful" only to be followed by "this is worth living for." Excuse me? Um, no, my breasts are not worth living for, my life is worth living for! Yeah, let's display all sort of breasts as examples of the beauty in the variety of breasts to prove that your breasts are important, valuable and worth living for. Gee, that sure sounds like an awesome initiative!

And no, this is not a case of Aw, just lighten up! -- Whatever will get people to fight breast cancer -- What's the Big Deal? No, sorry. This is the message women get ev-ry-where. And now when the issue is supposed to be about women's lives, we're appealing to save women's bodies?! Women's bodies are valuable regardless of what they mean to men and the male gaze, and women's lives are important regardless of their bodies. End of story.

Reasons we fight breast cancer?
Because it kills women.
Because it takes a chunk of your life away.
Because a woman losing her breasts can make her lose out on sexual pleasure.

The "because a woman's partner may lose our on sexual pleasure" is at the bottom of the list.

That "men like looking at as many breasts as possible and anything that makes them go away should be fought against" is not on the list.

In addition to my disclaimer above, an ending disclaimer. I am not criticizing men that are involved in breast cancer organizations whatsoever. Please keep it up! I am criticizing the way that action against breast cancer is framed, and I am not saying men involved are doing so with the motivations presumed by the campaigns. Instead, I think this tee better describes these men:


These campaigns rely on a sexist framework regarding the female body and what/who it is for, and they perpetuate such sexism in the design of their campaigns.


*Even though the way breast cancer has been produced in medicalization has a very gendered element to it, in the way that the comparative silence around prostate cancer and prevention is also quite gendered. I'll likely write on this in the future. But for now, ponder on why it might be that we encourage women to do self-breast examinations monthly -- and this is a common-knowledge thing--and we don't advocate men doing self-testicle exams. Even though considering the various tissue obstructions in the breast, it would be much easier to discover lumps in the testicles than in the breast.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)

MEGAN FOX - FHM LINGERIE SHOOT

WACKIEST PET PRODUCTS EVER ! ! !

Clemens and McCready: Do you think he injected her in the ass with steroids?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm no Bill Simmons, but both as a Jays fan and as a baseball lover, not to mention as a human being, I despise Roger Clemens. His record may show him as one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but, well, his record, not to mention his character, is tainted. And so, when he finds himself in trouble, whether it involves steroids or sex with an underage girl, I experience deep, profound Schadenfreude.

Many of you, I'm sure, know about the steroids issue. Did he or didn't he? Well, he probably did. (For more, see my post on his ridicule-worthy appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a couple of months ago.) Seven Cy Youngs, zero credibility. That's pretty much where he stands now -- in terms of baseball history, his reputation, and the law.

But don't put your Schadenfreude away just yet. There's more -- and it's juicy. Here's the Daily News:

Roger Clemens carried on a decade-long affair with country star Mindy McCready, a romance that began when McCready was a 15-year-old aspiring singer performing in a karaoke bar and Clemens was a 28-year-old Red Sox ace and married father of two, several sources have told the Daily News.

Now, look, what two consenting adults do, well, that's their business (most of the time -- there are exceptions, of course). But, in this case, McCready was 15 years old.

Marcus Dixon, a good and decent young man, gets sent to prison in Georgia for statutory rape and child molestation for having consensual sex with a 15-year old -- but he was 18 at the time (and, in the end, he was freed following a favourable ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court and the law that put him in prison was changed).

So if this is true about Clemens -- and, of course, he is denying it (she's just "a close family friend," according to his lawyer) -- then what?

(For more, see ESPN, Yahoo's Big League Stew, as well as loads of reaction over at Ballbug.)

**********

And poor Mindy McCready, who has been through a rough time of it in recent years, falling from the top of the country charts into drug use, various brushes with the law (including DUI, fraud, identity theft, and unlawful imprisonment), a suicide attempt, probation violation, resisting arrest, and jail time (she was released in December).

She is now, apparently, attempting a comeback. And, well, good luck with that.

As for me and my Schadenfreude, we're just looking forward to what she has to say about her relationship with Clemens. And to how this sordid story will play out.

Krazy Kristol, dishonest bullshitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bill "Krazy" Kristol had this to say in his column in the Times today:

I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate.

*****

She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.

But Hillary may well be the better candidate...

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

I'm sure he cares deeply about Hillary. (Because, of course, he had nothing to do with destroying Hillarycare way back when.) I'm sure he lavishes such praise on her sincerely and without any ulterior motives whatsoever. I'm sure his view that she's "the better candidate" reflects thoughtful political analysis rather than extreme partisanship. I'm sure he really wants McCain, upon whom he has long had a serious crush (the krazy neocon hegemonist supporting the crazy warmonger and neo-Cold Warrior), to go up against "the better candidate" in November. And I'm sure his regurgitation of Hillaryland spin (Hillary could be ahead in the popular vote, if you don't count Michigan and Florida and you twist the caucus results) is just a coincidence.

(Quite the convenient, partisan flip-flopper he is: Back in 2000, he argued against popular-vote-based democracy -- you know, when Gore won the popular vote.)

But at least he gets to attack "the liberal media" -- you know, like his employers at the Times, the publisher of which is ardently pro-Hillary. Does Krazy Kristol even know that? Maybe, but what "liberal media" exactly is he attacking? The "liberal media" that turned on Obama a long time ago, well before Ohio and Texas, the "liberal media" that keep hammering Obama on Wright and Bittergate, the "liberal media" that also regurgitate the Hillaryland spin about how so much more important the big states are, about how she's got the momentum now?

It doesn't really matter. There is no "liberal media" of the kind Krazy Kristol and his krazy right-wing pals claim there is. It's all just propaganda. And, for now, the anti-"liberal media" propaganda has been fused with some pro-Hillary propaganda. Hillary cozied up to one of the leaders of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Dick Scaife, ending up with his endorsement, but Kristol is a "friend" she can do without. He's not looking to help her, just trying to keep the Democrats divided and -- behind the typically dishonest bullshit -- to gloat over the plight, the ongoing campaign, of his (and McCain's) opponents.

Waters and Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A highlight of Roger Waters in concert (and I've seen him in Pittsburgh and Buffalo over the past year and a half):

During the song "Sheep," from Animals, a large inflatable pig (much like the famous pigs of Pink Floyd) is carried over the audience and then released into the sky. The pig has political and philosophical slogans written all over it, such as "Habeas Corpus Matters," "No Torture," "Fear Builds a Wall," and "Impeach Bush Now."

And now there's a new one: For his recent show at the Coachella Festival, the pig featured "Obama" with a check mark next to it on its belly. (Brain Damage, an excellent Pink Floyd site, has more here. The AP even covered it -- see here.*)

If you haven't already, make sure to check out the awesome Obama YouTube clip set to Waters's "The Tide is Turning."

Below are a couple of photos of the pig (the first from the AP, the second from BD).

* Thanks to Creature for telling me about it and sending me the article.

Bill Clinton might be a boor to Hillary's campaign, but...

By Carl

At least Bill hews to rationality.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama can't even keep his pastor's mouth shut long enough to sew up the nomination:

Attacks on him are really attacks on the black church, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington on Monday

Yup, you heard it. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is now the official spokesperson for every black church in America!

So the comparisons people have drawn to Louis Farrakhan appear to be a bit more valid and what once appeared to be crazy charges regarding Farrakhan's influence on the Obama campaign suddenly seem a little, even just slightly, less crazy.

Look, there's a lot of room for discussion regarding race, religion, and the differences between white churches and black churches.

The middle of the Presidential primary season is simply neither the place nor the time for it, and I say that knowing full well that my candidate, Hillary Clinton, can sit back and watch this slow-motion train wreck unfold: the more often Rev. Wright opens his mouth, the more voters will defect from the Obama camp:

Speaking Monday, Mr. Wright said that political opponents of Senator Obama were exploiting the fact that the style of prayer and preaching in black churches was different from European church traditions — “Different, but not deficient,” he said.

Not so, Reverend Wright.

You see, when you say "Goddamn America," you're putting yourself squarely in the camp of people who would point to America as The Great Satan. And while there's some merit to those sentiments, particulary with regards to the oppression of Muslims in the Middle East, you know, it's those folks who have been targeting civilian Americans for decades now, with planes and car bombs and who knows what else is in the hopper?

In other words, Rev, you've aligned yourself with Osama Bin Laden, an image that is probably keeping Barack Obama awake at night, since he's already hamstrung by his inability to put away, once and for all, the smears of being an Islamist front candidate.

The money quote here, if course, is this:

As a result of this background and the unfamiliarity of many white people with black preaching, he said, some might find his sermons unsettling. He also noted that the widely circulated clips of his remarks were only short snippets lifted out of the context of much longer, closely reasoned arguments.

Perhaps, Reverend, if you admitted to pandering to your congregation, you might have some traction with this comment. Perhaps it is unfair for an entire country to judge your sermons based on small snippets and perhaps it's unfair to judge Obama by his association with you, altho he doesn't seem to think so.

The one thing I think we all, Clintonites as well as Obombers, can agree on is, while this might be an important discussion to have now, Reverend Wright, you're tearing apart the Democratic Party and you're tearing down the one candidate who could possibly continue this dialogue with white America.

So... go away.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

McCain's deficit: Tax cuts, plutocracy, and fiscal irresponsibility

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(h/t: The Plank)

From yesterday's NYT, a piece on the fiscal plans of the three remaining candidates:

Mr. McCain’s plan would appear to result in the biggest jump in the deficit, independent analyses based on Congressional Budget Office figures suggest. A calculation done by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington found that his tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

Fiscal monitors say it is harder to compute the effect of the Democratic candidates’ measures because they are more intricate. They estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

The centerpiece of Mr. McCain’s economic plan is a series of tax cuts that would largely benefit corporations and the wealthy. He is calling for cutting corporate taxes by $100 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was created to apply to wealthy taxpayers but now also affects some in the middle class, would reduce revenues by $60 billion annually. He also would double the exemption that can be claimed for dependents, which would cost the government $65 billion.

*****

On the expenditure side, Mr. McCain has called not only for continuing an open-ended deployment of troops in Iraq, but also for spending $15 billion annually to expand the Army and the Marine Corps and to improve health care for veterans, among other programs.

Mr. McCain’s advisers have said the new tax cuts would be paid for by eliminating earmarks and making large spending cuts, but they have not identified specifics.

*****

The McCain campaign does not figure the costs of extending the tax cuts into its deficit projections, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost an extra $2.2 trillion over the next decade.

There's a lot here to digest, but, in brief, what do we know about McCain?

-- That he's fiscally irresponsible, Bush-style. Obama and Hillary aren't deficit hawks, to be sure, but neither one is anything like McCain, under whom the national debt would continue to swell.

-- That he's even more fiscally irresponsible than these numbers would suggest. He would entrench the Bush tax cuts, but it's not clear that he would be able to cut spending in any significant way. In addition, his warmongering would require massive military expenditures seemingly without end. I'm all in favour of improved services for U.S. troops and veterans, including health care, but the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as of the other military (mis)adventures McCain has in mind would be enormous.

-- That he's plutocratic, Bush-style. His economic policies would be focused on making the rich even richer, and at the expense, of course, of everyone else.

-- That's he irresponsible generally, Bush-style. He would, of course, saddle future generations of Americans with fiscal and economic disaster. Ultimately, debt must be paid off. Who will do that? And to whom? (McCain wants to wage Cold War II with the Chinese, it would seem, but it is the Chinese, among others who will own America. Bush has done enough damage in this respect. The situation would only get worse under McCain.

-- That he's full of shit... dangerous, supply-side shit that would irreparably harm the country he seeks to govern.

And this guy has the nerve to claim that Obama doesn't understand the economy and is "insensitive to the hopes and dreams and ambitions" of the American people (or at least those who pay capital gains tax)?

What a fool.