According to CBS4 in Denver, at least 4 people have been arrested in connection to a possible assassination attempt at the Democratic National Convention. From that report:
CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass reported one of the suspects told authorities they were “going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a … rifle … sighted at 750 yards.”
Law enforcement sources tell Maass that one of the suspects “was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative.”
[…]
“It’s premature to say that it was a valid threat or that these folks have the ability to carry it out,” said a U.S. government official familiar with the investigation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
U.S. Attorney Troy Eid said the case was under investigation.
“We’re absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado,” Eid said in a prepared statement.
The entire story of how these guys were discovered is quite interesting. Click the link above to read it for yourself.
Just a couple of weeks ago, polls indicated Obama would win the election with no trouble. Lately, his numbers are dropping. I don’t think it’s because McCain is doing so much better than he was. Old John is still making the same kinds of stupid comments he’s become known for during this election, lying here, being just wrong there, and generally showing his ignorance of current world and American issues. So Obama’s slide in the polls isn’t McCain’s doing.
No, the failing is entirely Obama’s. But what is it, exactly, that’s causing him to fail? To understand, we have to look past the mystique, past the glam rockstar advertising, past the religious innuendo, past the current lack of real issues in this contest. We must dive deep into Obama’s mind. He’s a master at rhetoric, so it serves no purpose to listen much to what he says. To get a grip on what’s really in Obama’s mind, we need to examine his actions. What has he actually done?
Following is just one of the things Barack has done while serving in the Illinois and US Senates. (I should state somewhere in all this that I am a lifetime registered, voting Republican. That said, I decided several months ago that I will not vote for McCain. My opinion of that man is that he’s an idiot, totally unqualified to administer the laws of this country. Watching his public performance this past year has convinced me of that. There is nothing that any Democrat or Independent candidate can do or say that will make me vote for McCain.) Okay, enough disclosure. Let’s get on with this…
Abortion Survivors: Babies or Medical Waste?
While a senator in Illinois Barack served as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. In 2003, a bill was voted on which included a provision to confer the status of ‘person’ to babies who survived abortion attempts. In part, that bill said:
Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
A bit of background: An abortion is a medical procedure, and as such, it’s possible for the procedure to be unsuccessful. Which is to say, sometimes the result of an abortion is a living body. Common practice is to treat that result the same as the expected result: as medical waste. Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, testified to state legislators about what she had seen (emphasis mine):
In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives “comfort care,” defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.
So this Illinois law was aimed, at least in part, at making sure that if a survivor of an abortion attempt exists, it will immediately be granted the rights and treatment of an American citizen. Sounds good to me… but then the amendment was proposed, and section “c” read like this:
“(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.”
Okay, I get it. Take out the part that guarantees humanitarian treatment of abortion survivors and replace that with words affirming the right to abortions. That weakens the bill substantially, but the paragraph (b) explicitly names and describes abortion survivors, so the bill still accomplishes its primary focus. Sometimes in politics, small compromises have to be made to achieve the greater goal. You’d think that everyone would vote for a bill which basically says that anybody alive is a human. So let’s see how the chairman, Obama, voted.
As shown below, Obama voted in favor of the amendment, an expected action for a good Democrat. But then, the same document shows that he voted against the bill, even though it included the amendment he wanted.
Obama, even though the pro-abortion language was included in the bill, voted (in perfect unity with his party line) against passing the bill in any form. Naturally, this makes me a bit wary, to say the least. I’m not going to address the morality of abortion here, that’s a matter of faith for most of us and I just refuse to get drawn into that debate. This isn’t about abortion, anyway. It’s about the actions of a man who wants to be president, and how he is lying now to cover up those actions.
So what are we to make of this solitary vote? What does it mean to us today, 5 years later? Let’s see what Barack says about it:
Barack Obama, You Are The Liar
If you watched the video, you saw Barack claim that the Illinois bill included language that would limit Roe vs Wade. He says this on his website and in his book, ‘The Audacity Of Hope’, as well. Scroll back up there and read the bill again. Even in its original form, without the amendment, this is a lie. The amendment he voted FOR explicitly stated that the bill did not address the abortion issue itself, only how infants born alive would be treated. Even so, in the final vote, Barack voted against survivors of abortions. He voted to just let them die.
He also states that the National Right To Life Committee is outright lying about his record. The NRAL has issued a response, which I find on Jill Stanek’s website:
Since 2004, Obama has been betting that the mainstream news media will lack the interest and attention span required to get a clear picture of his actual record regarding infants who are born alive during abortions, and so far that mostly has worked for him.
In his short interview with David Brody, Obama tripled his bet on that proposition by calling us liars. He also relied on diversionary verbal smokescreens, but without directly addressing the newly discovered 2003 documentation that proves the falsity of his account.
We now challenge Obama to either declare the two 2003 legislative documents to be forgeries and call for an official investigation, or else apologize for his four years of misrepresentation on the issue of babies who are born alive during abortions – and for calling us liars.
It is Sen. Obama, and not the National or Illinois Right to Life organizations, that is misrepresenting the significance of his vote on March 12, 2003. The problem here is very serious and goes directly to Sen. Obama’s honesty and fitness for high public office. He either believes his own statements, in which case he has not done his homework as presented above. Or, he is being willfully obtuse in the hope that his obfuscation of the meaning of his vote will be mistaken for sincerity by people who do not want to go to the trouble of investigating on their own. He hides behind the Illinois State Medical Society which naturally looks for any way to minimize any potential statutory liablity that could affect medical malpractice premiums for doctors. This is a matter of moral conviction as to protecting life when there is no reasonable doubt that human life has begun. Former State Sen. Obama, as chair of the Illinois State Sen. Committee on Health and Human Services, led a party line vote against the protection of live human beings on March 12, 2003 and he now implies he would have supported an identical bill at the federal level. That is a form of blatant intellectual dishonesty that should raise concerns in many voters, not just those who closely follow human life issues.
State Senator Obama willfully misinterpreted a “Born Alive” bill that came before the Illinois State Senate when he served there. This legislation was meant to address the issue of babies who were born during abortion procedures. Illinois had been rocked by scandals of babies being allowed to die (there were even macabre “comfort” rooms set aside in hospitals where nature was allowed to take its tragic course). Legislation was submitted that afforded these babies the protection of the law. Babies born alive during an abortion would be treated just like every other baby born alive and prematurely. The legislation was also clear that it did not apply to unborn babies and would not restrict abortions or violate Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, Obama spoke out against the bill saying it would not pass “constitutional muster” and three years later, in his book The Audacity of Hope, wrote that it would have overturned Roe v. Wade.
He was wrong. For those with a legal bent, the elements of this bill may seem familiar — as it should. Almost the exact same bill: the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed in the U.S. Senate in 2001 by a margin of 98-0, supported by Senators such as Barbara Boxer who are fervent pro-choice advocates. Neither these Senators nor has the Supreme Court seen any constitutional problems with the legislation.
On Obama’s website, you’ll find another reason listed to explain away the senator’s vote. He says there that there was already a law in place to protect infants. He’s stretching the truth a bit too far in my opinion. Kevin Vance has looked into that for us already:
Illinois state senator Dale Righter, the ranking Republican on the 2003 Health and Human Services Committee, says Obama did not raise that concern at the hearing: “There was no discussion of anything like that.” Democratic state senator Susan Garrett similarly says she did not remember the 1975 law being raised during the hearing. […]
In any case, the 1975 law does not apply to non-viable infants born alive. According to Paul Linton, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, the 2003 bill was a response to the question, “What duties are owed to a non-viable child born alive?” The bill sought to guarantee comfort care for non-viable infants similar to the care that would be provided to any terminally ill adult. “Many of these babies lived for hours after birth,” Susan T. Muskett, legislative counsel at the NRLC, writes in an email. “Are these babies medical waste, or persons protected by the Constitution? Obama’s reaction was to consider them non-entities under Roe v. Wade until they were ‘viable,’ even when they were gasping outside the mother.”
So what are we to make of all this? What does Barack really think? What does Obama really believe in, other than himself? Let’s examine just one of the things he has said over the past year (emphasis mine):
I guess, on a personal level, Barack has given this concept alot of thought. His children are ‘miracles’. But his own grandchildren might just be ‘punishment’. I suppose he’s already concluded that if one of his grandchildren survived an abortion attempt, a feat which could arguably be considered a modern miracle, then he would be ready to watch the child just die.
Seeing as he’s given it so much thought from a personal perspective, I have to believe that. And I don’t want that guy ruining (sic) the country. In my book, a liar is a thief who steals the truth. And we all know the old saying, the truth shall make you free.
When a man fails to speak the truth concerning his own actions, he shows himself to be a thief who would steal your freedoms. We’ve lived through nearly 8 years of this already. Quick show of hands: Who wants 4 more years?
The American people need better choices.
.
I am Jon, and mom, I hope I wasn’t too much of a punishment.
All you young people: Have you ever wondered why my generation called most of the police ‘PIGS’? Watch the video of a bona fide New York City pig, doing what pigs do, and you will understand.
I am not saying that all police are this way. As I have said before, I count among my friends many who wear the blue and many who wear the brown.
None of them would do this.
Watch the pig go out of his way to slam the guy on the bike, who tries his best to avoid the pig
To the friends I have in uniform: I humbly thank you for the job you’re doing. I know you would never do something like this, so please, don’t.
To the cyclist who was arrested because the pig attacked: Sue the City of New York. Sue the NYPD. And sue that pig who attacked you.
To the asshats like the pig in this video: I dare you to come do that to me, pig. Please come try it.
To the NYPD: Who the hell do you guys think you are? Fire that son of a bitch and every pig on the force. You are there to protect, to serve the People! What part of that do you NOT UNDERSTAND?
(edit: I’ve been told that this one was a bit over the top in the anger category. Gee, I hate being angry. But I’d hate lying about it more…
You see, Wordout is a blog. I am allowed to display emotions here. I am allowed to state an opinion here. I am allowed to say anything here that I would say in public, as the blog itself is public, and open to commentary.
If you had seen the rampant brutality of the 60s and early 70s in America, the beatings of innocent and peaceful citizens simply exercising their patriotic rights of voicing dissenting opinions, if you had seen the pigs from that era, you would understand why I feel so vehemently about this story.
Just the fact that it happens at all is enough to make us fear a return to that way of government brutality. We cannot turn our eyes from it, and we cannot stifle our outrage. If we do that, we do not deserve the freedoms our Constitution guarantees.)
Let’s Votem’ Out!Image by Getty Images via Daylife North Carolina Senators (VotemOut!)
I live in a small southern town just about smack dab in the middle of North Carolina, about 20 miles from the Virginia line. Both Senators from North Carolina are Republicans. They are Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr.
Both voted to pass the recent FISA amendment. Both of them received emails from me before the vote, urging them to vote against the bill. Yesterday, I received a response from Dole via regular mail. You’ll see it below. To make it larger, just click the button in the upper right of the iPaper. Then click your Back button to come back here…
(NOTE TO DOLE: You should use less paper. I mean, gee, you made me fill in my email address there on your website; why not USE IT?)
Your argument that ‘laws must be updated’ is not at all championed by your supporting statements in the same paragraph. You speak of communications increasingly routed through the US as a reason that the 1978 FISA legislation was inadequate. In fact, the FISA bill as it was prior to the 2008 amendment addressed that question completely, allowing even for accidental and incidental monitoring of US citizens, as well as targeted monitoring of US citizens. You state that the FISA bill as it stood was not effective in today’s world. The truth is that FISA worked just fine.
All that was required was a warrant obtained AFTER the surveillance began. This proved to be too much for the Bush administration, as shown by their flagrant disobedience of the law. The version of FISA that you supported practically removes all judicial oversight from the process. Where the original law required a warrant within 72 hours, your version allows up to 60 days, with extensions. Even then, with the FISA court replaced by the District court, and then required to agree with whatever the Executive branch tells them, there is little real oversight left.
Obviously, it was the bona fide judicial oversight requirement which needed the most ‘updating’.
You start your next paragraph with a statement that is true, as far as it goes. What it leaves out is the fact that those tools already existed. FISA was a capable instrument for clandestine surveillance before you voted to amend it. You also fail to state that it actually gives the government the right to collect data on literally anybody and everybody, without actually having to prove to anyone that there’s a reason.
ScamFlag: The Little Kid Effect
Then, in the same paragraph, you change subjects completely and try to explain away the immunity section. (HAR HAR HAR HAR) You have to understand, Senator, that I irregularly post about Fake EMails here at Wordout, trying to help people avoid scams. There are things I call ScamFlags, and lady, you sent me a classic.
I call it the Little Kid Effect. You can tell many scammers by the way they act when they get to the part of the scam that they think is the most important. Have you ever seen a child jump up and down giving you a million reasons, all at once, why she should have …whatever it was? That’s the thing I’m talking about.
They’re trying so hard not to screw it up that they never notice how obvious they are. It shows up in letters in several ways. Here, it’s a ‘run-on paragraph’, where the topic changes to something totally unrelated. Having the ability to monitor communications has absolutely nothing to do with the retroactive immunity granted to telecoms complicit in the president’s illegal efforts.
You assert that these corporations should be granted immunity, based on their belief in the good word of the government of the United States, for assisting the NSA ‘in the aftermath’ of 9/11. You claim that these corporations and citizens responded in ‘good faith to a request by public officials’. What you say has some emotional value in sound bites, but holds no legal water at all.
Good Faith? Isn’t That A Legal Term?
The FISA legislation was originally set up to control exactly this sort of thing. It was the result of a long investigation headed by Frank Church, focused on wiretapping abuses by former administrations. FISA established the controls over our various agencies in an attempt to eliminate the Constitutional violations which had become commonplace.
These ‘patriotic’ corporations knew that what they were asked to do was illegal. The administration knew it was illegal. You know it was illegal. The entire nation knows it was illegal. Good faith doesn’t even enter into it.
There was no ‘good faith’ in the Bush administration. There was no ‘good faith’ in these corporations. And there is no ‘good faith’ in your performance on this issue.
The reference you make to ‘classified programs vital to our national security’ being compromised is simply bullshit. Those programs would naturally only be revealed and discussed within the confines of judicial restriction and would never be made public. The important thing is that a judge, a member of the Judicial branch, would be able to render a decision.
You, the 110th Congress and George Bush have made that impossible.
The Ghost Of McCarthy
You go on to make a vague statement about fighting enemies around the world (as we have always done). Then you try to invoke the Constitution as your guide. I guess you’ve forgotten from one paragraph to the next what you, yourself have done to that document. The bill you passed literally destroys my 4th amendment rights. Your vote helped to usher in the 21st century’s version of McCarthyism, where everyone who disagrees with the federal government is a potential enemy of the state.
The truth, madamn Senator, is that FISA as it existed was well-suited to the task at hand. It needed no ‘modernization’ to accomplish the goals both you and the Bush administration have stated. Your response to the legitimate concerns of America contains only lies, mis-stated truths, and empty rhetoric.
You see, Lizzie, I read the original bill. I remember when it was a thing on the nightly news. I remember what it was all about.
It was about making sure the guys with all the money and power couldn’t just walk all over the guys with little or none. It was about controlling a government that thought it could do anything behind the veil of ‘national security’. It was about avoiding the kinds of illegal mass surveillance that the current administration has instituted. And it was about stopping people like you from protecting them.
I read the new bill, too. It was all about removing the Judicial oversight of clandestine operations engaged by the Executive branch. It was about backdating immunity (expressely forbidden in the Constitution) in an attempt to hide from view forever the abuses of the Bush administration. It was about hiding the truth, and covering your own ass, wasn’t it?
Fool Me Once…
I voted for ya, Lizzie, but I won’t make that mistake again. I see now that when the real tests are before you, when it’s America that’s on the line, you fail like the wilted flower that you are. You don’t represent us. You’re just another ‘professional politician’. You know what they say: Fool me once…
So go ahead and add me to whichever list you choose, because I promise that I am against you. As a patriot, a man who has read considerably, thought deeply and considered carefully, I declare myself opposed to your continued occupation of any seat in either House of Congress, or any other political role which you may aspire to.
Elizabeth Dole, I consider you to be an enemy of the United States of America.
.
I am Jon, and that up there is a scam letter from Lizzie Dole.
In comment #24 of a post over at ThinkProgress, Pete gives a couple of links to info on a BBC series, The Power of Nightmares. That link is to the Wikipedia article, and below are the 7 Youtube videos which together present one of the shows, ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside‘, uploaded by the user ouroboros712. He describes the series this way:
The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. The series consists of three one-hour films, consisting mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis’s narration, which were first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and have been subsequently aired in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.
The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.
I’m not a serious heavyweight in my understanding of ‘how we got here’, but neither am I a total slouch. So I was very pleased to find that this series includes several interesting pieces of information I did not have already, or had not understood within a larger context. If you have an insatiable curiosity, or there’s just nothing on the boobtube tonight, take an hour and watch these. You’ll be glad you did. If you only have about 10 minutes, I suggest watching at least the last 2 parts. Enjoy…
ONE 9:55
TWO 9:55
THREE 9:57
FOUR 9:56
FIVE 9:54
SIX 4:53
SEVEN 4:43
I’m Jon, and I just gotta ask: How does it make you feel , watching these guys on camera, seeing how they’ve manipulated the choices in your life?
I read lots of blogs. One of my favorite bloggers is Howard Lindzon, hedge fund manager, investor and founder of a cool site called Wallstrip. From their “About” page:
Wallstrip is where pop culture meets stock culture. Each day we take a look at a company whose stock is trading at or near an all-time high, and try to find the real world trend that explains why the stock is doing so well.
That said, they recently did a show on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Julie, their world class reporter, presents an amusing but eerily sober assessment. She gives us a worst case scenario (which of course didn’t happen) to explain why the government would most likely step in and prop up the two companies. It’s a quick couple of minutes. Check it out…(blame CBS for the ironic choice of commercial)
As we know, the government did take steps to keep Freddie and Fannie afloat. In a scene played out in the weekend hours, reminiscent of a Bear Stearns bailout, the government implemented measures that would postpone the looming disaster.
And if you were paying attention to Julie, you should understand why they had to do it. Half of all our mortgages are backed by those two companies. More than 5 Trillion dollars of debt, spread around the world, attached in one way or another to mostly worthless CDOs. Even though Freddie and Fannie were both private companies, it was always expected they were somehow backed by the US government.
And when push came to shove, that perception became a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Our economy is dependent on foreign investments. Many of those countries are heavily invested in these worthless CDOs, and if our government allows a major player like Freddie or Fannie to go under, all hell will break loose.
And not just in the USA, either. The global economy right now is strung together like so many electric poles along the side of the road. Each individual piece is tied firmly to the others and if one falls, it will pull the others down with it.
MYTH: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has not kept up with the technology revolution we have experienced over the past 30 years. FACT: There is absolutely no new technology that evades the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Besides, the FISA has been updated more than 50 times since being enacted in the ’70s; it was updated as recently as last year.
MYTH: Retroactive immunity for telecoms is essential because the intelligence community requires the willing cooperation of the private sector in order to conduct surveillance operations. FACT: Lawful surveillance under FISA is accomplished through court orders that compel the cooperation of telecommunications companies. Telecommunications companies that comply with lawful orders or Attorney General certifications under FISA are protected against liability arising from that cooperation. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has testified that the telecom companies that cooperated with the NSA’s post-9/11 surveillance programs received certifications, which would mean they already have immunity – unless of course those certifications are clearly illegal. Telecom immunity would only protect companies that illegally assisted the government. Private sector companies should not be encouraged to cooperate with illegal government requests.
MYTH: Telecoms will not cooperate with future intelligence efforts if they don’t receive immunity. FACT: FISA orders and Protect America Act (PAA) directives are compulsory. Telecoms must comply with lawful orders. Telecoms only had discretion when they decided to cooperate with illegal government requests. They should be held responsible for breaking the law. No one should be above the law.
MYTH: When the PAA expires vital foreign intelligence surveillance programs will cease, and the government will not be able to conduct surveillance against new threats. FACT: Any surveillance programs authorized under the PAA are in effect for an entire year, regardless of whether the PAA itself expires. The emergence of “new” targets for surveillance will not be a problem because the PAA authorized entire programs of surveillance, which are not limited to individual targets. If the government wants to wiretap individuals that for some reason do not fit under an authorized PAA program they can either apply for an order from the FISA Court or conduct the surveillance outside the United States.
MYTH: FISA is not an effective tool for protecting the national security. FACT: During the Cold War FISA protected America from the threat of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union. FISA is a robust and nimble tool that gives the government significant powers to wiretap suspected terrorists while protecting the rights of innocent Americans by requiring judicial oversight. In an emergency, FISA allows the government to start the surveillance before requesting court permission. While McConnell falsely credited the PAA, it was surveillance conducted under FISA that helped the German government interdict a terrorist plot in Germany last year.
MYTH: Congress knows all it needs to know about the government’s warrantless surveillance programs. FACT: Administration officials have repeatedly hinted about “other” intelligence programs. The NSA warrantless surveillance program may only be the tip of the iceberg. Congress needs to know about all illegal government surveillance programs before it considers giving the government more surveillance powers. Only a few Members of Congress have seen the documents relating to the terrorist surveillance program and Congress should not legislate in the dark.
Copyright [2007] American Civil Liberties Union Reprinted with permission of the
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org
Dennis Kucinich has begun another bid to have the House consider impeachment proceedings against Bush. This time, there is only one article listed. Watch the short video below.
“There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States…Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made.”
Representative Kucinich, in a letter to his colleagues in the House
The move is getting lip service in Washington, but my guess is nothing will come of it.
Iran recently tested some missiles. Perhaps you’ve heard about it. The photo was splashed everywhere, it seemed. Four Iranian missiles launching perfectly into the Persian sky.
Except the picture was a fake, altered to show a perfect launch. In fact, it appears that at least one of the missiles failed to launch. So the missile test wasn’t such a perfect success, after all. And the global PR campaign that the pictures supported was an abject failure.
But that didn’t stop the political posturing here in the US. Below is a quote from one of the most prominent figures in American politics. Can you guess who said this (highlights mine):
“These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course. As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran’s nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy.”
Obama Is Right, Just Not In The Correct Way
It might surprise some of you that Senator Obama said this. Even though our own National Intelligence Estimate(pdf) released in December said that Iran most likely hasn’t had a nuclear weapons program in over 5 years, Obama says ‘the threat from Iran’s nuclear program is real and it is grave.’
This just REEKS of Bullicus Shitticus. This guy sounds exactly like Bush did in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. He is making plainly false statements, playing on baseless fears. I’m definitely not a McCain supporter, but I have to call a liar a liar and, Mr. Obama, you are a liar of the worst sort.
When you can make statements like this, employing outright lies focused on manipulating the emotions of the American people, with the obvious intent to stir us into anger so that once elected you, too, can wage an illegal war of aggression with our ‘informed’ support, then you are not just moving toward the right.
Mr Obama, You Are The Right’s Right Hand Man.
I am Jon, and I despise liars. I snicker in their general direction.
The 2nd largest bank failure in US history occured late Friday as Federal officials closed the doors on IndyMac. As reported by the LATimes, the government spent “most of Friday trying to knock down rumors of a government bailout”.
In other words, the federal government was busy doing what they do so well, Lying to the American People. Nevertheless, bank depositors were greeted by this notice on their website:
This is what it looks like when you can’t have your money.
The Running Results
Since June 27th, about 1.3 billion dollars have been withdrawn by depositors of the bank. The LATimes goes on to say:
IndyMac is the second-largest financial institution failure in U.S. history, following only Continental Illinois Bank, which had assets of about $40 billion before it was shuttered in 1984. It is the fifth FDIC-insured failure of the year. Reich emphasized that though other financial institutions remained on the agency’s danger list, he believed most of them would be able to work their way back to solvency.
“The IndyMac situation is unique. It does not signal a direction for the industry as a whole,” he said.
Let me do my patriotic duty and state that again: This ‘does not signal a direction for the industry as a whole’.
Well, saying it doesn’t make me feel any better. I wonder how it made Reich feel? The truth is, that the only thing holding most banks together right now is our blind faith. Over the coming weeks I’ll be writing more in earnest about our current financial state.
We are in a bit of trouble, folks, and it seems our government thinks its job is to lie to us about it. This IndyMac failure is most definitely not the end of our non-existent recession.
.
THE FLAG CODE
Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10
As amended by P.L. 344, 94th Congress
Approved July 7, 1976
§ 176. (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
~
Jonathan Turley a constitutional law professor at George Washington University law school made that statement during a broadcast on MSNBC Tuesday, paraphrasing a federal judge’s remarks while working on a case involving one of the telecom lawsuits. He goes on to add that Bush did this not once, but at least 30 times.
Thanks to Becky for showing me this, so I can pass it on to you. Please watch the video from MSNBC which was released Tuesday. You will learn something. Keep in mind, This Bill Has Already Been Passed By Congress. There Are No More Votes. It’s a Done Deal.
That said, please try to watch at least the first couple of minutes. MSNBC is not some off-the-wall blogging outfit spouting off about their pet peeves of the day. They Are A Mainstream Global News Service responsibly reporting the news ….
I will write about this more, but for now, because I am so emotional, I will simply post the lyrics to these two songs by the group Tears For Fears. That seems to be what our government has done, traded our current fears for our future tears. May our children forgive us…
I believe that when the hurting and the pain has gone
We will be strong, Oh yes we will be strong.
And I believe that if I’m crying while I write these words
Is it absurd? Or am I being real?
I believe that if you knew just what these tears were for
They would just pour like every drop of rain.
That’s why I believe it is too late for anyone to believe.
I believe that if you thought for a moment, took your time
You would not resign yourself to your fate.
And I believe that if it’s written in the stars, that’s fine.
I can’t deny that I’m a Virgo too.
I believe that if you’re bristling while you hear this song
I could be wrong or have I hit a nerve ?
That’s why I believe it is too late for anyone to believe.
I believe that maybe somewhere in the darkness
In the nighttime, In the storm
In the casino
Casino spanish eyes…
I believe, no I can’t believe that every time you hear a new born scream,
You just can’t see the shaping of a life.
The shaping of a life.
Between the searching and the need to work it out
I stop believing everything will be alright.
Broken,
We are broken.
I’m walking uphill being turned around and round,
Secret in motion when my feet are on the ground.
Broken,.
We are broken.
In my mind’s eye
One little boy anger one little man
Funny how time flies…
Most of us are dissatisfied with the Bushie way of doing things. About 80% of the US thinks his administration is horrible for one reason or the other. Remember this day. Remember the day that our Democratic Congress capitulated to the Republican President with the Worst Approval Ratings In History.
And remember this:
The Executive Branch didn’t do this to us. The Legislative Branch did this to us. And We Let Them.
Senator Chris Dodd An American Making A RuckusImage via Wikipedia
Thank You, Senator Dodd
Chris Dodd is still fighting for us. Remember last year when he promised he would fight this bill? All the Democratic candidates made that promise. Interesting how the only remaining Democratic candidate(Obama) has changed his mind, isn’t it?
But Tuesday evening, Chris Dodd took his place on the Senate floor and denounced HR6304 for the fraud that it truly is. Below I’ve quoted nearly all of his prepared address which you can read at his website.
Go There, Watch The Video
I recommend you go there to watch the video of the comments he made. In person, he was much more intense than the sentences below can show. And in person, he was more specific on some of the things that are just plain wrong with this bill.
In particular, he flatly states that the question before the Senate is whether the US abides by the Rule of Law, or condescends to the Rule of Men. From his statement:
“Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to strike Title II, which would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies
Mr. President, for many Americans, this issue may seem very difficult to follow – it may seem like just another squabble over corporate lawsuits.
But in reality, it is so much more than that. This is about choosing between the rule of law and the rule of men.
For more than seven years, President Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he neither respects the role of the Congress, nor does he respect the rule of law.
Today, we are considering legislation which will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who are alleged to have handed over to this Administration the personal information of every American—everyone phone call, every email, every fax and every text message. And all without a warrant.
Some may argue that in fact the companies received documentation from the Administration stating that the President authorized the wiretapping program and that therefore it was legal.
These advocates will argue that the mere existence of documentation justifies retroactive immunity– that because a document was received, companies should be retroactively exonerated of all wrong-doing.
But, as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already KNOW that the companies received some form of documentation, with some sort of legal determination.
But that logic is deeply flawed Mr. President.
Because the question is not whether companies received a “document” from the White House. The question is, were there actions legal? It’s a rather straightforward and surprisingly uncomplicated question. Did the companies break the law?
Either the companies complied with the law as it was at the time, or they didn’t.
Either the companies and the President acted outside of the rule of law, or they followed it.
Either the underlying program was legal or it wasn’t.
If we pass retroactive immunity, none of these questions will ever be answered. Because of this so-called “compromise,” the judge’s hands will be tied, and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined. Retroactive immunity will be granted.
So Mr. President, this is about finding out what actually happened between these companies and the Administration.
It is about holding this Administration to account for violating the rule of law and our Constitution. It is about reminding this Administration that, “Where law ends, tyranny begins.”
And those aren’t my words, Mr. President – those words were spoken by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Mr. President, it is time to say “no more.”
No more trampling our Constitution.
No more excusing those who violate the rule of law.
No more.
These are our principles.
They have been around at least since the Magna Carta.
They are enduring.
What they are not is temporary. And what we should not do in a time where our country is at risk, is abandon them. That is what is at stake here today. Allowing retroactive immunity to go forward is by its very nature an abandonment of these principles.
Like generations of American leaders before us, we too are confronted with a choice.
Does America stand for all that is still right with our world? Or do we retreat in fear?
Do we stand for justice that secures America? Or do we act out of vengeance that weakens us?
Mr. President, whatever our political party—Republican, Democrat—we were all elected to ensure that this nation adheres to the rule of law. That is our must fundamental obligation – not as partisans but as patriots serving their country.
The rule of law is not the provenance of any one political party – but of every American who has been safer because of it.
President Bush is right about one thing: this debate is about security. But not in the way he imagines.
He believes we have to give up our rights to be safe.
I believe the choice between moral authority and security is a false choice.
I believe it is precisely when you stand up and protect your rights that you become stronger, not weaker.
The damage that was done to our country on 9/11 was both tragic and stunning.
But when you start diminishing our rights as a people, you compound that tragedy. You cannot protect America in the long run if you fail to protect our Constitution. It is that simple.
As Dwight D. Eisenhower who served our country both as President and as leader of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War Two, said:
“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”
That is why I believe history will judge this President harshly for his disregard for our most cherished principles.
And if we do not change course and stand up for our Constitution, for what is best in America, for what we know is right and just, then history will most certainly decide that that it was those of us in this body who bare equal responsibility for the President’s decisions—for it was us who looked the other way, time and time again.
Mr. President, this is the moment. At long last, let us rise to it.”
.Justice Could Prevail, If We Demand It
The Senate votes tomorrow on the Amendment to remove retroactive immunity. If ever there was a time when you need to assert your status as an American citizen, this is it. You need to make your American voice heard. Before the holiday, the Senate received thousands of phone calls and emails against the bill. That’s why they put it off, hoping we would forget.
But we haven’t forgotten. The House introduced and passed this bill in less than a day and a half, allowing no debate. They snuck it right past us. The Senate will not have that advantage. The advantage belongs to the people now. We need to use the power of our collective voice and make them hear us.
What will you do this weekend? Whatever it is, be sure to include the part about telling your friends how you called your senator and helped stop this bill from passing. Include a couple of comments about the Bushies in a real court of law. Take that thought and run with it, drawing your own conclusions as to how Justice could actually prevail.
Think about that: Justice could prevail. But only if we demand it.
Seriously. Just click the next link on your list. What’s here is terrible.
Mom, this means you.
Below is a video I found through DigitalJournal. It was originally published at Hyscience, showing an excerpt of the original video of the Florida House of Representatives State Affairs Committee on April 8, 2008 hearing on immigration legislation.
In the video you will hear the story of a little girl, brought to the USA and repeatedly raped. When she fought back, she was brought before the other girls and beheaded in front of them as a warning. If you search for any news about this story, you will come up empty. There was absolutely zero coverage in the mainstream media. The 1st coverage it ever received was when Abdul posted it on June 29th. Since then a few bloggers have published it, much the way I am doing here.
Not The Only Threat
Death isn’t the only threat these girls face. If they refuse to cooperate they run the risk of genital mutilations as well. I don’t know who this little girl was, where she was from or anything more about her. What I have to wonder is: how many more little girls have been killed or mutilated, just to set an example for the others?
And why wasn’t something like this reported anywhere? Anywhere at all? If it weren’t for Abdul we would never had learned of this girl, her life, her death. Why doesn’t CNN or Fox or the Networks or the AP or Reuters or Anybody report this to us? Things like this should receive at least a paragraph buried somewhere on page 37 or something… at least a mention.
What we have is a system of entertainment journals masquerading as news outlets. The only things that matter to the mainstream media anymore are profits and ratings. We haven’t had good journalism in this country for nearly a decade at least, probably longer. We don’t have journalists, we have media personalities. Stewart and Colbert report more honest news stories than CNN or Fox.
The holiday is over and both the House of Representatives and the Senate are back at work. This week the Senate is scheduled to take up debate and vote on HR6304, The FISA Amendments Act. Regular readers will remember it from a weeklongrant appearing here at Wordout when the House introduced the bill one day and passed it the next.
Last October, Senator Obama promised he would do whatever it took to block any bill with the provisions of this one. Last October, Barack said he would even go as far as supporting a filibuster to block this bill. This June, he backed down, just like most of the Democrats in the House backed down (my Rep didn’t!).
How did it get this far, this fast? It was just this past spring that the Democrats were preaching loudly how they would never back down on this issue. What has happened to make the democrats fold up like a fern at night?
What’s Worse Than Recession?
The economy happened. The mortgage crisis took out one of the top players, wiping out hundreds of billions of invested dollars. The Fed pumped in a few hundred billion more dollars, trying to shore up the system. Around the world the same thing happened, is still happening. The mortgage crisis is spreading to become a general credit crisis, which means a finance crisis, which threatens the entire global economy.
Things are bad, and they will probably get a bit worse before they turn around.
The Bushies could care less. They’re on the way out, taking their profits with them. But that newly elected Democratic Congress is mostly intact this election, and they know that we have some hard times a’comin. So they made a ‘compromise‘ with the Bushies. They would give in to the neocon demands for no judicial oversight and retroactive immunity in exchange for some extra spending attached to a different bill.
What Was Compromised?
Remember last week the big hooplah about Bush signing a bill that gave veterans extended educational benefits, extended some unemployment benefits and things like that? You may have seen a sound-bite of Bushy himself taking credit for pushing the bill through.
Don’t be so gullible. Bush opposed that bill and threatened to veto it. The only reason that bill became law was the FISA deal. Congress traded our 4th amendment guarantees for a few million dollars in temporary funding. Later on this can be used to make them look like they care about us, once the economy goes to the deep south.
We can be sure, with the passage of HR6304, our Congress doesn’t care about us or the rule of law which used to make America so great. It was never our wealth. It was never our military might. It was never our ‘God-Given Place’ in the world. It was always our rule of law that made us great. We stood as a beacon throughout history, as a place where the law was above all else a guarantee at a chance for justice.
War On Terror or War On Tyranny?
For 7 long years that is what we have been defending. Our rule of law is what gave us our way of life. Is this the solution our government has come up with? Do we really have to choose between Terrorism or Tyranny? Are these really our only options?
This administration has consistently and aggressively attacked the very rule of law that made America great. At the end of their reign over us we find that they have consistently misused their power and authority for profit. Worse than that, they have changed us for the worse.
That our elected Congress, sworn to defend the Constitution, would debate and then pass a law which negates a vital part of that very Constitution, is an idea totally alien to me. But to see my nation sit and say nothing at all is appalling. Will we sit and do nothing while our freedoms are stripped from us?
Ben Franklin said this:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The Senate has not passed this bill yet. Call your Senator. Send an email to your senator. Send an email to everyone you know, asking them to look into this for themselves. Do even a small bit of reading about it and you will almost certainly come to the same angry conclusion I did. There is no way this bill should ever become law.
We’ve always thought of climate as just the longer term view of the weather. You might be able to look at the moon and tell the next day’s weather, but you can’t look up there and say what will happen next year.
Much of the computer models we use to predict climate change caused by global warming is based on long term observations of the climate in the past. We’ve always thought the longer the term, the more accurate the models. When we see in these observations a gradual shift in things like CO2, temperature, rainfall, we believe that indicates the gradual nature of climate change. But that view was shattered recently.
Scientists examined an ice core sample and determined that the last glacial period ended in a single year. The online edition of Scientific American reports:
‘Roughly 14,700 years ago the weather patterns that bring snow to Greenland shifted from one year to the next—a pattern of abrupt change that was repeated 12,900 years ago and 11,700 years ago when the earth’s climate became the one enjoyed today—according to records preserved in an ice core taken from the northern island. These speedy changes—transitions from warming to cooling and back again—in the absence of changes in greenhouse gas could presage abrupt, catastrophic climate change in our future.’
The scientists reported evidence of a 20 degree temperature increase over the course of a few decades following the abrupt shift. Other evidence indicated a change in global weather patterns immediately following the shift. Variations in the amount and origin of atmospheric dust, and the amounts of certain hydrogen and oxygen atoms can be observed in each layer of ice in the sample. The scientists were able to make measurements accurate to a resolution of one year.
‘Roughly five years after this change in dust levels, the levels of heavy hydrogen ensconced in the ice indicate that weather patterns were shifting and driving precipitation over Greenland that had originated in evaporated water from a different area of the ocean than had previously been the source of the island’s rain. And this change happened in as little as a year. “During the glacial period, abrupt warmings show change of the atmospheric circulation from year to year,” says glaciologist Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, also of the University of Copenhagen, who participated in the study as well.
Following this abrupt shift, as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) of warming occurred over the subsequent decades—a change that ultimately resulted in at least 33 feet (10 meters) of sea-level rise as the ice melted on Greenland.
Greenland can change quickly, even living up to its name, according to another paper in this week’s Science. Sediment cores from the ocean show that forests of spruce and even fern grew on Greenland just 125,000 years ago. That means Greenland’s ice sheet—potentially responsible for as much as 75 feet (23 meters) of sea-level rise if it all melts—has grown and shrunk far more frequently than previously known.’
Go Swimming At The North Pole
The Independent reports that there’s a better than 50:50 chance that the North Pole will be ice free by the end of August. In human history, this has never happened. From that article:
‘Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.’
Computer models predict that the polar regions will feel the effects of global warming both earlier and more intensely than lower latitudes. Last year, the ice melted in the far northern latitudes enough to create a temporary shortcut from one side of the planet to the other. Local sea ice melted as close as 700 miles from the pole. All of that ice is expected to melt easily this year. The more the ice melts, the warmer the waters become, helping more ice to melt. Again, from The Independent:
‘Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.
“Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.’
Tipping Points, Mass Extinctions, and the Chairman of Exxon
Twenty years ago this week, Jim Hansen testified before Congress on the subject of global warming. This week, he again presented a statement to Congress, saying that global warming was indisputably caused by humans, and that we were very quickly running out of time to do anything about it. Quoting his prepared statement:
‘The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals. I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year…
…The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation…
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes…’
One Year
Jim Hansen was right 20 years ago. My bet is that he’s right, now. He says we have one year at the most to DO something about it. We don’t have time to plan elegant solutions. We don’t have time for committees and studies and cost estimates and other things which are there explicitly to slow us down. We need to be doing something.
We need to Stop investing in anything coal or oil. We need to stop calling it ‘alternative’ energy, and move it to ‘mainstream’. We need to be digging deep and working hard to get a handle on this. It’s getting hot. We know now that radical changes in the climate can occur in a matter of months. We see the polar ice melting like it’s never done in the history of mankind. We see mass extinctions taking place all around us. We see deserts expanding, once huge lakes drying up.
And we see our political and business leaders doing everything they can to hide from us the awful truth: They are more concerned with making record profits and controlling the world through energy idiocy. We simply do not have the time to play with these guys. The changes are upon us already. The world they think they will control won’t exist in a few years if we keep on our present course. They are, to put it bluntly, stupid.
Like I’ve heard people say, “We need to be keeping it real” with these so-called leaders. We cannot afford short-sighted corporate greed, whether for power or for money, to get in our way any longer. A runaway climate would most likely kill billions of us. But we’re smart. We’ve faced threats before and here we still are. If we put forth a real effort, we can change this planet, eliminate our dependence on finite and dangerous energy sources, and grow the global economy all at the same time. If these leaders are not part of the solution, then as part of the problem, there must be a solution to them, as well.
.
.
I am Jon, a peaceful man, being backed into a corner.
The US Supreme Court gave Exxon another 2 billion dollars today. By a 5-3 vote, they decided to overturn the overturned ruling which itself was an overturned ruling of the original amount awarded by a federal jury in Alaska. I know that’s hard to read, and harder to understand. Let me clarify.
In 1989 the supertanker Valdez ran aground in the Prince William Sound, Alaska. The captain was admittedly drunk when the catastrophe occurred. Roughly 11 million gallons of oil was spilled, spreading to cover about 1200 miles of coastline. To give you a rough idea, thats about how far it is to drive from Miami to New York. That’s alot of coastline.
In 1994, a federal jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages. After that, a federal judge reduced the amount to $4.5 billion, and after that an appeals court reduced the amount to $2.5 billion, just half the original amount. Since then, Exxon appealed to the Supreme Court, which today reduced the punitive damages to $507.5 million, the amount they said equaled ‘compensatory’ damages. This amount will now be shared between the roughly 33,000 people and organizations affected by the disaster.
In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter concluded the $2.5 billion in punitive damages was excessive under federal maritime law, and should be cut to the amount of actual harm.
Hundreds of thousands of birds and thousands of marine animals were killed due to the oil spill. Fisheries were closed, some never to re-open. In the words of Tim Joyce, mayor of Cordova (where much of the fishing fleet is located): ‘Instead of taking a large corporation to the woodshed, they just gave them a slap on the wrist… A lot of people had their whole lives ruined because of this.’
Supreme Court Farts In Our General Direction
Exxon Mobil, arguably the largest company in the US, had argued that punitive damages were not only excessive, but unwarranted due to the federal clean water laws. Even though the high court verbally disagreed with that argument, they ruled that the punitive damages were too large, and based the award on compensation rather than punishment. Having read the decision, I can only say that once again our government speaks from every orifice it possesses, including the one that is usually reserved for excreting waste material from our bodies.
Assuming that each of the roughly 33,000 recipients gets an equal amount, the award amounts to about $15,000 each. Though it was not explicitly stated in the decision, the compensatory damages to the wildlife which used to abound in the Sound was determined to be zero. The compensatory damages to the coastline was determined to be zero. Only humans and human organizations had any value at all in the high court’s ruling. And as you can see from the amount, humans didn’t count for much.
Exxon profits are up 17% in the 1st quarter of 2008.
So it will take just under 10 hours to pay it off.
Exxon already has a well-deserved bad reputation. Their profits last year soared to an astounding record of over $40 billion. (When the talking heads on TV try to tell you that ‘speculation’ or ‘OPEC’ is the reason for high gas prices, remember to follow the money. Follow it all the way to Exxon.)
And Now, For Something Completely Sane
The 3 justices who seemed to actually bend in favor of Justice would have upheld the $2.5 billion award. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens believe that the US Congress should set the limits by law and the courts should simply interpret those laws. Justice Breyer, however, pulled no punches. Quoting Breyer, from the dissenting view(warning – big PDF file):
“The jury could reasonably have believed that Exxon knowingly allowed a relapsed alcoholic repeatedly to pilot a vessel filled with millions of gallons of oil through waters that provided the livelihood for the many plaintiffs in this case. Given that conduct, it was only a matter of time before a crash and spill like this occurred. And as JUSTICE GINSBURG points out, the damage easily could have been much worse.
The jury thought that the facts here justified punitive damages of $5 billion. … The District Court agreed. It “engaged in an exacting review” of that award “not once or twice, but three times, with a more penetrating inquiry each time,” the case having twice been remanded for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court due process cases that the District Court had not previously had a chance to consider…
… And each time it concluded “that a $5 billion award was justified by the facts of this case,” based in large part on the fact that “Exxon’s conduct was highly reprehensible,” and it reduced the award (slightly) only when the Court of Appeals specifically demanded that it do so. … When the Court of Appeals finally took matters into its own hands, it concluded that the facts justified an award of $2.5 billion. ….
It specifically noted the “egregious” nature of Exxon’s conduct…. And, apparently for that reason, it believed that the facts of the case “justifie[d] a considerably higher ratio” than the 1:1 ratio we had applied in our most recent due process case and that the Court adopts here… I can find no reasoned basis to disagree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that this is a special case, justifying an exception from strict application of the majority’s numerical rule.”
And that is exactly why the original award was so high. The original federal court found it reasonable to believe that Exxon was aware of the captain’s alcoholism and did nothing to prevent this highly likely accident. The Valdez accident is the largest single oil spill ever in the USA. It could have been prevented. The original federal court found that Exxon was culpable due to ‘reprehensible’ negligence, both before and after the accident. The punitive damages were awarded based on that finding, as a punishment as well as a deterrant against any future corporate irresponsibility.
Now the stoned high court has playfully patted Exxon on its big fat bottom and sent it home to its usual games. Corporate responsibility is just a thing you might read about in textbooks, but it surely isn’t required, expected or rewarded in this country. And governmental integrity?
I am expecting you to personally and professionally support, even organize, a filibuster against this bill, referred to as HR6304. The telecom immunity provisions are important, yes, but on a deeper and more meaningful note, this bill erodes the powers of both the 1st and 4th Amendment to The Constitution.
You guys have been very good at utilizing the web for information spreading. We in the tech community are impressed, and even proud of you. Use it now to gather information from the web. Search for the Senator’s name along with various combinations of the words “FISA” and “HR6304” and you will find a strong and near unanimous disapproval of this bill and everyone associated with its progress towards approval. Ignore the mainstream media and look carefully at what the real America is saying. We are opposed to it on many grounds.
A filibuster on the Senate floor could consist of your staff reading hundreds of thousands of short comments, limited to 144 characters each, on the twitter service, all of them in favor of your actions against this bill. Your staff already has this setup. It could be tempered with the reading of thousands of blogs, many with tens and hundreds of thousands of readers, all supporting your actions against this bill. You would potentially be bringing the voice of millions of voting Americans to the debate. I will help you organize this technical side if you want.
Mr Obama, you would be literally the 1st man in history to bring the American people, the entire Republic, to the Senate floor. All old school politics would be thrown out the window and the American people, the vast majority of every political party would support you. To do otherwise would be for them to take a public stand against the stated views of the American people, which, having been read on the Senate floor, would become a matter of record. The ‘politics as usual’ would be forever changed with this one action. You become one of our greatest Presidents, months before the election.
You will guarantee your election in November with this one grand gesture. You will prove your honor. You will prove your loyalty to the the public, as opposed to the Washington ‘business as usual’ crowd. You will show the world that you are, indeed , the choice and the voice of all America. It’s realistic that you would become the de facto most powerful man in American politics. But even more than that: You will get my support, my voice, and my vote.
Thank you for thinking this over. If you need any help whatsoever with the technical aspects of organizing all those RSS and twitter feeds, I offer my services to this cause. We could set this up in mere hours. It would be quite an affair for the mainstream media, and I believe it would be the single largest event on the web, ever.
The next bill on the Senate agenda is HR 6304, the bill which will make us all subject to warrantless surveillance, search and seizure with no judicial recourse. This is the bill which, when it becomes law, will take away one of our most basic rights.
This bill even goes as far as to say that any American citizen attempting to use their 1st Amendment rights may be considered the agent of a foreign government. This bill takes away our rights, folks. And our Congress knows this. Watch at least the 1st video and you will see exactly what our representatives said about this bill, right before they voted overwhelmingly, to pass it.
Your Representatives Saw Right Through It
.
Dennis Kucinich – The Guy Who Introduced The Articles Of Impeachment
I’m Thinking He’s Not Too Popular Right Now On The Hill.
.
Even Ralph Nader – Maybe He’ll Finally Get My Vote.
.
Be An American! Make A Ruckus!
The only chance we the people have against this bill is a filibuster on the floor of the Senate. Last October, Barack Obama PROMISED he would support a filibuster of any bill that contained the provisions this one does. Call him (866-675-2008). Email his campaign. Call your 2 Senators, regardless of who they are. Tell them to help filibuster this bill until it is completely defeated in the Senate. If there’s no filibuster, just tell them you are watching every vote in the Senate, and that you consider the Constitution important enough by itself to decide who you vote for. Don’t let the fear of losing your freedom make you just give it up altogether.
Be an American Make a ruckus. This is worth it, not to just to you, but to your children and theirs.
Image via Wikipedia 
The Audacity Of Hope, Indeed
What An Ass-in-nine decision.