Author Archive
"The Hurt Locker" wins Oscar for best picture
Posted by: | Comments“The Hurt Locker” won the Academy Award for best picture on Sunday, capping a historic Oscar ceremony that saw the low-budget Iraq war drama vanquish the sci-fi blockbuster “Avatar.”
I for one could care less about the Oscars. They are run by socialists, attended by socialists, and won by socialists. But it is part of our culture and not going away anytime soon. It is interesting to note that most Americans did not see these films. At least that is what the polls on conservative talk radio reflected. Oh, except “Up”. I will never watch “Avatar”. The only blue people I will let into my home are “Smurffs”.
Technorati Tags: socialism, news, Oscars, Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Smurffs, James Cameron

U.S. gave Israel green light for East Jerusalem construction
Posted by: | Comments
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz/Israel, March 12, 2010
The apology offered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai recalls the joke about the servant who pinched the king’s bottom. En route to the gallows, the servant apologized: He thought it was the queen’s bottom.
The statement issued by Netanyahu’s bureau said that in light of the ongoing dispute between Israel and the United States over construction in East Jerusalem, the plans for new housing in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood should not have been approved this particular week. It also said the premier had ordered Yishai to draft procedures that would prevent a recurrence. In other words, Yishai is welcome to submit more plans for Jewish construction in East Jerusalem next week, when U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will no longer be here.
Based on Biden’s reaction, it seems that he (and, presumably, his boss) has decided that it is better to leave with a few sour grapes than to quarrel with the vineyard guard. In his speech at Tel Aviv University, he said he appreciated Netanyahu’s pledge that there would be no recurrence. But what exactly does that mean? That next time he comes, the Planning and Building Committee will be asked to defer discussion of similar plans until the honored guest has left?
With the media storm dying down, Netanyahu can breathe a sigh of relief.
In a sense, the uproar actually helped him: To wipe the spit off his face, Biden had to say it was only rain. Therefore, he lauded Netanyahu’s assertion that actual construction in Ramat Shlomo would begin only in another several years.
Thus Israel essentially received an American green light for approving even more building plans in East Jerusalem.
Biden might not know it, but the Palestinians certainly remember that this is exactly how East Jerusalem’s Har Homa neighborhood began: Then, too, Netanyahu persuaded the White House that construction would begin only in another several years.
When Biden arrived, the Arab League had just recommended that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accede to Washington’s proposal for indirect talks with Israel.
But instead of being able to leave with an announcement that the talks have officially begun, Biden is leaving with the news that the Arab League has suspended its recommendation.
Netanyahu can thus hope that the Ramat Shlomo imbroglio has deferred the moment of truth when he must reveal his interpretation of “two states for two peoples.” And just in case anyone failed to realize how impartial a mediator the U.S. is, Biden said in his Tel Aviv speech that the U.S. has “no better friend” than Israel.
For Netanyahu, the cherry on top was that the onus for advancing the negotiations has now been put on the Arab states – just two weeks before the Arab League summit in Tripoli, where the league’s 2002 peace initiative will again be up for discussion. For months, U.S. President Barack Obama has been trying to persuade Arab leaders not to disconnect this important initiative from life support. His argument is that nothing would make Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad happier than a final blow-up of the peace process and the outbreak of a third intifada. And his joy would be redoubled if the fire started in Jerusalem.
But while the U.S. may be papering over the rift for now, Western diplomats said the bill will come due once the talks with the PA begin (assuming they do). The U.S. has already said it will submit bridging proposals of its own during these talks, and its anger and frustration over the Ramat Shlomo incident are likely to make it far more sympathetic to the Palestinians’ positions, the diplomats said.
For instance, Netanyahu wants security issues to top the talks’ agenda, an Israeli source said. But the Palestinians want the first issue to be borders, including in Jerusalem.
And the European Union, which had planned to upgrade various agreements with Israel this week in honor of the resumed talks, has now postponed the upgrade until it becomes clear whether the talks will in fact take place.
HRW: West must press Syria on rights violations
Posted by: | CommentsMiddle East Online, First Published 2010-03-11

![]()
Syrian security services have detained many human rights activists
Rights group accuses Syrian officials of jailing anyone who dares to utter critical word in their prison cells.
EW YORK – Western countries must press Syria on its continued repression of dissidents as part of their efforts to draw Damascus out of political isolation, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Thursday.
“Talking to Syria without putting its rights record on the table emboldens the government to believe that it can do whatever it wants to its people, without consequences,” said the US-based rights group’s Middle East director Sarah Whitson.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Tags: Haytham al-Maleh, human rights violations, Muhannad al-Hasani, Syria
Pakistani Civilians Among 17 Killed in Latest US Drone Strikes
Posted by: | CommentsDrone Attacked Crowd of Civilians Rescuing Victims of Previous Drone
by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, March 10, 2010
An unknown number of civilians were slain today in Pakistan’s North Waziristan Agency, when US drones launched a pair of attacks on a site which left at least 17 people killed and several wounded.
The first drone strike targeted a vehicle which Pakistani officials say was “carrying some miscreants.” The attack killed at least eight people and collapsed a nearby home, which is what precipitated the second attack.
A crowd of civilians gathered around the collapsed building, trying to pull people from the rubble, when a second drone fired missiles into the crowd, killing at least nine people and wounding several others.
“Miscreants” aside, it was unclear if any of those killed were militants of any significant faction, and Pakistani officials say there was no evidence any high-value target at the site. The area is controlled by a nominally “Taliban” militant faction which currently has a peace deal with the Pakistani government.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Tags: civilians, Jason Ditz, North Waziristan, Pakistan, people killed and wounded, US drones attack
Kit Bond: Just another. One Voiced, Neo Corporate, Crook inherited from Bu$hco
Posted by: | CommentsA predictable member of the corporate superstructure that was imported from Bu$hco; Kit will do and say anything that greases the skids for the Neo Republicon agenda. Some of his main contributors are Boeing and Monsanto. He is involved in”Vote Smart”, which is, in my opinion, mind control for dummies.
Our legal rights are eroding because of one voiced neo conservatives like him that fight meaningful change and promote the corporate government that Obama inherited. A substantial majority of Americans — 65 percent to 33 percent — believe that it was the correct action for the FBI to read him those rights, including the right to remain silent, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted Feb. 12-15.
And here’s a more rational viewpoint from Crooks and Liars
War Crimes Trial Of The Century
Posted by: | CommentsAllen L Roland
opednews.com
March 10, 2010 at 15:49:41
The war crimes trial of the century will be the World Court versus George W Bush and Dick Cheney. It will be instigated when the shocking details of the 9/11 conspiracy are finally fully brought to light ~ thus validating countless members of the 9/11 truth movement who always knew the official story was full of holes: Allen L Roland
The day is drawing closer ~the day that George W Bush, Dick Cheney,Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and take their place in the dock for the War Crimes Trial of the Century. It will be an international trial for it involves the tragic deaths of 2750 innocent people fromnations all over the world.
The rest of the world already knows the official 9/11 report is a hoax but America’s main stream press stubbornly holds on tothe great lie ~ rightfully afraid of the repercussions once the truth is revealed.
Jeremy R. Hammond, ICH, reports onan editorial in the Washington Post yesterdaywhich slammed Japanese member of parliament Yukihisa Fujita because he “seems to think that America’s rendering of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is a gigantic hoax.” His “ideas” about the terrorist attacks “are too bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus to merit serious discussion.”
The post rant continues~“ Among Fujita’s “bizarre” views are “that shadowy forces with advance knowledge of the plot played the stock market to profit from it”, “the fantastic idea that eight of the 19 hijackers are alive and well”, and “that controlled demolition rather than fire or debris may be a more likely explanation for at least the collapse of the building at 7 World Trade Center “.
Hammonds carefully explains that Fujita’s so called bizarre views are indeed credible and that it is the Washington Post itself that appears to be ‘Fact-Adverse’.
Official Dogma: Iraq War a Success
Posted by: | CommentsAmerican Elites Abandon Their Faux Regret Over Iraq
by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, March 10, 2010
The New York Times‘ Tom Friedman, who did as much as any single individual to persuade large numbers of Democrats and “moderates” to support the invasion of Iraq, today writes:
Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.
Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price — in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits — see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.
Sure, the war that I helped sell and cheered on led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings (at least), the long-term displacement of millions more, and the complete destruction of another country that had done nothing to us. But I’m not interested in clouding my mind with any of that. I don’t care about that. That can be talked about once I’m dead. After all, as the great humanitarian Joseph Stalin taught us, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and as the great scholar and torturer Condoleezza Rice explained, we should just gently shut our eyes and think about the massive slaughter and destruction we caused in that country as mere “birth pangs” on the road to something beautiful.
Back in 2003, I said – with bloodthirsty sadism rabidly drooling from my mouth — that the real purpose of the war, what made it the Right Thing to do, was that we needed to make large numbers of Muslims “suck. on. this” in order to show them we mean business, and we randomly picked Iraq because . . . . we could. But now — to justify the enormous amounts of blood I helped spill and the incalculable amounts of human suffering I helped spawn — I’m going to pretend that I was motivated by a magnanimous, noble desire to Spread Freedom.
It was only a matter of time before American elites abandoned their faux regret over Iraq. For tribalists and nationalists, America can err in its execution but never in its motives. There’s no question — as this glorifying, propagandistic Newsweek cover story reflects — that it’s now official dogma that this was the right thing to do, or at least that we produced something great and wonderful for that country, as was our intent all along (leaving aside the what is actually happening in Iraq). It’s nothing short of nauseating to watch those responsible glorify what they did without weighing — or, in Friedman’s case, affirmatively dismissing as irrelevant — the extreme amounts of death and suffering that they caused, all based on false pretenses. But this is why Tom Friedman is the favorite propagandist of “Washington insiders”– because he feeds them the justifications they need to feel good about themselves. Forget all those innocent dead people and destruction you caused; it all worked out in the end.
UPDATE: Several people argue in Comments that this effort to portray the invasion of Iraq as a good thing is motivated not only by a desire for self-cleansing on the part of those responsible, but also to enable future, similar wars to take place. I don’t know whether that’s the motive, but it’s definitely the effect. That the invasion of Iraq has been so widely perceived as a horrific debacle had the effect of minimizing the likelihood of future invasions. Having it now depicted as something that worked out and produced Great Results necessarily makes it easier to justify future wars in that region. After all, if attacking and invading Muslim countries we don’t like in order to change their government is the good and right thing to do, shouldn’t we keep doing it?
UPDATE II: Freedom is on the March: we shouldn’t burden our minds worrying about this, though; just do what Tom Friedman does and leave it to the historians while patting ourselves on the back.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy“, examines the Bush legacy.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Tags: Condoleezza Ric, Iraq war, lenn Greenwald, slaughter of innocent people, Tom Friedman, United States
The 9/11 Hijackers are Alive?
Posted by: | CommentsVideo Interview With Dr. David Ray Griffin
According to the chief of Japans Democratic Party who says that the 9/11 hijackers are alive and that 9/11 was a complete hoax. Dr. David Ray Griffin is a professor and author who wrote The New Pearl Harbor Revisited and he says that he agrees; the World Trade Center was a hoax.
Information Clearing House, Posted March 10, 2010
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Tags: 9/11 Hijackers, 9/11 hoax, Dr. David Ray Griffin
Congressional Democrats back expanded war in Afghanistan
Posted by: | CommentsBy Patrick Martin, wsws.com, March 11, 2010
The US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Wednesday evening against a resolution to end the war in Afghanistan and begin a withdrawal of US troops within 30 days. The roll call vote, with only 65 in favor and 356 against, showed top-heavy majorities of both Democrats and Republicans opposing an early end to the war.
House Democrats voted against the resolution by 189 to 60, House Republicans voted against by 167 to 5. The leaders of both parties lined up in unanimous opposition to the resolution, which would have invoked the 1973 War Powers Act. This provides that the president can send US armed forces into war abroad only with the authorization of Congress or if the US is already under attack.
The measure, introduced by a handful of liberal Democrats led by Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, would have had no effect even if it had passed, since the bill would still require Senate passage and then face a certain presidential veto.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Tags: Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Martin, United States, war in Afghanistan
Tea Party: All About Racism – Part 2
Posted by: | CommentsLast week, I wrote a piece about the tea party movement and the obvious through-line of race, race-baiting, racism and the use of the Southern Strategy within the movement. The responses were mostly positive and supportive, while the responses from the far-right and tea party people were predictably obnoxious, contradictory and fact-free.
The dominant theme throughout the most outraged responses was, essentially: We’re not racists, but here’s why we’re pissed about blacks and immigrants. For example, here’s a particularly illustrative e-mail, reprinted as it was received:
The Tea Party is NOT about race, it is about me paying taxes to support every non contributing individual that has the ability to pro create. It is not my/our fault that the majority of NON contributors are minority. It is not my/our fault some refuse to learn English, thereby limiting their employment opportunities. Hell, the whole race thing is nothing but bullshit for losers such as Garafolo and yourself to capitalize on. Rest assured Booby Boy we no longer give a damn about what you think do or say The main reason the Tea Party exists is Obama’s Marxist/Socialistic COMMUNISTIC leanings that will ultimately cost me, part of the 50% that pays taxes, as opposed to the 50% that DON’T PAY!! An ideology that will transform this Country into a third world nation. Try having some honest debate Booby and you might gain cred. Until then you’re shining Garafolo’s shoes. Sounds to me like you may be an immigrant yourself with an axe to grind. Is that the case Booby? If so you can always go home! Careful moron that light you’re looking at is a train not the end of the tunnel……
Smart. I have dozens more just like it. Several of them tell me I’m an idiot for suggesting there’s a racial component, followed closely with a line about how I should “go back to Cuba or Africa.” Nope. No racism there. Nevertheless, no matter how unhinged the above message might be, it proves an important point — my point.
Each topic abstractly hinges on race.
The insistence that the tea party movement is more about taxes, big government and personal freedoms is partly true. And many tea party people honestly believe it. But if you dig below the surface into the details underlying these banner themes, it’s not difficult to find that, yes, it’s about taxes — taxes on the rich to finance the extravagant lives of layabout welfare queens, or big government “ramming health care down our throats” as a means of slavery reparations to African Americans, and personal freedoms being stripped away by a liberal fascist Nazi who wants to give money and handouts to minorities in the form of health care subsidies and mortgage relief. You know, typical Nazi behavior. If I had a dollar for every Nazi who wanted to funnel government cash to immigrants and minorities…
It’s the subtext that gurgles just below the surface of these three topics that composes the tea party version of the Southern Strategy.
Developed by Republican strategists like Harry Dent and Pat Buchanan during the rebuilding of the GOP in the post Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act era, the Southern Strategy’s goal was to win over southern whites by demonizing blacks using subterfuge, dog whistles and coded language. As I mentioned last week, the late Republican mastermind Lee Atwater described the use of the Southern Strategy as being all about the use of “abstract” issues that imply race without explicitly using direct racial epithets or even the words “black” or “white.”
Atwater described some of the abstract issues of his era as “forced bussing” or taxes, and framing these issues in a way that subconsciously fuels white resentment towards blacks, and serves to coalesce white votes around Republican candidates. After all, Republicans will readily admit that trying to win over black voters has been a lost cause since LBJ, so why not exploit that loss by playing to white racial bias and thus locking down larger chunks of the white vote?
When Atwater was discussing this issue with Bob Herbert from the New York Times, the topic was Reagan and his cuts in food stamps and legal services in urban communities. Even though the Republicans had already won over the South, Atwater explained, these Reagan-era moves tended to reinforce white turnout and Wallace types. Again, it’s not about direct racism, but it’s borne out of a racial component.
That’s the Southern Strategy. It’s as old as the Civil War and the Southern white “fire-breathers,” but only in the last 40 years has it become a significant subheading in the fear chapter of the Republican Party playbook.
In other words, this isn’t a figment of my imagination or a wacky far-left conspiracy theory. The Southern Strategy was and still is very real. Look no further than the Willie Horton ad. The White Hands ad. The 2006 “Harold! Call me!” ad which set off white dog whistles in Tennessee about a black candidate having sex with a clearly naked blond white woman. Not ancient history by any stretch, nor have been the various attempts to fuel racial animosity against President Obama during and following the campaign.
Likewise, no one in charge of the tea party movement, save for obvious racist Dale Robertson (he of the pirate form of “niggaaarrrr”), is out there gathering members while sporting white headgear and spouting off obvious white supremacy slogans. This would backfire, as Atwater said during his Southern Strategy remarks. The subconscious racial element would suddenly become obvious and scare away supporters who aren’t necessarily racist, or who are in denial about their racism. Instead, they rally supporters around issues like taxes, big government and personal freedoms. But with a not-so-hidden Southern Strategy wink.
The flimsy and contradictory policy arguments only make the winking racial subtext more obvious.
For instance, the president cut taxes for the middle class. According to the CBO, a full third of the projected national debt — $3 trillion over the next 10 years — is due to the president retaining middle class tax cuts and rolling back the alternative minimum tax so it doesn’t absorb middle class earners. Tax cuts. So how, then, can the tea party reasonably claim that President Obama is all about taxing the middle class “to death,” as some e-mailers argued?
For the tea party leadership, it’s all politics, and politics is power. It’s about saying “join us” so we can oppose “them” and their taxes to pay for the poor (wink, we mean blacks) and their health care handouts (for reparations to blacks, wink). Consequently, tea party organizers and their PR wing at Fox News and on talk radio are able to consolidate political and financial power.
Glenn Beck, this week, was at it again, suggesting that the U.S. Census was scheming to give lopsided representation to minorities. This on top of his ongoing line that President Obama hates white people and that health care reform is all about reimbursing black people because of slavery. Yeah. He’s not so “abstract,” as Lee Atwater once said.
In Beck’s case, sure, he spends a considerable amount of time talking about freedom and something about red phones and assembling acronyms that spell out non-words like “OLGIARHY.” But the race argument is ever present. As obvious as it is, he doesn’t say that he hates black people or immigrants. He probably doesn’t. But he’s clearly stoking white resentment for ratings and financial gain. Beck, like it or not, is a major player in the tea party movement, as is Fox News Channel. Together, they’ve spent countless sums of cash promoting tea party rallies and endorsing tea party causes. They are inextricably linked. And the use of the Southern Strategy right out there in plain view.
To date, for all of their protests and e-mails, I have yet to hear or read about any tea party participant who has denounced Beck. Or denounced Limbaugh for his daily race-based grabassery (yesterday is was a pun about Eric Massa, Governor Patterson and the racial epithet “massa”). Or denounced the scores of people who turn up with witch doctor signs and other racially-insensitive agitprop.
And finally, no. I’m not implying that everyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist. Hell, I disagree with him on a number of issues. And no, not every member of the tea party movement is an outright racist. There are surely some earnest, decent (though politically misguided) people who are unaware of the race-baiting that’s happening around them, and it’s reasonable to suggest that there are more than a few people who simply don’t recognize racism when they see it. But it’s clear that a major component of the tea party movement — the movement — is the use of race, anti-immigrant sentiment and abstract racism as a strategy. Naturally, it wouldn’t be used if there wasn’t anything to gain. Sadly, however, the target demographic for the tea party movement are low-information white middle class voters who have a tendency, no matter how subconscious, to respond to dog whistles.
No matter how loud and obnoxious they might become, the urgency is to make sure the tea party isn’t taken any more seriously than its backwards and contradictory positions on the issues, its phony Astroturfing, and its Southern Strategy politics. This is essentially a corporate-driven assembly of angry white people gathered around abstractly racial issues for the purposes of venting rage while financially benefiting the far-right power elites who are pulling the strings. The broader conservative movement, say nothing of anyone who takes seriously the issues confronting the nation, would do well to stay away from the tea party, leaving it to flail in the margins where it belongs.
Listen to the historical the Bob & Elvis Show presented by iClips. Thursdays at 10 a.m. EST.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter
Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog! Go!









