Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hissyspit
Hissyspit's Journal
Hissyspit's Journal
March 12, 2012
Daily Kos Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1072822/-Eric-Holder-says-
Tom Tomorrow: Eric Holder Says...
Daily Kos Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/12/1072822/-Eric-Holder-says-
March 12, 2012
UK's (Foreign Secretary) Hague Faces Suit Over Pakistan Drone Strikes
Source: Reuters
UK's Hague faces suit over Pakistan drone strikes
Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:45pm EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - Lawyers for the family of a man killed in a U.S. drone attack in Pakistan said they would begin legal action against Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday, accusing him of complicity in strikes they say broke international laws.
London law firm Leigh Day & Co said it had "credible, unchallenged" evidence that Hague oversaw a policy of passing British intelligence to U.S. forces planning attacks against militants in Pakistan. It plans to issue formal proceedings against Hague at the High Court in London on behalf of Noor Khan, whose father was died in a drone attack last year.
Malik Daud Khan was part of a local "jirga", or council of elders holding a meeting in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan when a missile fired from the drone hit the group, the law firm said.
Attacks by pilotless U.S. aircraft have become a key weapon in President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy in Pakistan and officials say they have helped to weaken al Qaeda's leadership in the region.
Read more: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82A0AP20120311?irpc=932
March 10, 2012
SATURDAY, MAR 10, 2012 5:40 AM EST
Dennis Kucinich and “wackiness”
The now-defeated congressman consistently opposed destructive bipartisan pieties - and is therefore "crazy"
BY GLENN GREENWALD
- snip -
Establishment Democrats have long viewed Dennis Kucinich with a mixture of scorn, mockery and condescension. True to form, the establishment liberal journal American Prospect gave Kucinich a little kick on the way out, comparing his political views to the 1960s musical “Hair” (the Ohio loser talked about “Harmony and understanding”!), deriding him as “a favorite among lefty college kids and Birkenstock-wearers around the country,” and pronouncing him “among the wackiest members of Congress.” Yes, I said The American Prospect, not The Weekly Standard.
- snip -
Neither the Prospect nor the Post would ever dare mock as “wacky” the belief in invisible judgmental father-figures in the sky or that rendition of life-after-death gospel because those belief systems have been deemed acceptable by establishment circles. ”Wacky”, like its close cousin “crazy,” is a term of establishment derision exclusively reserved for those who deviate from such conventions. And that’s the point worth making here: the real reason anyone with D.C. Seriousness, including many establishment liberals, relished mocking Kucinich is because he dissented from the orthodoxies of the two political parties. That, by definition, makes one wacky and weird, even when — as is true for the Obama assassination powers and so many other bipartisan pieties — the actual wacky and crazy beliefs are those orthodoxies themselves (we’ve seen this repeatedly with those who stray from two-party normalcy). In reality, the actual crazies are those who fit comfortably within that two-party mentality and rarely challenge or deviate from it, while those who are sane, by definition, dissent from it (just today, the Super Serious Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, a prime co-sponsor of the indefinite detention bill passed late last year, called for a naval blockade of Iran).
It’s not difficult to see why Democrats, including progressives, often took (and continue to take) the lead in demonizing Kucinich as a wacky loser. After his Party leaders decreed that impeachment of Bush was “off the table” — both because they feared it would jeopardize their electoral prospects and because top Democrats were complicit in Bush crimes — Kucinich defied their orders and introduced articles of impeachment against Bush for the Iraq War, his chronic lawbreaking, and his assault on the Constitution: exactly what impeachment was designed to prevent and punish. He was one of the very few people in Congress who vehemently denounced the assaults on the Constitution with equal vigor under the prior GOP President and the current Democratic one. He was one of the very few people in Congress with the courage to deviate from the AIPAC script, opposing the Israeli blockade of Gaza, condemning Israeli wars of aggression, and repeatedly publicizing the oppression of Palestinians with the use of American funds and support. He repeatedly insisted on application of the law to the Executive Branch’s foreign policy when all of Washington agreed to overlook it. He repeatedly opposed bipartisan measures to intensify hostility toward Iran. When the Democrats won Congress in 2006 based on a promise to end the Iraq War, only to turn around and continue to fund it without restrictions (thus ensuring that this politically advantageous war would be raging during the 2008 election), Kucinich continuously demanded that they follow through on their promises.
- snip -
I find this unpersuasive on multiple levels. For one, enacting legislation is not the only way to have an important impact on our political culture. Shining light on otherwise-ignored issues, advocating rarely-heard political positions, using one’s platform to highlight the corruption of those in power and to challenge their warped belief systems are all vitally important functions. Advocacy of that sort may not produce immediate, tangible successes, but it is a prerequisite for changing prevailing political mores and persuading citizens to think differently. “Talking a lot” is a synonym for persuasion, advocacy and debate. It’s far from “doing very little.” Those are all critical steps in changing a political system. It’s true that Kucinich cannot point to any law he passed that, say, guts the National Security State or corporate-lobbyist control over Washington, but that hardly means his work was inconsequential. Those types of changes often take years, even decades, of advocacy, and urgently need those with public platforms to amplify the underlying views to change how citizens think.
MORE AT LINK[p]
Glenn Greenwald: Dennis Kucinich and "Wackiness"
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/10/dennis_kucinich_and_wackiness/singleton.htmlSATURDAY, MAR 10, 2012 5:40 AM EST
Dennis Kucinich and “wackiness”
The now-defeated congressman consistently opposed destructive bipartisan pieties - and is therefore "crazy"
BY GLENN GREENWALD
- snip -
Establishment Democrats have long viewed Dennis Kucinich with a mixture of scorn, mockery and condescension. True to form, the establishment liberal journal American Prospect gave Kucinich a little kick on the way out, comparing his political views to the 1960s musical “Hair” (the Ohio loser talked about “Harmony and understanding”!), deriding him as “a favorite among lefty college kids and Birkenstock-wearers around the country,” and pronouncing him “among the wackiest members of Congress.” Yes, I said The American Prospect, not The Weekly Standard.
- snip -
Neither the Prospect nor the Post would ever dare mock as “wacky” the belief in invisible judgmental father-figures in the sky or that rendition of life-after-death gospel because those belief systems have been deemed acceptable by establishment circles. ”Wacky”, like its close cousin “crazy,” is a term of establishment derision exclusively reserved for those who deviate from such conventions. And that’s the point worth making here: the real reason anyone with D.C. Seriousness, including many establishment liberals, relished mocking Kucinich is because he dissented from the orthodoxies of the two political parties. That, by definition, makes one wacky and weird, even when — as is true for the Obama assassination powers and so many other bipartisan pieties — the actual wacky and crazy beliefs are those orthodoxies themselves (we’ve seen this repeatedly with those who stray from two-party normalcy). In reality, the actual crazies are those who fit comfortably within that two-party mentality and rarely challenge or deviate from it, while those who are sane, by definition, dissent from it (just today, the Super Serious Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, a prime co-sponsor of the indefinite detention bill passed late last year, called for a naval blockade of Iran).
It’s not difficult to see why Democrats, including progressives, often took (and continue to take) the lead in demonizing Kucinich as a wacky loser. After his Party leaders decreed that impeachment of Bush was “off the table” — both because they feared it would jeopardize their electoral prospects and because top Democrats were complicit in Bush crimes — Kucinich defied their orders and introduced articles of impeachment against Bush for the Iraq War, his chronic lawbreaking, and his assault on the Constitution: exactly what impeachment was designed to prevent and punish. He was one of the very few people in Congress who vehemently denounced the assaults on the Constitution with equal vigor under the prior GOP President and the current Democratic one. He was one of the very few people in Congress with the courage to deviate from the AIPAC script, opposing the Israeli blockade of Gaza, condemning Israeli wars of aggression, and repeatedly publicizing the oppression of Palestinians with the use of American funds and support. He repeatedly insisted on application of the law to the Executive Branch’s foreign policy when all of Washington agreed to overlook it. He repeatedly opposed bipartisan measures to intensify hostility toward Iran. When the Democrats won Congress in 2006 based on a promise to end the Iraq War, only to turn around and continue to fund it without restrictions (thus ensuring that this politically advantageous war would be raging during the 2008 election), Kucinich continuously demanded that they follow through on their promises.
- snip -
I find this unpersuasive on multiple levels. For one, enacting legislation is not the only way to have an important impact on our political culture. Shining light on otherwise-ignored issues, advocating rarely-heard political positions, using one’s platform to highlight the corruption of those in power and to challenge their warped belief systems are all vitally important functions. Advocacy of that sort may not produce immediate, tangible successes, but it is a prerequisite for changing prevailing political mores and persuading citizens to think differently. “Talking a lot” is a synonym for persuasion, advocacy and debate. It’s far from “doing very little.” Those are all critical steps in changing a political system. It’s true that Kucinich cannot point to any law he passed that, say, guts the National Security State or corporate-lobbyist control over Washington, but that hardly means his work was inconsequential. Those types of changes often take years, even decades, of advocacy, and urgently need those with public platforms to amplify the underlying views to change how citizens think.
MORE AT LINK[p]
March 9, 2012
Long Beach Aquarium Withdraws Ad From Rush Limbaugh's Show
Source: Los Angeles Times
Long Beach Aquarium withdraws ad from Rush Limbaugh's show
March 8, 2012 | 1:01 pm
The Aquarium of the Pacific withdrew an advertisement from Rush Limbaugh's radio show this week, the latest organization to do so after he lashed out against a law student on a recent show.
The aquarium does not "support or condone his statements," spokeswoman Claire Atkinson said in a statement issued Wednesday. "We immediately called our media buyers and asked to pull our ads."
Last week, Limbaugh called a law student a "slut" and a "prostitute" because she was advocating for more access to birth control. Dozens of organizations have pulled ads from the show.
About 45 national and local companies pulled their spots, according to liberal activist groups angered by Limbaugh.
Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/03/aquarium-withdraws-ad-from-rush-limbaugh-show.html
March 8, 2012
*********************************************************************************************
A column on 12 July suggested that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had hacked into the security services and published information which got people killed.
Mr Assange asks us to clarify that Wikileaks does not itself ‘hack’ but provides a secure facility for anonymous sources to deposit information online.
While the U.S. government has warned that Wikileaks disclosures put lives at risk, no such deaths have to date been reported.
Daily Mail Issues Retraction 10 Months After False Claim WikiLeaks "Hacked" US, Got People Killed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2111822/Clarifications-corrections.html?ito=feeds-newsxml*********************************************************************************************
A column on 12 July suggested that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had hacked into the security services and published information which got people killed.
Mr Assange asks us to clarify that Wikileaks does not itself ‘hack’ but provides a secure facility for anonymous sources to deposit information online.
While the U.S. government has warned that Wikileaks disclosures put lives at risk, no such deaths have to date been reported.
March 7, 2012
Law professor: U.S. in state of perpetual war
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, March 7, 2012 18:38 EST
University of Southern California law professor Mary Dudziak appeared Wednesday on MSNBC to explain why she believes the United States has been in a permanent state of war.
“The idea of wartime is doing a lot of work in American politics,” she said. “The way we think about history is history passes through two different kinds of time, from wartime to peacetime to wartime et cetera.”
“That’s the way we learn about it in school, that’s the way that we imagine it. When we use to concept of wartime, we assume that wartime is by definition temporary.”
But Dudziak noted that over the past 100 years, there had been few times when the United States was not engaged in a some sort of military conflict.
MORE[p]
Law professor: U.S. in State of Perpetual War
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/law-professor-u-s-in-state-of-perpetual-warLaw professor: U.S. in state of perpetual war
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, March 7, 2012 18:38 EST
University of Southern California law professor Mary Dudziak appeared Wednesday on MSNBC to explain why she believes the United States has been in a permanent state of war.
“The idea of wartime is doing a lot of work in American politics,” she said. “The way we think about history is history passes through two different kinds of time, from wartime to peacetime to wartime et cetera.”
“That’s the way we learn about it in school, that’s the way that we imagine it. When we use to concept of wartime, we assume that wartime is by definition temporary.”
But Dudziak noted that over the past 100 years, there had been few times when the United States was not engaged in a some sort of military conflict.
MORE[p]
March 6, 2012
Republican support of Limbaugh plummets in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, March 5, 2012 16:57 EST
Republican’s view of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has fallen deeply in the wake of misogynistic remarks he made about a Georgetown University law student.
Less than half of Republicans in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh, according to Public Policy Polling. The last time PPP surveyed his popularity nationally, 80 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of him, while only 12 percent had an unfavorable opinion.
- snip -
His favorability rating among women is even lower. In Ohio, 39 percent of Republican women have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh. In Tennessee, 36 percent of Republican women have a favorable opinion.
MORE
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/limbaugh-and-birthers.html
March 05, 2012
Limbaugh and Birthers
On our Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee Republican polls in addition to looking at the Presidential race we also polled on some of the issues that have been in the news over the last week: Rush Limbaugh and the reemergence of
Our numbers suggest that Rush Limbaugh has seen significant erosion in his popularity with Republican voters over the last week. The last time we polled on him nationally he was at 80/12 with GOPers. But now we find him below 50% in all three of these states: he's at 45/28 in Ohio, 46/29 in Tennessee, and 44/30 in Georgia.
Republican women in particular have become very skeptical about Limbaugh in the states holding tomorrow's 2 most competitive contests. He's at only 39/28 with them in Ohio and 36/30 in Tennessee
Feelings about Limbaugh produce a pretty big divide in who GOP voters are planning to cast their ballots for tomorrow. Among Ohio Republicans who like Limbaugh Rick Santorum leads Mitt Romney 39-35. With ones who dislike him Romney has the 39-30 advantage.
MORE[p]
Republican Support of Limbaugh Plummets in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/05/republican-support-of-limbaugh-plummets-in-georgia-ohio-and-tennessee/Republican support of Limbaugh plummets in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, March 5, 2012 16:57 EST
Republican’s view of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has fallen deeply in the wake of misogynistic remarks he made about a Georgetown University law student.
Less than half of Republicans in Georgia, Ohio and Tennessee have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh, according to Public Policy Polling. The last time PPP surveyed his popularity nationally, 80 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of him, while only 12 percent had an unfavorable opinion.
- snip -
His favorability rating among women is even lower. In Ohio, 39 percent of Republican women have a favorable opinion of Limbaugh. In Tennessee, 36 percent of Republican women have a favorable opinion.
MORE
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/limbaugh-and-birthers.html
March 05, 2012
Limbaugh and Birthers
On our Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee Republican polls in addition to looking at the Presidential race we also polled on some of the issues that have been in the news over the last week: Rush Limbaugh and the reemergence of
Our numbers suggest that Rush Limbaugh has seen significant erosion in his popularity with Republican voters over the last week. The last time we polled on him nationally he was at 80/12 with GOPers. But now we find him below 50% in all three of these states: he's at 45/28 in Ohio, 46/29 in Tennessee, and 44/30 in Georgia.
Republican women in particular have become very skeptical about Limbaugh in the states holding tomorrow's 2 most competitive contests. He's at only 39/28 with them in Ohio and 36/30 in Tennessee
Feelings about Limbaugh produce a pretty big divide in who GOP voters are planning to cast their ballots for tomorrow. Among Ohio Republicans who like Limbaugh Rick Santorum leads Mitt Romney 39-35. With ones who dislike him Romney has the 39-30 advantage.
MORE[p]
March 5, 2012
@ggreenwald: National Iraniain American Council runs full page WashPost ad against war with Iran quoting military officials: http://t.co/3x1aHu2E
National Iranian-American Council Runs Full-Page WaPo Ad Against War with Iran Quoting Military
@ggreenwald: National Iraniain American Council runs full page WashPost ad against war with Iran quoting military officials: http://t.co/3x1aHu2E
March 5, 2012
America Has Never Been Safer -- So Why Are Politicians and the Media Trying to Terrify Us?
Republicans tend to engage in blatant alarmism about foreign threats and Democrats respond in kind for fear of being portrayed as weak.
March 4, 2012 |
The United States has never been more secure, and Americans have never been safer than at this moment in history. Violent conflicts are at an all-time low around the world, and we still maintain significant military superiority over other major powers. The Al Qaeda network has been rendered largely incapable of mounting major attacks.
So write foreign policy analysts Michael Cohen and Micah Zenko in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. Their argument appears to be a contrarian one, but only because our political and media establishements continue to tell us that we are in constant peril. Cohen and Zenko write that the facts say otherwise:
- snip -
Joshua Holland: During the recent GOP debate/cavalcade of clowns in Mesa, Arizona, we learned some interesting things. Mitt Romney said, “The world is more dangerous. It is not safer. North Korea is going through transition, the Arab Spring has become the Arab Winter, Syria is in flux, and of course Pakistan with 100 nuclear weapons or more represents a potential threat. Northern Mexico is a real danger area ... you have Hezbollah in Latin America and Mexico....” (I did not know Hezbollah was in Latin America and Mexico, by the way.) Then Newt Gingrich piped in and said, “You live in a world of total warfare. And everyone needs to understand, we live in an age when we have to genuinely worry about nuclear weapons going off in our own cities.” And he said further that, “all of us are at more risk today, men and woman, boys and girls, than at any time in the history of this country.”
I noticed that when they were talking about that, your head was basically exploding.
Michael Cohen: (laughs) I mean it’s almost hard to figure out where to respond with all that. It’s so ludicrous and empirically incorrect that it just doesn’t make any sense at all. For Gingrich to say, for example, that we are in a period of total warfare is completely untrue. We are literally in a moment in history of fewer wars, fewer civil wars, fewer violent wars that harm civilians than at any point in recent memory.
MORE AT LINK[p]
Alternet: America Has Never Been Safer - So Why Are Politicians and the Media Trying to Terrify Us?
http://www.alternet.org/world/154405/america_has_never_been_safer_--_so_why_are_politicians_and_the_media_trying_to_terrify_usAmerica Has Never Been Safer -- So Why Are Politicians and the Media Trying to Terrify Us?
Republicans tend to engage in blatant alarmism about foreign threats and Democrats respond in kind for fear of being portrayed as weak.
March 4, 2012 |
The United States has never been more secure, and Americans have never been safer than at this moment in history. Violent conflicts are at an all-time low around the world, and we still maintain significant military superiority over other major powers. The Al Qaeda network has been rendered largely incapable of mounting major attacks.
So write foreign policy analysts Michael Cohen and Micah Zenko in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. Their argument appears to be a contrarian one, but only because our political and media establishements continue to tell us that we are in constant peril. Cohen and Zenko write that the facts say otherwise:
In 1992, there were 53 armed conflicts raging in 39 countries around the world; in 2010, there were 30 armed conflicts in 25 countries. Of the latter, only four have resulted in at least 1,000 battle-related deaths and can therefore be classified as wars, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program: the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia, two of which were started by the United States.
Today, wars tend to be low-intensity conflicts that, on average, kill about 90 percent fewer people than did violent struggles in the 1950s. Indeed, the first decade of this century witnessed fewer deaths from war than any decade in the last century.
Today, wars tend to be low-intensity conflicts that, on average, kill about 90 percent fewer people than did violent struggles in the 1950s. Indeed, the first decade of this century witnessed fewer deaths from war than any decade in the last century.
- snip -
Joshua Holland: During the recent GOP debate/cavalcade of clowns in Mesa, Arizona, we learned some interesting things. Mitt Romney said, “The world is more dangerous. It is not safer. North Korea is going through transition, the Arab Spring has become the Arab Winter, Syria is in flux, and of course Pakistan with 100 nuclear weapons or more represents a potential threat. Northern Mexico is a real danger area ... you have Hezbollah in Latin America and Mexico....” (I did not know Hezbollah was in Latin America and Mexico, by the way.) Then Newt Gingrich piped in and said, “You live in a world of total warfare. And everyone needs to understand, we live in an age when we have to genuinely worry about nuclear weapons going off in our own cities.” And he said further that, “all of us are at more risk today, men and woman, boys and girls, than at any time in the history of this country.”
I noticed that when they were talking about that, your head was basically exploding.
Michael Cohen: (laughs) I mean it’s almost hard to figure out where to respond with all that. It’s so ludicrous and empirically incorrect that it just doesn’t make any sense at all. For Gingrich to say, for example, that we are in a period of total warfare is completely untrue. We are literally in a moment in history of fewer wars, fewer civil wars, fewer violent wars that harm civilians than at any point in recent memory.
MORE AT LINK[p]
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Nov 12, 2004, 08:39 AMNumber of posts: 45,788
