Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 22,666
Number of posts: 22,666
The leaked emails clearly show that the DNC leadership at the national and state levels clearly violated Article 5 Section 4 of their own bylaws. We can argue that the Russians pulled the stunt of exposing the emails in order to help Trump but the bottom line is that if the DNC wasn't trying to sabotage Sanders' campaign, their release wouldn't be an issue. There'd be nothing much to see there. That there is, is fully on the DNC/DWS.
Now, because they violated their own impartiality bylaws during the primaries (which yes, are now OVER), they are going to have a MUCH more difficult time UNITING the party behind Hillary - especially the Sanders supporters who have been proven correct in their assertions that the DNC had it in the can for Hillary from the get-go. Turns out they were right. As bad, they already didn't fully trust Hillary and the DNC to start with and now they certainly don't and with good reason.
And, DWS/DNC has given TRUMP even more ammo to attack them and Hillary with now, to boot.
You can alert this post as "fighting the last primary" or "attacking Democrats" if you want but the fact is they got themselves into this pot of hot water and it's going to hurt our nominee now that the primaries are over.
I'm not "re-fighting" the last primary. Hillary won.
But I AM saying that the CLEAR FACT that the DNC violated its own impartiality clause during the primaries, which has now (for whatever reason) been exposed, is going to hurt us in November.
Had they not done so, chances are Hillary would have won anyway and when these emails were exposed, there would be nothing much there to cause additional issues for her and for our party in November.
The DNC and DWS herself did this to the Democrats and to Hillary - not the Russians or Assange or whoever. Sorry but it's on them.
She should have resigned months ago and she should NOT participate in the convention. In fact the should be banned from doing so, IMO.
Posted by Triana | Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:12 PM (46 replies)
But I never believed (or cared about) her emails either. I knew there would be no indictment and IMO it makes no sense for there to be one. And Benghazi was a cooked-up Republican hit-job. I expect with the Clintons in residence once again, the White House will once again be Scandal Central. The Republicans will see to it.
I do not look forward to that. At ALL. And it's the goddamned GOP who will be at the helm of all that. It's all they'll do for 4-8 years. There really IS (I believe) a vast RW conspiracy.
But I also believe there is a vast CORPORATE conspiracy against the 99%. I KNOW there is. I'm pretty sure most Americans know that. To be here though -- I am to believe that Ms. Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with the corporate conspiracy and I just can't believe that.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is honest or even the best candidate. But she's what we've got and beats the alternative. Now, somebody(s) here are hellbent on reporting almost every comment I make here. I'm certain someone will report/alert on this one - perhaps I'm 'bashing" the candidate because I don't choose to swallow the pablum or do the proper cheering or do it in the proper way. I will likely vote for her because I will have no choice but to not vote (and I AM voting). But my eyes are WIDE OPEN while I'm doing it, let's just say that.
Now - I have no PROOF of anything I've written here. It's all my OPINION and is based on what I know of this candidate and her record and money. And that's what I do when considering candidates: look at their record and follow the money.
If that's not acceptable, then so be it. Report, ban, review my account as if I'm some sort of trolling disruptor -- me who has been here since 2001 (15 YEARS) and who has said many times HRC will get my vote (however with deep reservations). I'm not allowed to say that here, evidently. AWARENESS of this candidate's flaws is hardly the equivalent of Republican DERANGEMENT that has begat them the likes of Trump.
Go ahead. Don't goddamned wonder why JPR has so many members over there - including ME.
Posted by Triana | Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:29 PM (1 replies)
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt takes a similar position in a recent op-ed. Immelt defends the company’s tax record simply by noting that the company “pay billion in taxes.” This is true, but also meaningless for a company with earnings as gigantic as GE’s. In fact, over the past 10 years, GE paid an effective federal income tax rate of -1.6 percent on $58 billion in profits. Over 15 years, the company’s federal income tax rate was just 5.2 percent.
The company’s tax-avoiding ways extend to the state level, too. Over the past five years, the company paid an effective state income tax rate of just 1.6 percent. Immelt likely focuses on the dollar amount and not the company’s tax rate because there is simply no way of fudging the numbers to make the company appear to be paying income taxes at anything but a ridiculously low rate.
http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2016/04/just_plain_wrong_ge_and_verizo.php#.V3aYBZMrJGx - GE Taxes paid
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000125 - GE spending on lobbying in 2016 (59% of lobbyists employed by GE are "revolvers" ie: revolving door hires from within government or hires from private industry into gov't)
It's clear to me that GE and most likely all other corporations:
1. Pay far too little in taxes using tax shelters and tax avoidance schemes that need to be removed from US tax laws
2. Pay for too much for revolving-door lobbyists to twist arms in Washington to get "our" representatives to write and pass those tax laws and keep them in place and to enact other corporate welfare policies exclusively for the benefit of GE and other corps like them.
3. Wield FAR TOO MUCH influence in the federal and state governments while paying little to no taxes to contribute to their functions to serve the public good. GE evidently believes the function of federal and state governments is solely to kiss GE's ass (and other corporate entities' asses) at the expense of the rest of us - the public. Those losses in corporate tax revenues means US workers have to pay more or suffer cuts in public services such as upkeep of infrastructure, public transportation, regulation and mantenance of clean energy and water systems, providing the FDA with the tools and personnel needed to regulate and ensure safe food and other products, building and maintaining public schools that ALL kids can attend regardless their parents income, maintaining and expanding social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid,and Social Security, public television and radio, etc.
Corporations like GE want to USE our public infrastructure for their businesses and their employees -- but they don't want to have to PAY for them.
Posted by Triana | Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:36 PM (12 replies)
The head of the US Chamber of Commerce says that she WILL support TPP after she's elected. In order to get elected, she's lying to Americans. Again.
Just in my opinion, the US is lost as anything resembling a Democracy or Democratic Republic or a Republic.
Electing Bernie Sanders - the ONLY SANE person and the ONLY Democrat running, might enable us to save some semblance of America for common people - the working people, the middle class and the poor - such that they have a voice in their own gov't.
But electing HER NOW will make the transition of this nation from a Republic to an Oligarchy permanent and irreversible.
If the US doesn't elect Bernie Sanders, they are INSANE, PSYCHOPATHIC, and LOST. Not to mention irretrievably stupid.
The country will never EVER be a Republic again. The laws that make America an oligarchy are in the TPP and Hillary WILL ensure it gets passed.
We're turning into Somalia. I guess that's what the US wants. Everyone is all goon-eyed about "the first woman President".
Fat lot that's going to get Americans when SHE codifies into law the US as a permanent OLIGARCHY via TPP and God only knows what else.
"First woman President" loses all value to me as anything symbolic or otherwise when this woman sells our lives and America's soul - by LAW - into the hands of the Capitalists and profiteers, who would kill, murder, torture, or let die anyone, anywhere, anytime and for any reason as long as it begat CORPORATE PROFIT for the money-changers.
I just don't care. She's a 1960's Republican. Nixon in pantsuit. Our own Maggie Thatcher.
People today have NO memory, NO historical perspective of what any of this means. ALL THEY SEE IS "first woman President" -- and that's IT. The YUUUUUGE blind spot people have where she is concerned is as big as a galaxy and it will - mark my words - suck America into permanent Oligarchy if not full-on Fascism.
It will destroy my own life and the lives of countless others who did nothing to deserve that barbaric destruction other than follow the rules, work hard, get an education and work to survive and take care of themselves and their families.
Yet they get NO say in their own government because they haven't enough money to PAY anyone in government to listen to them.
And aren't you PROUD about that America? The World brought you their tired, poor huddled masses and you killed them or drove them into poverty for corporate profit and shut them out of a decent life or a representative government.
You have officially BECOME THAT WHICH YOU SOUGHT INDEPENDENCE from back in 1776.
Posted by Triana | Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:01 AM (0 replies)
By ALL means, vote for Hillary.
Otherwise, if you'd like to see it changed, vote for Bernie Sanders.
Can he change it? Maybe or maybe not. But at LEAST he'd TRY, whereas Hillary Clinton is part of the problem - she's part of the corrupt system and would likely not put much effort into changing it because she uses it and it has benefitted her and her family a great deal. Case in point, the Hillary Victory Fund.
If you want to GET OFF the path to Oligarchy in the US, you vote for BERNIE SANDERS. Otherwise, it will never happen. We'll be too far gone to ever go back to being anything resembling a Republic or anything resembling a proper representative government.
It really IS that simple.
Yet - - It's a HELL of a lot more than just "oh wahah, we're jealous because rich people have money". That statement is a 1) a Republican talking point and 2) grossly over-simplified.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
. . .
"American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media)," he writes. "The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious 'electoral' 'democratic' countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now."
This is the "Duh Report", says Death and Taxes magazine's Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.
"Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners," she writes, "instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here."
Maybe "Americans should just accept their fate" as Ms. Pennacchia says. To accept that fate, we'd vote for Hillary Clinton and her TPP, which she WILL fully support once elected. That will codify it all straight into law. (what of it isn't already since the oligarchs and robber barons write the goddamned things -- another issue that Sanders would at least TRY to fix -- whereas Hillary will not) -- starting with his REFUSAL to support the TPP.
Look. This isn't an election. It's an IQ test.
And it's one that America will likely fail because it's collectively too stupid to save its own Democracy.
I guess in that case we don't deserve to have one, then.
Our collective goose is cooked and the blinkered masses are all rushing to the polls to stick the Hillary Clinton FORK in to finish the job. All the way to the bone.
How fucking stupid is that?
Posted by Triana | Tue Apr 19, 2016, 09:44 AM (11 replies)
The truth is quite the contrary. PoC are part of and will benefit from nearly EVERY policy idea and ideal that Sanders speaks of and is pushing, particularly the economic ones. PoC have ALWAYS been part of all demographics Sanders has fought for - ever since he was 20 years old in the 1960s he fought for civil rights and he's STILL fighting for civil rights. It's part of who he IS and ALWAYS has been.
Can Hillary say that? Well. NO. In the 1960s Ms. Clinton was working for Barry Goldwater.
This assertion that Sanders "only represents whites" does not hold water for me. AT. ALL. Here are some reasons why:
The proposed solutions to the issues Sanders talks about would benefit African Americans as well ie: income inequality, constraining Wall St excess, campaign finance reform, voting rights, fair wages, climate change, etc. Those issues are all-inclusive - not black or white issues. That Sanders marched with MLK for civil rights back in his 20s certainly should not be ignored by anyone - political pundits or African Americans and certainly not the Clinton campaign.
He was active in the civil rights movement. Sanders was an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and participated in the historic March on Washington in 1963 as a 22-year-old student at the University of Chicago. "It was a question for me of just basic justice — the fact that it was not acceptable in America at that point that you had large numbers of African-Americans who couldn't vote, who couldn't eat in a restaurant, whose kids were going to segregated schools, who couldn't get hotel accommodations living in segregated housing," he told the Burlington Free Press. "That was clearly a major American injustice and something that had to be dealt with."
It appears to me that perhaps some pundits and supporters of Clinton are hoping they can make this non-issue into one -- and to do so based on little but the assertion itself nevermind facts or Sanders' history.
Perhaps they're hoping to create Sanders' achilles heel - use his alleged non-support of African American issues or alleged lack of support from African Americans as a battering ram to fend off Sanders' obvious momentum. IOW, they perhaps seek to use this type of propaganda to CREATE the illusion of such lack of support. This would certainly curtail any progress Sanders might make with AA voters.
I don't hear of Ms. Clinton talking about this stuff much today. And she certainly did not do so 50 years ago, either. I do hear it from Sanders. . .both then and now. He's been quite consistent about it. I don't know what Hillary Clinton has done for African Americans lately. But I know Bernie Sanders has been consistently working on their behalf for 50 years. Please explain how the following from Bernie Sanders translates to "afterthought" or "doesn't represent"
Sanders: "Civil rights was a very important part of it. I was very active in the Congress of Racial Equality at the University of Chicago. I got arrested in trying to desegregate Chicago’s school system. I was very active in demanding that the University of Chicago not run segregated housing, which it was doing at that time. We were active in working with our brothers and sisters in SNCC … at that point helping them with some very modest financial help. So, yes, I was active. And I do not separate the civil-rights issue from the fact that 50 percent of African-American young people are either unemployed or underemployed. Remember the March on Washington—what was it about? “Jobs and Freedom.” The issue that Dr. King raised all the time was: This is great if we want to desegregate restaurants or hotels, but what does it matter if people can’t afford to go to them? That’s still the issue today."
“I do not separate the civil-rights issue from the fact that 50 percent of African-American young people are unemployed or underemployed.” -Bernie Sanders
So all this makes me think that this assessment of Sanders as "not representing African Americans" is really just incorrect - willfully so, and being done to turn AA folks away from Sanders for no damn good reason at all -- and against their own best interests, most likely (because IMO Sanders will be more likely to fight for them as President than Hillary will)
"What's he done for me lately"?, one of our DU AA members recently asked. Well...this is willful ignorance, IMO. They've bought into the factless meme.
They claim Sanders does not call out African Americans specifically when speaking of his policies and ideas. Oh but he DOES. See examples above. I've heard him do so more than ANY OTHER politician in the race!
And even if he did not, the fact is that with Sanders is his policies, ideas and proposed solutions would benefit EVERYONE, including African Americans. Maybe sometimes he sees no need therefore to separate them into a different demographic when speaking.
But he DOES do that, he HAS done that, and considering his LONG and consistent history fighting for equal and civil rights (which Hillary and NO other politician running for 2016 even HAS), there can really be no reasonable, fact-driven claim that Sanders "doesn't represent PoC" or that "PoC are an afterthought to Sanders"
PoC are NOT an "afterthought" to Sanders. His fight for them is PART OF WHO HE IS and has been for FIFTY YEARS, unlike Hillary and certainly anyone else in the running.
No. I don't think so. You can't get away with that false meme. It might fly if enough people don't bother looking at the FACTS - and particularly the FACTS about Sanders and his fight for African Americans as compared to other 2016 candidates. Sanders has done MORE for African Americans than any other 2016 candidates and he's been fighting for them all his life.
I'm not buying the bullshit. Our wise AA brothers and sisters won't either. They'll know better.
Posted by Triana | Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:35 AM (3 replies)
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) (formerly known as Triana, unofficially known as GoreSat) is a NOAA Earth observation and space weather satellite launched by SpaceX on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle on 11 February 2015 from Cape Canaveral.
It was originally developed as a NASA satellite proposed in 1998 by then-Vice President Al Gore for the purpose of Earth observation. It is intended to be positioned at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point, 1,500,000 km (930,000 mi) from Earth, to monitor variable solar wind condition, provide early warning of approaching coronal mass ejections and observe phenomena on Earth including changes in ozone, aerosols, dust and volcanic ash, cloud height, vegetation cover and climate. At this location it will have a continuous view of the Sun and the sunlit side of the Earth. The satellite is planned to orbit the Sun-Earth L1 point in a six-month period, with a spacecraft-Earth-Sun angle varying from 4 to 15 degrees. It will take full-Earth pictures about every two hours and be able to process them faster than other Earth observation satellites.
DSCOVR has an expected arrival at L1 around the beginning of June 2015.
Originally known as Triana, named after Rodrigo de Triana, the first of Columbus's crew to sight land in the Americas, the satellite's original purpose was to provide a near-continuous view of the entire Earth and make that live image available via the Internet. Gore hoped not only to advance science with these images, but also to raise awareness of the Earth itself, updating the influential Blue Marble photograph taken by Apollo 17. In addition to an imaging camera, a radiometer would take the first direct measurements of how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from the whole Earth (albedo). This data could constitute a barometer for the process of global warming. The scientific goals expanded to measure the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, cloud patterns, weather systems, monitor the health of Earth's vegetation, and track the amount of UV light reaching the surface through the ozone layer.
In 1999, NASA's Inspector General reported that "the basic concept of the Triana mission was not peer reviewed", and "Triana's added science may not represent the best expenditure of NASA's limited science funding." The Bush Administration put the project on hold shortly after George W. Bush's inauguration. Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences whether the project was worthwhile. The resulting report stated that the mission was "strong and scientifically vital."
Triana was removed from its original launch opportunity on STS-107 (the ill-fated Columbia mission in 2003). The $100 million satellite remained in storage for the duration of the Bush administration. In November 2008 the satellite was removed from storage and began recertification for a possible launch on board a Delta II or a Falcon 9. Al Gore used part of his book Our Choice (2009) as an attempt to revive debate on the DSCOVR payload. The book mentions legislative efforts by Senators Barbara Mikulski and Bill Nelson to get the satellite launched. NASA renamed the satellite Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), in an attempt to regain support for the project. In February 2011, the Obama administration attempted to secure funding to re-purpose the DSCOVR spacecraft as a solar observatory to replace the aging Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft.
In September 2013 NASA cleared DSCOVR to proceed to the implementation phase targeting an early 2015 launch, which had been announced in December 2012 as launching on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center is providing management and systems engineering to the mission.
(MODS - being that this is from wikipedia and is already publicly owned info, I figured there would be no intellectual property or copyright issues with posting more than 4 paragraphs. If I need to cut it down, just let me know and I'll modify the OP)
Posted by Triana | Tue May 26, 2015, 11:44 AM (2 replies)
Talking to her on the phone in the past few days, she related that she was alarmed by the TPP, which she has just recently heard any detail at all about since she's not on the internet. She had seen Bernie Sanders on The Ed Show where Ed showed Hillary Clinton's comments about the TPP as well as a long explanation by President Obama during a presser. Then, Ed had Bernie Sanders on, who explained the realities of the TPP more clearly and in a different way than Hillary or Obama. You know, he told the truth of what the so-called "trade" agreement would likely mean for America's workers, wages, and the environment.
I had told her about the TPP before and about Bernie Sanders - a man whom I felt was truly the only (or one of the few) real Democrats left in Washington, the rest being DLC types. I told her that I knew the Democratic Party had moved center and the Republicans have gone off-the-rails batshit crazy - back to the old John Birch Society days. She understood that since she remembers JBS well from the 1950s - 1960s or thereabouts.
But she had not heard of the TPP or Bernie Sanders - or didn't remember who he was really - she believed me when I told her about Bernie and the TPP, but was unfamiliar. Remind that she's 88, blind, and has no internet access - only television. So, her unfamiliarity is understandable.
But when she saw Bernie on The Ed Show and heard more about this TPP, she was shocked. She said Bernie was a real Democrat. She knows he's an Independent but she says Bernie is what Democrats USED to be when they were actual Dems.
Mom lived through the great depression, FDR, World War II, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama and two major financial collapses since the depression, the last one being in 2008. She has always been political, always paid attention to what's going on, just as her dad did. Neither she or her father (my grandfather) ever failed to vote. They were involved politically and she still is, as much as an 88-year-old can be when blind and not on the internet. She knows "where the bear shit in the buckwheat", so-to-speak, no matter what lies are told on network TV which she also knows is controlled by the same big corporations who are controlling our government and for whom our government works (not for us).
Mom is no dummy. She never has been. Even in her old age with no internet and hardly being able to see, she's no dummy.
After watching The Ed Show on Friday, she told me that she felt that capitalism was eating us alive as it continues almost completely unregulated (Capitalism - if it works at all, must be strictly regulated so as to work for all and not just for itself) The TPP scares the living bejeezus out of her and she stated flatly that given a choice between Hillary and Sanders she'd vote for Sanders. She didn't understand how or why Obama or Hillary would support the TPP.
Another thing about my Mom is that she is a staunch feminist. She has always supported Hillary and will vote for her if Hillary is the nominee. But she prefers Bernie Sanders.
Given her knowledge and her history - all that she's lived through in the US in the past 88 years, that's her take after fully realizing who Bernie Sanders is and what the TPP is.
Her sister - my aunt - was married to a man whose parents were John Birchers. My uncle's mother - the John Bircher - was the meanest old witch you can imagine. She abused my aunt the entire time they were married. She berated her, insulted her and turned my uncle against her and with him, colluded behind my aunt's back. She sold their house out from under them with my uncle's help and unbeknownst to my aunt. These were N A S T Y people, these John Birchers. So I have that perspective to rely on as well. My aunt is 89, and she has told me in detail how awful and wicked the John Birchers were. She experienced it first hand.
I just thought DUers might be interested in this perspective, since perspective is so easily lost on several generations who have not lived through all that she (and my aunt) has. I expect these two women won't be around too much longer and when they're gone, so is the history and the perspective and knowledge of US history from those who actually lived through it. They are living snapshots of where we've been and what used to be - living history.
So here we are. Now what?
Posted by Triana | Sun Apr 19, 2015, 10:15 AM (10 replies)
Mr. Conservative said:
My response (which I doubt he will fully read and will likely pass off as "librul propaganda"):
It isn't about 'rules'. It's about a thoughtful, intelligent, measured response that won't perpetuate terrorism and hatred and make things worse, fomenting more violence and hate. It takes restraint and intellect to do that. And that -- takes STRENGTH. Intellectual, moral strength. Not the biceps and guns and tanks kind. It's about not buying into all the propaganda about 'mushroom clouds' and the various profiteer's admonishments and fear-mongering to rush to war. It's about waiting to find out more facts and basing responses on actual intelligence (which in this case was there before the attacks but were inexplicably ignored). It's a different response than going into a full on occupation with guns-a-blazing, torture prisons awaiting to slam anyone in there we can get just to show how macho we are and to make ourselves feel better (and to make lots of dough for our oil businesses and military industrial complex buddies bytheway).
This isn't about "liberals" (though we know you hate them) and intellectualism in general. It's about the immorality of deceiving a nation into war based on false pretenses in order to gain profit, power, revenge, and control. It's about certain important facts that far too many people find it convenient to ignore - maybe because it gives them an easy platform upon which to stand to justify their hatred of "liberals" - or any other whole groups of people. It's about what's wise and unwise in regards to how to respond to terrorist attacks (that is "respond" NOT "react" - there's a difference). It's about morality. OURS. Not theirs.
The Bush admin ignored multiple direct warnings about al Queda. Some people would like to ignore that fact. I won't.
His administration knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet they fired up their propaganda machinery to sell an invasion there to the American people. Yellow cake. Mushroom clouds. Claims of meetings that never occurred. The whole crock of bullshit. No WMD there. Even Bush himself joked about it later. And, later " target="_blank">he stated that he didn't know where bin Laden was and didn't care.
I should point out that it was BARACK OBAMA who hunted down and killed bin Laden. With no invasion or occupation of Pakistan. Without torturing anyone to find him. And without killing anyone else other than him. And without lies and false pretenses. If Obama was white and Republican, conservatives would have been (and would still be) singing his praises to the high heavens forevermore. But -- he's not.
So, Bush not giving a damn about bin Laden after he allegedly masterminded 9/11 is fabulous in their eyes. Obama on the other hand -- after finally getting bin Laden after Bush failed and after Bush tortured a bunch of people in Iraq needlessly under the guise of "war on terror" -- Obama is a failure (at least in the eyes of conservatives).
It was learned that Bush/Cheney planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. That's interesting too. Here's the money quote about that:
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
Here's something too makes this even more despicable than it already is - insiders (Colin Powell's chief of staff for instance, along with others) have said the most extreme waterboarding and torture wasn't done to pre-empt another attack on America, but rather because Bush and Cheney wanted to extract confessions or info (false or not) to so they could claim there was a link between Iraq and al Queda - to justify their invasion and occupation of Iraq - which as I mentioned they evidently had planned at the beginning of Bush's first term well before 9/11.
Gordon Trowbridge writes for the Detroit News: “Senior Bush administration officials pushed for the use of abusive interrogations of terrorism detainees in part to seek evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, according to newly declassified information discovered in a congressional probe.
That congressional probe was the Senate Armed Services Committee report from 2009. More about that:
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
If that's not despicable enough or incriminating enough, Senator Carl Levin recently explained that the torture techniques used in the Iraq prisons were the same ones used by the Chinese Communists against American soldiers during the Korean war for the express purpose of eliciting FALSE CONFESSIONS to be used as propaganda. This appears to be the same reason the Bush Administration was using these techniques, doesn't it? Also very interesting.
So once they found (or let happen) their convenient excuse for invading and occupying Iraq, they tortured innocent people (including sodomizing children in front of their mothers to try to extract information from the parents) in the some of the same prisons Sadaam Hussein used and in the same as well as worse ways. I can't justify that. I don't care who attacked us or how. It's a moral issue.
Every second of suffering. Every drop of blood spilled is on their hands. On America's hands. Every. One. And its about time we owned up to it as a nation.
Anyone can huff and puff and beat their chest and drag their knuckles and drag themselves down to behave just like the terrorists themselves (or worse). They can hate Muslims and hate "liberals" and whoever else and declare that any form of torture is too good for the lot of them. It doesn't take any skill to do that. Or much intelligence. Or any more morals than the terrorists have.
Torturing people doesn't result in reliable intelligence from prisoners. Simply because a prisoner will do or say ANYTHING to make the pain stop. You know you would. And as I mentioned, there are some accounts that say the administration wasn't even looking for reliable intelligence - just something they could use as propaganda to tie bin Laden to Hussein to justify the invasion.
But if you're really looking to catch the bad guys (not just something to use for propaganda), torture still is not necessary to gain good intelligence to capture terrorists. See my previous mention of Barack Obama's capture of bin Laden. No torture was necessary. That's what you call "leading by example". That's how it's done. I know you hate that. I know you hate giving a black Democrat president credit for anything at all, much less something as important as capturing a terrorist mastermind who allegedly orchestrated attacks on America. But Barack Obama did that. Without torture. And without invading and occupying another country - under false pretenses or otherwise.
Acting like terrorists ourselves by torturing people is at best counterproductive. It is at worst a mechanism which only serves to exacerbate, propagate and perpetuate the problem (though it might make YOU feel better). One Republican who has himself been subjected to torture agrees with that sentiment - John McCain - he's got first-hand experience with having been tortured.
How does America being a terrorist state (and it was at that time in many people's estimation) perpetuate terrorism? Well, here's an example:
Here is what the leader of ISIS said about its current existence: "If there was no US prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS. The prison was a factory. It made us”
. . . Abu Ahmed recalled. They had also been terrified of Bucca, but quickly realised that far from their worst fears, the US-run prison provided an extraordinary opportunity. “We could never have all got together like this in Baghdad, or anywhere else,” he told me. “It would have been impossibly dangerous. Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred metres away from the entire al-Qaida leadership.”
_ _ _ _ _
And in regards to ISIS, there is another piece of relevant information that the media and those who support the Bush regime like to ignore (they inexplicably blame Obama instead, for the fact that ISIS exists - but the fact is Obama has little to do with it):
How the Top Iraqi Terrorist Was Helped by a Bush-Signed Agreement
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Getting all pissed off and invading another country and torturing the shit out of people in various prisons there might make chest-beaters feel better. Because they're mad. And they're going to have their revenge on that damn terrorist scum. But is it the best and wisest thing to do in order to stop terrorist activity or in response to attacks? Participating in terrorism stops it? It looks to me like it just perpetuates it. So when does it stop? Really. When? Because what's been tried so far isn't working. The torture carried out by Bush did more harm to America than good. And it did more harm to America than the damn terrorists did. It hasn't worked. What it's done is give us new terrorists to deal with - like ISIS. And it's made us war criminals. And terrorists - in the eyes of much of the rest of the world (regardless how John Yoo contorted laws to make it "legal").
Oh but it's OK when America does it. Right?
So those are a few things for you nosh on as you clench your fists and grit your teeth about about "liberals" whom we all know you hate. Here's the thing: I welcome your hatred. Because I know it will hurt you more than it will ever hurt me. Come to think of it, that's actually the moral of this entire response.
Posted by Triana | Sun Dec 14, 2014, 07:46 PM (13 replies)
There isn't a hair's difference between the misogynist attitudes of Elliot Rodger and those of Republicans. I watched his video. I read his manifesto. ALL 141 pages of it.
His belief about women was that they should be enslaved. Tortured. Killed. That the patriarchy/some man or men should have complete control and dominion over women and that women should have NO choices about whom or whether they have sex or with whom or when, or whether or when they reproduce -- that men should decide FOR them.
Look at the legislation these conservative bastards have been passing all over the country.
That's EXACTLY what it seeks to do- control women and deprive them of any choice about their sexuality or reproduction. Same as Elliot Rodger said he felt women should be treated.
I'm reminded too of that all-male panel that met in chambers to discuss whether women ought to be allowed birth control under the ACA. NO WOMEN were allowed on the panel. One did ask. She was told she was "not qualified".
These attitudes - from high school and college campuses all the way to the highest levels of state and federal government, form the societal basis of our insidious rape culture in the U.S.
What we saw in Elliot Rodger, IMO, is a disturbed young man who was additionally infected by what are essentially the roots of modern patriarchy/misogyny in our country today. And what did it result in? A murder spree based in vile, otherwise insatiable hatred of and need to control women.
Everything he wrote about reflects what the GOP/Republicans say and do in regards to women.
Some of it sounded to me just like some of our conservative politicians ie: "she should put an aspirin between her legs" and "abortion Barbie" and "legitimate rape" and that rape is "just another form of conception" - and their insidious and never-ending mantra about how women should have NO choice about who has sex with them, or when or how -- or about how or if or when they reproduce. THEY ARE ADVOCATING SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY.
The psychopathic murderer. That's right. That's RIGHT.
I think there were three factors which resulted in this gruesome massacre - not necessarily in this order:
1. mental illness
2. easy availability of guns, even for someone who has long since been formally diagnosed with mental illness and whose own family notified police that he may become violent.
3. Insidious misogynist conservative attitudes about women from MRA sites he visited combined with an American society which largely supports those attitudes - from the HIGHEST governmental levels and the inherent sense of male entitlement that goes along with it, as well as the idea that women are anything BUT human and are only here to serve male sexual and reproductive needs.
What the hell should we expect to happen? WHAT?
The War on Women has manifested itself once again in gruesome terms (once again) and I'm sure we'll all still be told it "doesn't exist" -- that there "is no war on women" and that we're "just imagining things"
BULL SHIT. What Elliot Rodger wrote, said, and did was not "imaginary". The insidious influence of male entitlement/MRA/patriarchal/misogynist culture that helped push him over that edge is not "imaginary". IT IS REAL.
What we saw from the websites and message boards Elliot visited and participated in (and what we see from any of these MRA groups) is the modern ROOTS of this war on women. Elliot Rodger himself EVEN. CALLED. IT. THAT. See page 132 of his "manifesto".
These patriarchal roots have pushed themselves deep into the history of a society whose women have repeatedly been told this war doesn't exist.
But that's not true. It DOES exist. We just saw prime evidence of it in Elliot Rodger. THERE it is in all of its hateful, controlling, murderous glory. THERE. IT. IS.
And women are still suffering and dying in that war at the hands of angry and controlling men. And yes I know he killed some males too. But it was because he wanted to control the women and felt entitled to them -- because he was jealous of the males because they possessed women and HE did not. To him, women were property - devices to provide sexual gratification and to be used for breeding. To Republicans, it's the same.
We need to deal with the issue of mental illness.
We need to deal with the issue of insidious gun culture and the fact that guns are easily available to anyone - no matter how deranged or mentally unstable they are.
We need to deal with our insidiously misogynist society and our misogynist government.
Otherwise - this is going to happen again. And again. And again. Count on it.
© Seven Bowie
The arguments I'm getting on Twitter are a lot of "absurd!", and "you're stupid!", and "you have daddy problems!" and "well his parents were liberals and he watched Young Turks!"
The first three are commentary from those conservatives who've lost the argument already and thus turned to that good old standby: personal insults and name-calling. I won't waste my time on those.
The last one I will address:
Elliot Rodger's parents may have been Democrats. And he may have watched "The Young Turks". However he likely didn't pick up his sexist attitudes from them. Or from "liberal" TV programs.
Elliot Rodger was known to have frequented PUA and MRA websites full of self-entitled angry males (of whom he was one) who demanded sex from and sexual control over women and who viewed women as property put on Earth to satisfy their sexual desires on demand, not human beings with self-determination.
Those sites - full of controlling men (the type whom the GOP caters to) is where he likely obtained his worst, most dangerous attitudes about women. What were those attitudes? Elliot Rodger wrote about controlling women, taking their reproductive choices away, forcing them to breed. These are Conservative attitudes. His "manifesto" could have been written by some of the GOP whackos who talk about "rape being another form of conception"
I see the ire of some conservatives has been raised due to my making that point. That tells me there is substance to it.
My advice to conservatives who dislike that their Representatives' anti-choice rhetoric sounds like Elliot Rodger is to stop trying to control women -- and stop supporting idiot politicians who insist on controlling women's sexuality and taking away their reproductive choices. It might help to learn that women are HUMAN. Not breeding cows for you to own and control and to rape and impregnate at will, and to force pregnancy or sex upon.
Posted by Triana | Mon May 26, 2014, 10:14 PM (8 replies)