Jay,

That Newsweek article was exceptional.

I didn't think much of Newsweek before, but after this outstanding journalistic achievement (the depth of the writing!), I'll have to reconsider.

The following short paragraph is priceless and I think it speaks for itself, as this is the way just about every dictatorship has ever started:

Yoo wrote, in a formal OLC opinion, that Congress may not "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response."

busterkeaton.... oh. okay.

The following short paragraph is priceless and I think it speaks for itself, as this is the way just about every dictatorship has ever started:

That's been my thought/concern from the very beginning of this whole fiasco.

The amount of power they are claiming for the president would actually make him a King.

They are claiming a US president does not have to follow any law he disagrees with, that no branch of government can check executive power.

One interpretation of what you just quoted is that the president can launch an B52 bombing attack on a US city and he would be within his rights. He could send a C-130 gunship to strafe downtown Detroit and he would be within his rights.

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." --Adolf Hitler

.........................He could send a C-130 gunship to strafe downtown Detroit and he would be within his rights

Yeah well Joey Porter would kick his ass, detroit is off limits till 2/6

Amazingly, some politicians agree with us in this thread that both parties have become too partisan.

See this AP article just out.

Amazingly, some politicians agree with us in this thread that both parties have become too partisan.

See this AP article just out.
=============
You had better get a full transcript of what Kaine ACTUALLY said in it's entirety before you put any stock in an article written by Ron Fournier.

He has a history of creating distortions and fabrication as evidenced most recently in this article in which he intentionally mischaracterized the ongoing debate over Bush's domestic spying program WITHOUT A WARRANT as "whether the administration should be able to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications." AT ALL.
Then he went on to claim that "congressional Democrats" have criticized this practice. Another LIE. The criticism has NOT been and still is NOT whether the administration "should be able to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications.".
It is that the Bush administration feels that it doesn't need to follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires that a warrant must be obtained first. THAT is the issue not the falsehoods Fournier and other White House pundits disguised as reporters are claiming.
Then Fournier went on to mischaracterize the polls on the issue by stating:
"Polls suggest the public is DIVIDED on whether the administration should be able to eavesdrop on suspected terrorist communications, a practice that has drawn criticism from many congressional Democrats, human rights and civil liberties groups"

NO congressional Democrats. AND NO other prominent members of the Democratic Party have objected to the monitoring of suspected terrorists' communications......PERIOD.

Fournier is simply repeating the lies recently spewed by White House Sr advisor Karl Rove to that effect on January 20.

Not only has Democrat John Kerry said that there is a need for US intelligence agencies such as the CIA to eavesdrop on suspected Al Qaeda people, but so have Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, and Harry Reid. And of course there is never any mention in Fournier's articles about how at least NINE Republicans have also questioned the Bush administration's self-appointed authority to bypass FISA regulations.
Those are:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Intelligence Committee
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), a member of the Intelligence Committee
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Judiciary Committee
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Sen. John E. Sununu (R-NH)
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Judiciary Committee
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)


I remember during the 2004 Presidential campaign one of Fournier 's all time BIGGEST lies:

He reported that a certain "group " that has been responsible for lots of anti-Bush ads (it was clear he meant Move-on.org) had gone too far in airing a TV ad that compared Bush to Hitler. In fact there was no such TV ad.
Move on.org ran a contest called the "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest and the comparison was a submission they quickly pulled from their web server but the public had never actually seen it on the website. But not before Right Wing blogger Matthew Drudge grabbed it off their server and began the false story that Move on had sponsored an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. According to Move-On.org

[When the Bush campaign mounted its spot on June 25th, comparing John Kerry
to Hitler using images from this ad, we restored the old contest ad from
backup tapes to our web server for review in response to queries from
journalists. This file was apparently dredged up by Drudge, but never
appeared on a MoveOn web page viewed by the public. The file itself is now
deleted from our web server.
The Bush campaign's Hitler ad still appears on their campaign website,
linked for public viewing: http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/
We have always believed that it is irresponsible to use images of Hitler
in a political context. In contrast, the Bush/Cheney campaign's ad that
juxtaposes images of Hitler and John Kerry is still publicly displayed on
their site. We call on the Bush/Cheney campaign to remove this odious ad."]


Despite all of this our illustrious Republican National Committee chairman at the time, former Enron lobbyist Ed Gillespie began spreading the falsehood to the media and despite Move-on's best efforts at setting the story straight people like Ron Fournier printed the lie as a fact.

John

wow.... mazin'. thanks craftech

Ouch.

There goes the sunshine in my day...

Ah well, maybe sanity will come a bit later. :O)

It did for a while at least after the 1970s that was a decade somewhat comparable to the present, with heavy corruption at all levels of government as well as White House domestic spying and international assassinations.

"The Milosevic of Manhattan", I like it, fits fairly well.

And to think that even a serious dude like General Eisenhower was warning about "the dangers of the military-industrial complex" (as seen in a current film, and it's a direct quote).

Any candidate for higher office who is fighting "Sin City" type brutes who walked in from the cold should immediately be enlisted in "martial arts for street fighting" classes (such as Krav Maga, originally developed for military hand combat, now used by Special Forces worldwide).

John Kerry certainly didn't have what it took in a battle with "a vast cabal of brutal forces afoot, unconstrained by conscience, opposed to our deepest values, and determined to view the world as a giant battle field."

That actually seems like a good description of the advisors who wrote the above words last year for the guy whose job description included reading them from a teleprompter on television. If you missed those words last year, you'll get a second chance tonight.

Ah well, maybe sanity will come a bit later
===========
Doubtful. When it finally dawns on the American public (which will be NEVER) that the media is picking and actively promoting the government officials that carry the majority vote sanity may come.

John

John, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I think the truth of the matter is that there are more people in control of more things than most of us realize, or care to realize. So many of us bury our heads in the sand.

John, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I think the truth of the matter is that there are more people in control more things than most of us realize, or care to realize. So many of us bury our heads in the sand.

=========
I agree. The media is my pet peeve though. In my opinion they are directly responsible for most of the problems we have in this country because of their steady flow of self-serving misinformation. Politicians respond to pressure. No problem.......No pressure.

The larger these companies grow the greater the problem THEY become. Our (Republican) party has fought long and hard to ensure that the least number of corporations control the flow of information to the public and the problem is getting worse. Some of the misinformation the media broadcasts is so BLATANT one would think people would squint when they hear it. But most don't. They have their favorite network and find it hard to believe that ALL of them are doing the same thing to different degrees depending upon the level of the audience they target. They can misquote something a person said not an hour after they said it and the misquote becomes the truth after they repeat it over and over again across the networks. Then they sit back and let the unknowing babble cliches about the "liberal media" which works extremely well to camouflage what they are doing. Pretty sickening.

On a side note:
I love it when I read some of these political threads and the UK guys participate. It is especially interesting when instead of writing I just read through the posts and compare. The information the UK people post is generally accurate because their media is more accurate (despite the flaws THEY find in their media). Some of their accurate statements (particularly about the Bush administration, Iraq, or our country's policies) are things the US media has painstakingly discredited to the public to protect the aforementioned administration. The UK people post as if EVERYONE knows what is going on and many of the US posters post as if the UK people are as misinformed as they are. It is like the US and the rest of the world are on completely different wavelengths. It's actually funny in a sick way if you think about it.

John

craftech,

I think some of the UK folk you mentioned are actually AUS.

Then they sit back and let the unknowing babble cliches about the "liberal media" which works extremely well to camouflage what they are doing. Pretty sickening.

Speaking of how liberal the media is, one Soros founded group recently quoted the edtiorials screaming for special prosecutor to be set up for Whitewater (years before Lewinsky was an issue) and the fact the same papers are not calling for a special prosecutor in the warrantless spying scandal. This is after Bush admitted they were spying without warrants, but clearly contradicted what he said earlier about always getting a warrant contradicted what the Attorney General said to Congress while under oath. Ten years ago, they were very concerned about the rule of law. Nowadays, not so much.

In regards to the partisanship in Washington, remember that Rove came up with the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and had Bush campaign has a different kind of Republican. One who would change the tone. If you remember before 9/11 Bush drove Jim Jeffords out of the party because he wanted to cut education spending while driving through a huge tax break tilted towards the top tiers. Jeffords thought the tax break was fiscally irresonsible and that moderates were being cut out of the agenda. Bush did have some moderates in his government alongside the ideologues. If you look at moderates in the Bush administration, John DiUilio, Christy Todd Whitman, Colin Powell, Paul O'Neill, they were all forced out or quit because they were just window dressing and didn't get to have any input. I don't think any of ideologues got treated the same way. Even Douglas Feith who was one of the architects of postwar Iraq got to go out on his own terms. This is even after someone in his office was under investigation for spying. (He just cut a deal, 12 years in jail, and the govt drops the spy charges. The FBI is rumored to be looking at Feith on other matters). Then once they didn't need Compassionate Conservatism to get reelected, the centerpiece of the Bush's domestic agenda is to gut Social Security.

Yeah, these "neo" characters have really put the "con" in conservative.

Very sad for those who believe in what many consider old-fashioned values, but that have proven themselves century after century throughout human history.

In the weeks after 9/11, I was surprised that I found important information about what was happening in the U.S. in U.K. newspapers (online) TWO days before the same news (such as about NYSE re-opening and much more) appeared in U.S. media.

Next time I suspect we can look forward to the internet being shut off at the border to prevent U.S. citizens from getting access to correct information, all for "security reasons of course."

Just like all international phone lines went through one single switch in the old communist countries behind the iron curtain, so they could be shut off at the first indication of any "trouble" for the dictatorship.

What's with the "neoconservatives" term anyway? They are seeking to replace classical conservative values with their own opposite values. It perversely reminds me of an interview with John Lennon (or was it Paul McCartney?) that I think I still have on tape in my archives, where he had gone to "The Revolutionaries Club" in London only to see the members bickering about the new wall paint, "why change now, it's been fine for 50 years, don't fiddle with it,..." He was totally disgusted and never went back.

It's 1984 all over, and journalism is at a low point again. I see to recall that Woodward and Bernstein inspired a whole generation of journalists, and probably also the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) that made it possible to uncover a lot of dreck in administrations past and present.

Fortunately there are a few occasional stars shooting out of the journalistic gutter.

John, et al, you may be interested in watching this video clip. It's from a documentary entitled "Monopoly Men" about the Federal Reserve and those who control it.

Did you realize the Federal Reserve was privately held?

John, I was curious to hear your take on this (the doc).

I'll add my take on it:

Some good points, but I think putting congress in charge of the money supply would be a terrible idea. Nations worldwide have realized that money policy must be isolated from the natural proclivities of congress critters and the like, who even in the best of times tend to focus on squeezing the most out of their current term at the expense of the future.

I also don't agree with the idea that all large corporations are evil. What's the matter with people? The concept of publicly held corporations was created in 1288 in Sweden with the founding of Stora Kopparberg (Great Copper Mountain) with 4 publicly tradeable shares (the company merged with Enso a few years ago to become Stora Enso, still alive and kickin'). The concept of a public company was created because there was a simple need, not out of any evil conspiracy.

It is up to the governments of the world to create the checks and balances on corporations, as well as on themselves.

As for the doc trailer itself, I thought the foreground, er, background music was a bit loud (although nice on several levels).

One another note, I missed the part in the State of the Union speech last night where President Bush announced the creation of a new cabinet position.

Nations worldwide have realized that money policy must be isolated from the natural proclivities of congress critters and the like, who even in the best of times tend to focus on squeezing the most out of their current term at the expense of the future.

So let's put it into the hands of a few rich, elite for their own purposes?

I also don't agree with the idea that all large corporations are evil.... The concept of a public company was created because there was a simple need, not out of any evil conspiracy.

That's not what it said.

It is up to the governments of the world to create the checks and balances on corporations, as well as on themselves.

No, it's the responsibility of the People to make certain the checks and balances that are in place are used as they were intented to be used.

[Nations worldwide have realized that money policy must be isolated from the natural proclivities of congress critters and the like, who even in the best of times tend to focus on squeezing the most out of their current term at the expense of the future.]

So let's put it into the hands of a few rich, elite for their own purposes?

No, that's not what I said. I was talking about the concept of a Central Bank that is not run as a direct report of the government. Before Central Banks, private banks were issuing the banknotes, also in the U.S.

[It is up to the governments of the world to create the checks and balances on corporations, as well as on themselves.]

No, it's the responsibility of the People to make certain the checks and balances that are in place are used as they were intented to be used.

Semantics. I was referring to the People needing lawmakers to write the laws that govern the country. Before them, there were Founding Fathers (also lawmakers) who wrote a constitution to keep future lawmakers within bounds.

I didn't have time to read all 165 replies, but China asked Google to put filters on so their people could not look up things like human rights and tyniman square. i don't think I spelled it right:( Google is going to filter things the China Government doesn't want their people to see. Now that is insane!!!!

My understanding was that China was already handling the filtering of searches, and Google merely agreed not to provide e-mail, etc., means of communication.

It's not an easy situation for Google or anyone else. The Chinese government is effectively the worst dictatorship in the world right now because of their economic might which puts them in a position to demand the U.S. say "YESSSIRRR!" to their demands for just about anything. No yessssirrr = no toys, no tools, no electronics, it's empty stores everywhere for U.S. consumers.

Russia is just a wanna-be by comparison. They have some oil and gas but their economy is not big enough to get the U.S. to speak up.