When the British wanted to invade Iran some 50-odd years ago, the American press wasn't much in favor of such a plan, according to "All The Shah's Men." According to author Stephen Kinzer, they knew that war with Iran would not be good:
"The Philadelphia Inquirer warned that a British invasion of Iran might bring 'a quick outbreak of World War III.'(p. 113)"
Kinzer goes on to note that:
"A popular CBS commentator, Howard K. Smith, asserted that many countries in the Middle East and beyond supported Iran, and that an invasion might 'stir all the Southern Asians to a rebellion against the Western foreigner and cause serious trouble for both Britain and the United States.'(p. 113)"
How have we managed to regress instead of progress in the last 50 years?
Hope we can all afford the gas prices that are about to shoot up along with the cost of anything else that is brought to market by a vehicle that uses gas.
Which of course is only everything.
Monday, September 17, 2007
ASK A QUESTION, GET TASERED AS JOHN KERRY LOOKS ON--WTF?
Ummm...watch this video of a student being Tasered after asking John Kerry some pointed questions. If you're not disturbed, ask yourself why? Why should a student be Tasered for asserting his First Amendment rights as police officers try to deprive him of those rights? Either we have a First Amendment or we don't, and this video makes it fairly clear that we don't.
As I watched it, I was reminded of the Who concert in Cincinnati at which people were trampled to death as the band played on. Kerry goes on speaking as if nothing is happening. The audience members sit passively as the First Amendment is raped.
I asked myself if I would sit passively like that, and you know what? I'm afraid I probably would. What is one supposed to do in that situation? You can't call the cops--it's the cops that are running roughshod over the Constitution. If you try to intervene, they'll slap some charges on you.
It seems to me that Kerry could have appealed to the cops to stop what they were doing. He's a United States Senator, for God's sake--surely the cops would've listened to him. All Kerry had to do was shout out "Stop that! Let this man hear answers to his questions! Leave him alone! He's merely exercising his First Amendment rights!"
But Kerry did no such thing...
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9/11 LIES VS. 9/11 TRUTH
Hmmm. 6 years since 9/11. I have to admit that even I went jingo there for a while. I bought into the lie. But I remember why I did--I didn't pay enough attention. I let myself be manipulated by the official story.
And it's hard not to be manipulated if you don't have your bullshit detector set on maximum sensitivity at all times. That's why the official line is that "conspiracy theories" are crazy. Bush himself said we shouldn't "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty," blah blah blah.
The term "conspiracy theorist" is usually meant in a pejorative sense, but why? Why, when there are in fact many conspiracies that are confirmed daily? It's because they want to manipulate you the way I was manipulated. I shouldn't have been so easily manipulated about 9/11. I should have looked for the real story from the very beginning.
But my good friend Joe Given of Techno Slavery woke me up. He gave me a copy of "Loose Change." If you haven't seen it, watch it. Of course, by then my jingoism had abated and I could think clearly again.
I opposed the Iraq war from the minute I heard about it. My wife and I put a makeshift sign in our yard--it was made from an old door and spray-painted "No War In Iraq" on it and put it out front. I don't know why we never took a picture of it. We used the door so that no one could or would just drive by the house and quickly snatch it out of our yard.
Bullshit Detectors--On! Anyway, whatever. As you can probably tell, I don't have a whole lot to say about this except that your bullshit detector must alway be on. Like when it comes to talk about going to war with Iran because they somehow threaten us. Or when Bush says he'll bring home 30K troops by next summer (if the progress he wants has been made). Both of those are complete and utter bullshit.
In that Bush story, notice some other bullshit. At the very bottom of the story, there is this statement about the Petraeus hearings (more heaps of steaming bullshit):
The hearing fell on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Does the AP really believe or really expect us to believe that the Petraeus hearings "fell on the anniversary" of 9/11 just by chance? That sir, is utter bullshit. Just like it's utter bullshit that the new "bin Laden" video or Bush's announcement of a possible troop withdrawal all just happened you know, by chance, to fall on or very near the sixth anniversary of 9/11. It's complete bullshit.
Monday, September 10, 2007
"BIN LADEN" VIDEO OBVIOUSLY FAKE
Mos Def was badass on this topic:
The "bin Laden" video freezes at 1:58 while the audio continues for 10 + minutes. The video then unfreezes at 12:30 and syncs with the audio again--it's a fake, and not even a GOOD fake.
Also, the London Telegraph is reporting that "American spy chiefs" say American Adam Pearlman wrote "large sections" of the script that "bin Laden" reads in the video.
CONFIRMED: BUSH KNEW IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE WMD
In Salon magazine, Sidney Blumenthal reports that on 9-18-02, George Tenet briefed Bush on the fact that the CIA had confirmed that, according to Saddam's foreign minister at the time, Iraq had no WMD.
The foreign minister's name is Naji Sabri, and he turned informant for the CIA prior to the war. The account of the Sabri saga was first told by former CIA operative Tyler Drumheller in 2006 and has now been confirmed by two other former CIA agents:
"Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war."
Again, it's obvious that this war is, was, and will be based on LIES. We must end it now.
1. The term "injury" isn't defined in the chapter in which this anti-free-speech law in contained. 2. Any "message" posted in "any medium of communication" is subject to this law. 3. The "injury" claim can come from "any person," not just the person who may or may not be mentioned in the "message."
The only mitigating factor, the only part left up to a jury, is whether or not the "message" is "for the purpose of causing injury to any person." Intent, I would think, is fairly difficult to prove. But not impossible--all it would take is a slick lawyer making a case to a dumbed-down jury.
What is "injury?"
Since "injury" isn't defined in the code, how is that word defined in say, the dictionary? Dictionary.com lists a legal definition of injury as:
4. Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made.
So according to this definition, a person's reputation can in fact suffer "injury." At what point does injury to a reputation become illegal? It would be helpful if this law would tell us, but it does not. We know that Yuri Wainwright was not satisfied with the quality of his education. If he posted a message that said "I think the University of Southern Mississippi's architecture department is useless," could that be construed as causing "injury" to the reputation of the university and/or one of its academic departments? Of course it could--and probably should.
But is it illegal--or more precisely, should it be illegal to express one's opinion about the architecture department? I should think that this goes to the very essence of the First Amendment. For example, if I say that "George W. Bush is a moron and is unfit to be president," could I, under MS Code 97-45-17, be charged by not just Bush, but any and/or all of his supporters who feel that I have injured Bush's reputation as well as the reputations of his supporters? I'd argue that yes, under the vague language of this law, I could be prosecuted for saying that.
Should I be able to be prosecuted for saying that? I'd like to think that the First Amendment and related judicial precedents would render the very question inane, but 97-45-17 seems to render the likelihood of my prosecution for such a statement a very open question indeed.
Was Wainwright in fact arrested for something that's been "hiding in plain sight" on his MySpace page? In his "About Me" section, he says the following:
"Yuri switched his alliterative identity of a pothead philosopher to an alcoholic architect. As soon as he graduates from a rinky dink excuse for a school(with good teachers, amazingly), he will promtly move to a different place where the scenery doesnt quite match the morass of its inhabitants."
The University of Southern Mississippi is not mentioned by name on Wainwright's page. But someone with an axe to grind against Wainwright could conceivably argue that he caused injury to the university's reputation among people who knew he was USM student, including the faculty member who supposedly turned him in.
Is that far-fetched? Well, consider the fact that, according to the Hattiesburg American, Wainwright "has been placed on interim suspension by Southern Miss." For that status to apply to Wainwright, all that must happen is that "the president of the university or a designated administrator determines that the presence of a student would reasonably constitute clear and present danger to the university community or property" (Section 11 of USM Student Handbook). Would someone bad-mouthing the university "reasonably constitute" a "clear and present danger" to the university? Probably not. Unless Wainwright saw something involving a professor that he wasn't supposed to see and let it be known that he was going to go public or something. Or something similar--who knows?
But I'm getting away from my point. It strikes me that 97-45-17 of the MS Code is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Maybe Wainwright's case will help that happen--if they ever get off their ass and try him.
EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CARE ABOUT YURI WAINWRIGHT'S CASE...
New story about the lack of information in the Yuri Wainwright case today...
Here's what I wrote about it at the Hattiesburg American forum...
Stonewalling=Lack of guilt?
Wainwright has been rotting in jail for over four months. It is long past time for "the law" to bring a case against him or let him go. I've said it before and I'll say it again--there is no way that this case can be as complicated as Weathers and Hopkins have made it out to be. Either Wainwright made a threat on the Internet or he didn't.
The stonewalling of Weathers and Hopkins makes it pretty clear that Wainwright did NOT make a threat on the Internet. After all, if Wainwright had written something that was clearly a threat, no one would've had any qualms about publicizing what it was that he wrote that was so bad.
How do we know this? By comparing Wainwright's situation to that of Tosin Oduwole, a student at Southern Illinois University.
"if this account doesn't reach $50,000 in the next 7 days then a murderous rampage similar to the VT shooting will occur at another highly populated university. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!"
Not only that, Oduwole had recently placed online orders for semiautomatic weapons. Oduwole also had a loaded gun in his dorm room.
Note that what Oduwole supposedly wrote appeared in the very first stories about his arrest. That's because in America, when someone is hauled off to jail for engaging in a constitutionally-protected activity--in this case, exercising the freedom of speech--the public has a right to know how that constitutionally-protected activity crossed a line if in fact a line has been crossed.
Why This Concerns Every American
Everyone in America should be concerned about Wainwright's incarceration and the authorities' apparent lack of justification for it. I don't care if Bob Hopkins is a smart, likable guy as I've repeatedly been told. He owes the university, nay, the Hattiesburg community, nay--the people of the United States some concrete reason for putting Yuri Wainwright behind bars on $1 million bond.
If they can put Wainwright in jail for over four months with no apparent end in sight to his incarceration, what's to stop them from putting any one of us in jail merely on their say-so? Apparently all that has to be done to take a citizen's freedom is to make a vague accusation under a (probably intentionally) vague statute (in Wainwright's case, it's "Posting of Messages through Electronic Media for Purpose of Causing Injury to Any Person," which is from MS Code 97-45-17).
Is that the impression John Mark Weathers and Bob Hopkins intend to leave for the citizens of this city, state, and country? I sincerely hope not--but what other conclusion are we to draw? What, exactly, is "injury?"
Read the statute--it went into effect in July of 2003. It's likely that it hasn't even been tested in court yet. The standard it uses--that a "message" must "have the purpose" of "causing injury to any person"--is so vague that it could apply to anything. In fact, if Bob Hopkins or John Mark Weathers were to read this post, they might try to argue that this "message" has the purpose of "causing injury" to them, or their reputations, or their feelings, or whatever.
After all, what, pray tell, is meant by "injury?" How can it be proved whether or not a message "has the purpose" of "causing injury?" As far as I can tell by just using Google, MS is the only state with a statute like this. That doesn't mean other states don't have similar laws, I just can't find them easily/quickly.
Not only on the Internet
But also take note, the statute in question here is not limited to only the Internet. It says if you purposely create a "message" that has the purpose of causing "injury" (physical? social? mental? all of the above? any of the above?) to "ANY person," you could be charged under this act if you use "ANY means of communication."
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
BUSH IS THE "BOY WHO CRIED NUKES," Part the Second...
"'Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,' he told a veterans group here."
I sure wish the talking point I came up with almost a year and a half ago had been hung around Bush's neck--he's the boy who cried nukes. How can anyone still trust this asshole? How can anyone think that yet another war with a country who's never attacked us is a good idea?
Then he has the nerve to say this (from the same link as above):
'Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late,' he said.
Iran's actions threaten world security? Can the boy who cried nukes really expect us to believe that if and when Iran is able to successfully manufacture a single nuclear warhead, that that warhead would be a threat to the U.S.? To Israel? To anyone? Let's think about this
Let's say that right now, at this very moment, the first Iranian nuclear warhead is rolling off an assembly line somewhere. So the fuck what. Who would they use it against? Why would they immediately fire off a rocket that contains their only nuclear warhead? The Iranians are not stupid--they don't want to get in the middle of a nuclear war.
But here's the thing--every reliable estimate says there is no possible way for Iran to create a nuclear weapon before George Bush leaves office, and not even for a few years after he leaves office. Not only that, Iran says they don't want nuclear weapons--they want energy. And frankly, I don't find that so far-fetched. Who wants a bunch of nuclear weapons sitting around that cost millions and billions to build, house, maintain, etc.--oh, that's right: our stupid ass. I don't know whether or not Iran has their own military-industrial complex that constantly demands to be fed, but I'm guessing they don't, at least not on the scale of ours.
The "holocaust" Bush foresees has nothing to do with non-existent Iranian ambitions for WMD. The holocaust will be when the military-industrial-neo/theocon-complex finally gets its way and we start bombing Iran. That's your holocaust right there: a third unnecessary war that will only demand that we surrender even more civil liberties (if not all of them). Oh, and it will likely engulf the entire world in either actual war or at least economic war.
Good night and sweet dreams!
I quit my job today
I told the bastards they could go to hell. I told them to take their job and shove it--they won't have ol' LHL to kick around anymore. Hopefully my other irons in the fire will continue to heat up until they're glowing bright orange...
Who will pimp the principle of socialism for the rich and the free market for the poor? George Will will.
Who will rejoice in having our economy "insulated from democracy?" George Will will.
Who will defend the "victimization of the many by the few?" George Will will.
Who will openly advocate that "let the buyer beware" should be the guiding principle of our economy? George Will will.
I wish George Shill would take his baseballs and his thesaurus and retire to Richistan and leave us alone.
Caveat venditor!
Saturday, July 28, 2007
“BECAUSE OF IRAN”....
So as mentioned in previousentries, the New York Times reports that we have to arm the Middle East to the teeth “because of Iran.”
Let’s see, how many unwise actions has the U.S. justified over the years by saying (either in so many words or just through implication): We’re doing this “because of Iran.” If you can think of more examples, please feel free to leave them in the comments or email them to me and I will add them to the list, which follows:
“Because of Iran....”
1. We supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 80s
2. We had to invade Iraq in 2003–that’s a post-invasion justification
3. We have to stay in Iraq because if we don’t, Iran will take over
4. We’re losing the Iraq war
5. We have to put missile defense systems in Europe, to Russia’s chagrin
6. We have to sell arms to the Saudis, the people who attacked us on 9/11 (according to the official story)
I’m sure there are many more examples of this kind of warped thinking. But let’s debunk this idea that we’re forced, yes, forced into feeding the military-industrial complex all because of Iran.
Why “Because of Iran” excuses are bullshit:
1. We overthrew Mossadegh in 1953, using fake terror, fake stories in the press, etc.
2. We then installed the shah–we toppled a democratic government and replaced it with a monarchy, and the shah was not a nice ruler
3. We cut off diplomatic relations in 1979 because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis, which was a direct result of our continuous support of the shah
4. We gave chemical and biological weapons to Saddam for him to use against Iran
5. Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entitles them to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, among other things.
6. Iran expressed great sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11
7. Bush said Iran is part of the “axis of evil”
8. In 2003, Iran offered to open a dialogue with the U.S. and put everything on the table: support for Hezbollah, nuclear programs, recognition of Israel, etc.–Bush administration ignored Iran’s advances. You can read the offer for yourself here.
Looking at these lists, surely anyone can see that what we have done is use Iran as our bogeyman, our go-to country for demonization, overthrow, and weakening. Then when they naturally react against the things we’ve done to them, we say they’re evil and the biggest threat in the world.
We say they’re violent and outrageous and can’t be trusted. However, the Iranians know that’s just projection–that the U.S. is really the state that’s violent and can’t be trusted.
Friday, July 27, 2007
SAUDI ARMS DEAL, PART THE SECOND...
The more I read of this New York Times story about this Saudi arms deal, the more peeved I get. This whole deal is supposedly to help counter Iran:
"Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons."
How many different ways can these fuckers twist the bogeyman of Iran? Iran is why we have to stay in Iraq, Iran is why we have to sell weapons to dictatorships, Iran is why our troops in Iraq are getting killed, Iran is why we have to subvert Hamas even though they were the democratically-elected choice of the Palestinians, etc. Iran should start charging royalties whenever Bush or his administration invokes their name. They'd be a superpower tomorrow...
The story also has this to say:
"Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same."
Since when did the navies of Middle Eastern countries become, well, ours? Why are we interested in improving the navies of other countries? I would guess it's so they can attack other countries more efficiently, tearing up their infrastructure a little more so that we can have Halliburton come in after we help provoke some more wars over there?
Oh hell...I just gotta go to sleep...
TILLMAN EVIDENCE, SAUDI ARMS DEALS, HAGEE'S WET DREAM...who says the U.S. is not the cause of all the wars in the world?
Pat Tillman murdered?
$20 billion arms deal with Saudis?
Hagee wants war with Iran?
Read on...
New evidence has come to light about the death of Pat Tillman. You may recall that the story evolved in the following manner:
1. Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire and he is a hero
2. OK, we lied–he was killed by friendly fire but is no less a hero
Now we find out that Army doctors found the evidence surrounding Tillman’s death to not be indicative of friendly fire. Prison Planet has a good summary:
“Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon”
It sounds incredible, that Tillman would be murdered, but apparently the propaganda value of a pro football player turned soldier in helping the Bush administration could have a lot of reverse propaganda value for the antiwar movement. And surely the Bushies realized that...
“WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.”
And don't miss the part where they buy off Israel, who's understandably nervous about this deal:
"Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years."
The Several Things Wrong With This Picture
OK, there are several things wrong with this picture. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, remember? None was from Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Of course 9/11 was an inside job, but the story the Bush administration wants us to swallow is that Osama bin Laden, also a Saudi, convinced 15 other Saudis and a few others to fly planes into buildings.
All right, that’s problem number one–we’re literally selling weapons to the “people that attacked us on 9/11.” Won't some enterprising reporter ask that question of George Bush/Tony Snow/any neocon? Why is it our policy to hold hands with and sell arms to the people that actually (according to the official story, anyway) attacked us on 9/11 while we bomb the living shit out of countries that literally had nothing to do with it?
Problem number two–the Saudis are still technically in a state of war with Israel, our supposed ally. Jews are not allowed inside Saudi Arabia. Also, Saudis oppress women, commit gross human rights violations, and have a dictatorship. I also covered this here.
Some ally, those Saudis, eh? And you thought George Bush’s mission was to bring God’s gift of democracy to all people. Who are you going to believe, Bush or the overwhelming evidence against everything he says?
“An article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times detailing the national origins of foreign insurgents in Iraq has punctured a large hole in the Bush administration’s relentless propaganda against Iran. For months, the White House has been demonising Tehran for “meddling” in Iraq by establishing networks to arm, train and finance anti-US insurgents. Most foreign fighters, however, come, not from Iran, but Saudi Arabia, a close American ally, with which the Bush administration in particular has intimate ties.
According to military statistics provided to the Los Angeles Times, about 45 percent of the hundreds of foreign militants involved in attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia. Another 15 percent are from Syria and Lebanon and 10 percent from North Africa. Nearly half the 135 foreigners currently held in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis.
A senior American military officer told the newspaper that Saudis are believed to have carried out more suicide bombings in Iraq than those of any other nationality. He estimated that half of all Saudi jihadists come to Iraq as suicide bombers, who in the past six months have been responsible for killing and maiming at least 4,000 Iraqis.”
Is it not conceivable that these weapons could be used by Saudi insurgents against our troops in Iraq? If that is not conceivable, shouldn’t we say, avoid selling military equipment to the Saudis as an incentive to get them to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq? At the very least?
But it appears that the real concern of the Bushies is to get back the petrodollars from Saudi Arabia. You know the deal–we buy oil from them in dollars, and then sell them weapons to get the dollars back. Arthur Jensen summed it up in “Network”:
“The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance.”
So what if Saudis have committed the most suicide attacks in Iraq? To the Bushies/corporatists, it’s a small price to pay to get their money back.
One more thing--don't forget that Bush 41 was meeting with Saudis, bin Ladens even,on the morning of 9/11!!!!
Can anyone still really believe that George Bush and his supporters care one iota about democracy? Or freedom? Those words are curses in their mouths.
Hagee and his war
Just watched the Max Blumenthal video on the Christians United For Israel convention. That is some scary-ass, fucked-up, way-out-there shit, dude.
Hagee desperately wants a war with Iran. When he says that the U.S. should consider a pre-emptive strike on Iran, the crowd goes apeshit. There’s also some fucked-up scene of an American soldier marching through the crowd, going up onstage and comforting some Jewish woman. It’s unreal.
Hagee is a scary monster, that’s for sure, as I pointed out here. And here I thought Jesus was the Prince of Peace. He did say “blessed are the peacemakers,” right? He didn’t say “blessed are the warmongers.”
What in holy fuck is wrong with these fucking people?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
LOOSE CHANGE PRODUCER ARRESTED
So they arrested Korey Rowe for desertion on Monday night. There's speculation about whether he is or isn't really a deserter and whether or not this move is meant to chill the 9/11 truth movement.
I can't say for sure on either question, but if he's been a deserter for two years--he left the military in 2005--why are they just now arresting him? They've had more than a year to arrest him and he hasn't exactly been laying low. I don't know when the final cut of Loose Change is supposed to hit theaters, but one would assume it's supposed to be sometime soon, hence the arrest to try to discredit Loose Change and the 9/11 truth movement by association.
Because that was one of the Loose Change guys' strong points--they have a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan on their team. Seems to me that Bush is making a trial run of his new executive orders...
YURI WAINWRIGHT & TOSIN ODUWOLE
Today makes the 14th Wednesday since Yuri Wainwright was locked in jail for supposedly threatening someone online. He's been held on $1 million bond. We still haven't been told what it was Wainwright wrote that got him arrested.
Compare Yuri's case to that of a similar case that made the news today:
EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. (AP) — A college fraternity president and aspiring rapper who was accused of threatening a "murderous rampage" similar to April's deadly shooting spree at Virginia Tech pleaded not guilty Wednesday.
A gun dealer had alerted federal authorities about Olutosin Oduwole, saying he had seemed overly anxious to get an online shipment of semiautomatic weapons, according to an affidavit filed in court by a police detective.
The Southern Illinois University student was arrested Friday after police said they found a handwritten note in his car demanding payment to a PayPal account, threatening that "if this account doesn't reach $50,000 in the next 7 days then a murderous rampage similar to the VT shooting will occur at another highly populated university. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!"
-Unlike Wainwright, this student had recently ordered semiautomatic weapons online.
-Unlike Bob Hopkins, the police in this case revealed what the student had written that got him locked up. In Wainwright's publicly available writings, he's never said anything remotely like that, nor has Bob Hopkins ever alleged that Wainwright said anything close to that.
-Unlike Wainwright, police found a loaded gun in this student's dorm room.
-Like Wainwright, this student is in jail on $1 million bond.
This new Illinois case is an example of the police and the courts responding appropriately (at least based on what we know so far). The Wainwright case is an example of the police and the courts overreacting and almost certainly violating Wainwright's civil liberties. Again, we can't know that for sure because Bob Hopkins STILL won't tell us what Wainwright wrote that was so bad and the DA ain't talking either.
Monday, July 16, 2007
MALIKI, IRAN "IN LIMBO," PAKISTAN PERMISSION
Wrote a letter to the editor last night about avoiding war with Iran, even though the House and Senate have each overwhelmingly approved amendments saying that Iran is very, very bad.
Way to go, al-Maliki! I wonder how long he will live now:
BAGHDAD - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts about his government's military and political progress yesterday, saying his forces are capable and American troops can leave "any time they want."
One of his top aides accused the United States of embarrassing the Iraqi government by violating human rights and treating his country like an "experiment in a U.S. lab."
When aides of the PM of Iraq say your behavior is embarrassing, you know we're doing some shameful shit over there. And Maliki's quote says it all: the U.S. can leave "any time they want," and that's just it--Bush doesn't want to leave. The majority of the country wants us to leave and believes the war was a mistake, but Bush doesn't want to leave. And Cheney doesn't either. That's why these fuckers must be impeached and removed, impeached and removed.
Letter to editor Here's the letter, followed by a post I made on the forum on basically the same topic.
The Guardian newspaper has reported that “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.” On top of that, the Senate recently passed an amendment stating–with little to no evidence–that Iran is “murdering” our troops in Iraq.
Suppose for a minute that this is true. As Stephen Kinzer has pointed out, Chinese-manufactured weapons killed our troops in Korea but we didn’t invade China. In Vietnam, we knew the North Vietnamese were using weapons from the Soviet Union, but we didn’t invade the USSR. What’s so different about Iran?
What’s happening is that Bush is looking for someone to blame for his failure in Iraq, a war of aggression we should never have started in the first place. Iran fits the bill perfectly, even though Iran has not violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has not invaded any other nation, and is years away from having even one nuclear weapon.
For years now, the Bush administration has demonized Iran, laying the groundwork for war, even though in 2003, Iran offered to start a dialogue with the U.S. with everything on the table–acceptance of Israel, nuclear programs, etc. The Bush administration rejected the offer. After all, you can’t have perpetual war if you go around making friends all the time.
Any U.S. military aggression toward Iran will be unprovoked, immoral and catastrophic, both for the Middle East and for us here in this country. As James Madison said: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
Just like the CON-serviles around these forums like to blame Clinton for 9/11 because he didn't get Osama when he supposedly had the chance.
Well, why doesn't Bush get Osama now when he has the chance? "Intelligence" officials are saying that al Qaeda is now stronger than they were last year at this time. And these same "intelligence" officials "know" where al Qaeda (and presumably bin Laden) is--in Pakistan.
So why doesn't Bush invade Pakistan rather than Iran? There's a whole lot of noise about invading Iran, but al Qaeda's not in Iran. Tom Fingar, an intelligence official recently testified before Congress that it's Bush's policy not to go into Pakistan without their permission.
Say what? Since when does Mr. "War President" Li'l Bush have to ask permission to go kill people? Apparently, he even has to ask permission from ol' **** Blossom, who recently said "The United States has concerns about taking unilateral action in a sovereign nation without their approval.”
When he said that, the audience laughed, as well they should have.
So if we're in a "war on terror" and our main problem is al Qaeda--according to the Bushies--why won't they go get them? Because that ain't what the "war on terror" is about, don'tcha know. It's about making money and keeping George Bush in power. Oh, and indiscriminately killing brown people. Just like always.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22065811-601,00.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABP4znt2dzw (Rove clip starts around 1:22)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
SOUNDING "OFF" PART 2...
On June 21, I posted a list of mistakes I've heard in songs I love. Just heard another one, in "Hot Burrito #2." So here's the list so far, with my man Larry G.'s contribution from the comments on June 21:
1. Vince Guaraldi-"Linus and Lucy" finger slip on piano keys on return to first section :50 2. Neil Young-"After The Goldrush" finger slip on piano keys after the line "hoping it was a lie" (the first time) 1:46 3. Ozzy Osbourne/Randy Rhoads-"Crazy Train" notes in solo not doubled exactly (after joining back in unison following a harmony section) 3:05 4. Soft Machine-"10.30 Returns To The Bedroom" finger slip on organ 2:07 5. "Deliverance" soundtrack-"Dueling Banjos" 3:03 the guitar starts to go back around while the banjo is doing an ending lick. The guitar abruptly stops when he realizes that's the end of the song. (Larry G) 6. Flying Burrito Brothers-"Hot Burrito #2" finger slip on piano 0:47...lyrics on top are "And you want me home all night..." Dig the horn-like steel going on in that section..
Also, I listend to the Bad Religion tune "Let Them Eat War" about 30 times in a row last night...I love that song!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
JENA 6, SYNCHRONICITY, & THE SUPREME COURT
I just head about the Jena 6 today, on Democracy Now--I gotta say, not that it's news to anyone, but Amy Goodman kicks ass.
I got to reading about the case, and it occurred to me that on the same day Mychal Bell of the so-called "Jena 6" was convicted by an all-white jury (is this 2007 or 1957?) presided over by a white judge who would not give the jury a written copy of the charges and no witnesses were called on Bell's behalf, the Supreme Court basically endorsed segregation in the Seattle school case. Those events happened on June 28--what synchronicity!
Who says racism isn't alive and well in America in the "new" millenium?
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the Homeland Security committee in the House, gave what for to Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" about a heightened possibility of "terror attacks":
"What color code in the Homeland Security Advisory System is associated with a 'gut feeling?' What sectors should be on alert as a result of your “gut feeling? Over the past five years, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been dedicated to standing up and building capacity at the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security is charged with deterring, preventing and responding to the threat of terrorism.
To that end, systems have been erected to identify risks and communicate them to the American public. With all the resources you have at your disposal and all the progress that you assure us that you are making, I cannot understand why you are quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying you have a 'gut feeling' that we are entering a period of heightened risk this summer."
I wish Thompson was my representative...
Speaking of "insecurity"...
Saw this on my way home from Jackson out on Highway 49 yesterday--four mobile camera outfits (click the picture for a much larger version). I'd never seen these things before, but the "SURVEILLANCE" splashed on the side kind of caught my eye...here's some text from this company's website:
CPS provides customized security answers for a variety of issues including risk management, loss prevention, industrial safety, vandalism, background screening, event super vision, liability claims, employee performance, emergency planning, fire prevention, and overall system consultation.
I don't know about you, but in a day and age where people write letters to the editor proclaiming unironically that freedom is slavery, the Homeland Security director's gut tells him what to do, and so forth, it makes me kinda queasy to see four giant mobile "SURVEILLANCE" cameras rockin' down the highway, headed the same way as me...
"FREEDOM...IS...SLAVERY"--this guy really said it...
I do not believe in an "Allah" who creates a medical cell of Muslim doctors and associates to kill people in London and Glasgow.
Nor do I believe in an immoral democratic lifestyle which ignores biblical teachings and rebels against a life of holiness under the lordship of Jesus Christ.
Freedom and liberty to practice a sinful life is the worst kind of slavery, in that it destroys and condemns our body and our soul to a godless eternity.
God created Earth, heavens, life and he does not want it to be wasted or destroyed.
Billy R. Mathis
Hattiesburg
Mathis actually says that "freedom...is...slavery." Who the hell knows what his definition of "a sinful life" is--I would bet being a liberal, a non-Christian, a free-thinker, an antiwar activist, a civil liberties advocate, or any combination of those would fit Mathis' definition.
The thing is, Mathis equates freedom and slavery without irony or any seeming knowing wink to "1984" or anything. This is beyond scary...
Monday, July 02, 2007
IF KELLY CLARKSON CAN'T SELL OUT A TOUR...
...who can? I have never heard a Kelly Clarkson song in its entirety and do not care one whit about her career or her music, but when I see that someone with her popularity (two Grammys, multiplatinum album, etc.) can't 1) draw people to a free, televised show in New York or 2) sell enough tickets to justify a tour, I am simultaneously heartened and brought low.
I'm heartened because I realize that hey, nobody's coming to see my band, but no one's going to see one of the most popular acts in recent memory either. I'm brought low by it because it's further evidence that there's very little to no money in the music biz, no matter how popular or well-known you are or once were.
This reminds me of the new band The Soul of John Black, who I am told is only asking for a $300 guarantee. This is despite the fact that the band's founding member was a guitarist for Fishbone and wrote a song that Miles Davis covered on one of his last albums ("Jilli" from the album "Amandla"). If that guy feels like all he can ask for is $300 and he's done all that, there's no way my band's gonna be able to justify asking for even $50 to do a tour. And that's why we're not doing one...and never have. And never will...
