Think Progress » Gonzales may face criminal charges.: "Gonzales may face criminal charges. At a speech on Friday, ousted U.S. attorney John McKay revealed that the “U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month.”"
---------------------------------------------
I've seen all too many "may"s in the press lately concerning the prosecution of crimes committed by members of President Bush's administration.
I want to read a headline telling me that any/all of these crooks are facing imminent criminal prosecution.
Think of the precedent it will set if the multitudes of crimes committed by members of this administration go unpunished.
When someone like John Dean states that the apparent crimes of the current administration have gone beyond what even Nixon's committed, and that the members of Bush's crimino-political administration have gone mostly unpunished for, and others like Bruce Fein and Jonathan Turley speak about the multiple abuses of power and Presidential authority, I can't understand why the heck so little is being done to address those criminal acts and bring those responsible to justice so that it will be less likely to be repeated in the future.
To me, the failure of Congress (for one) to effectively redress these crimes is a bit like a mother in denial of a child's criminal activity. It's easier to be in denial, otherwise you have to do the hard work of dealing with the problem.
Democratic (and Republican) leaders, you need to grow up and do not what's necessarily best for you, but what is right, and what is best for our country, our rule of law, and our future!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
CNN's Miles O'Brien vs. "An Inconvenient Truth"
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I was too harsh in condemning the whole program because of the items I mentioned. On the whole it did make the argument that the best thing to do is be aware of the issues involved and address them sooner rather than later.
If done correctly, the negative aspects of doing what's necessary can be minimized, and the transition into what are evolved and much healthier industries can work for all those concerned.
It's always difficult to see the necessity for change from within.
People's livelihoods are at stake and that's threatening if not seen in the right context. It's part of the evolution of humanity, and as we learn more, certain industries have to change or put at risk the health of the earth itself, but it cannot be denied without making the problems worse. I'm thinking of industries like logging, fishing, and energy where sustainability over the long term is necessary. The earth is remarkably tolerant and adaptable, but only to a certain extent. We need to work towards eliminating those who would carelessly squander it's resources for temporary profit in favor of those with wisdom who will intelligently use what resources we have in a measured and responsible way.
When I think of the process working correctly, I think of some of the most 'primitive' cultures, and how they only use what's necessary, aren't wasteful, and protect their resources carefully for future generations.
If you think about it, who are the real "savages"?
---------------------------------- Original Post ->
The first thing I noticed was the purposeful error CNN made in their show description of "Keeping them Honest", and no despite the humorous and disingenuous title of the show, I'm talking about the way they quoted the name of Al Gore's film "The Inconvenient Truth" instead of it's actual name "An Inconvenient Truth" and later "Inconvenient Truth". Small difference, maybe, but that was just the beginning. Not quite the same thing as when Fox "News" identifies Republicans as Democrats when they get into trouble, but in the same vein of subtle subconscious attempts to effect the viewer.
Not too different from that was Miles' claim that "many scientists disagree..." with the conclusions drawn by the film about Global Warming. No Miles, the only way that statement would be true is if you said "many scientists on the fringes of the scientific community who work for energy companies and the Bush administration disagree...". (edit 10/26/07)
Wow, as far as we've come lately in coming to terms with the fact that we as humans have altered the earth's climate to the degree that we need to change our behavior and move away from burning fossil fuels, and on comes Miles O'Brien and CNN insinuating that it's not true and Al Gore and the vast majority of independent (and respected) scientists are just alarmists. Quite a public service you're doing there CNN, way to shill for the deniers.
And as for Miles O'Brien, well this doesn't surprise me a bit, but it is disappointing that instead of being on the side of humanity and common sense, you're working to aid those who would have us remain ignorant in favor of corporate profits.
I expect this kind of propaganda from Fox, now "The Most Trusted Name in News" has joined "Fair and Balanced" as examples of the antithesis of 'truth in advertising'. If this is CNN and Miles O'Brien's idea of "Keeping Them Honest", I'll pass.
A sad day indeed, but expect more and more of this as a result of the FCC ruling that allowed so few big media companies to control so many media outlets. If it wasn't for the internet (and the ethical portion of print journalists, PBS' Bill Moyers, and a scant few in the MSM like Keith Olbermann) providing a door through the propaganda machine, their control over the perceived 'reality' would be complete.
If done correctly, the negative aspects of doing what's necessary can be minimized, and the transition into what are evolved and much healthier industries can work for all those concerned.
It's always difficult to see the necessity for change from within.
People's livelihoods are at stake and that's threatening if not seen in the right context. It's part of the evolution of humanity, and as we learn more, certain industries have to change or put at risk the health of the earth itself, but it cannot be denied without making the problems worse. I'm thinking of industries like logging, fishing, and energy where sustainability over the long term is necessary. The earth is remarkably tolerant and adaptable, but only to a certain extent. We need to work towards eliminating those who would carelessly squander it's resources for temporary profit in favor of those with wisdom who will intelligently use what resources we have in a measured and responsible way.
When I think of the process working correctly, I think of some of the most 'primitive' cultures, and how they only use what's necessary, aren't wasteful, and protect their resources carefully for future generations.
If you think about it, who are the real "savages"?
---------------------------------- Original Post ->
The first thing I noticed was the purposeful error CNN made in their show description of "Keeping them Honest", and no despite the humorous and disingenuous title of the show, I'm talking about the way they quoted the name of Al Gore's film "The Inconvenient Truth" instead of it's actual name "An Inconvenient Truth" and later "Inconvenient Truth". Small difference, maybe, but that was just the beginning. Not quite the same thing as when Fox "News" identifies Republicans as Democrats when they get into trouble, but in the same vein of subtle subconscious attempts to effect the viewer.
Not too different from that was Miles' claim that "many scientists disagree..." with the conclusions drawn by the film about Global Warming. No Miles, the only way that statement would be true is if you said "many scientists on the fringes of the scientific community who work for energy companies and the Bush administration disagree...". (edit 10/26/07)
Wow, as far as we've come lately in coming to terms with the fact that we as humans have altered the earth's climate to the degree that we need to change our behavior and move away from burning fossil fuels, and on comes Miles O'Brien and CNN insinuating that it's not true and Al Gore and the vast majority of independent (and respected) scientists are just alarmists. Quite a public service you're doing there CNN, way to shill for the deniers.
And as for Miles O'Brien, well this doesn't surprise me a bit, but it is disappointing that instead of being on the side of humanity and common sense, you're working to aid those who would have us remain ignorant in favor of corporate profits.
I expect this kind of propaganda from Fox, now "The Most Trusted Name in News" has joined "Fair and Balanced" as examples of the antithesis of 'truth in advertising'. If this is CNN and Miles O'Brien's idea of "Keeping Them Honest", I'll pass.
A sad day indeed, but expect more and more of this as a result of the FCC ruling that allowed so few big media companies to control so many media outlets. If it wasn't for the internet (and the ethical portion of print journalists, PBS' Bill Moyers, and a scant few in the MSM like Keith Olbermann) providing a door through the propaganda machine, their control over the perceived 'reality' would be complete.
Friday, October 19, 2007
How long has it been like this?
In our country we're supposed to be represented by politicians we choose locally to be our 'voice' in Washington DC. When did that end?
I don't recall any news advising us that what we want doesn't matter anymore. As far as I know our representatives still claim to listen to and represent our concerns, especially while they're running for office. But recent events prove otherwise.
Now I'm not referring to my own state of New Hampshire in this case, but the fact that 80% of Americans favored the passage of the recent "SCHIP" legislation that the president vetoed, that should have been overturned if the people's representatives truly represented their constituents.
The same holds true regarding many other issues. The "war"*, impeachment, domestic spying, retroactive immunity for Telcos, universal health care, and others where the majority of the American people aren't seeing their wishes translated into votes.
In so many ways it's like the 2006 elections and the mandate for change that was so evident never happened. The majority changed hands, and there was so much optimism that all the excesses, corruption, and back room deals were, if not over, substantially reduced.
We're seemingly left with nothing but the power to organize and attempt to replace them, but is that really a solution? There is so much institutional corruption inherent in the way the entire government works, especially these days that even fresh faces won't help. They're ineffective and repressed if they try to change the status quo, and the only way to get anywhere is to conform to the culture and the demands of the entrenched leaders.
I don't want to hear that it's always been like this, or that we don't understand how things work and that we have to trust them to do what's best. That's a huge load of bull.
Sure there are many valid considerations that go into legislation and oversight that most Americans don't usually think about or even know about, but that's not the point in this case. This failure to overturn the President's heartless veto directly contradicts of the clear wishes of the majority of the American public, and that's just plain wrong.
I send the political action emails to my state reps (that I write myself if given the option), and I get neat little form emails back thanking me for my thoughts, but does it do any good?
Are they effective? Sometimes I wonder, are they even read?
In this case it appears the answer is a resounding no!
And what does that teach people who are trying to be good citizens, trying to make a positive difference by letting their elected representatives know how they feel about certain issues?
Our "leader" says he issues vetoes "just to be relevant".
If that isn't the most asinine and irresponsible statement by a President of the United States in living memory I don't know what is**.
* It's called war, but I define loosely it as some form of military action against different adversaries where people are needlessly dying.
** And Bush has made many worthy of consideration.
I don't recall any news advising us that what we want doesn't matter anymore. As far as I know our representatives still claim to listen to and represent our concerns, especially while they're running for office. But recent events prove otherwise.
Now I'm not referring to my own state of New Hampshire in this case, but the fact that 80% of Americans favored the passage of the recent "SCHIP" legislation that the president vetoed, that should have been overturned if the people's representatives truly represented their constituents.
The same holds true regarding many other issues. The "war"*, impeachment, domestic spying, retroactive immunity for Telcos, universal health care, and others where the majority of the American people aren't seeing their wishes translated into votes.
In so many ways it's like the 2006 elections and the mandate for change that was so evident never happened. The majority changed hands, and there was so much optimism that all the excesses, corruption, and back room deals were, if not over, substantially reduced.
We're seemingly left with nothing but the power to organize and attempt to replace them, but is that really a solution? There is so much institutional corruption inherent in the way the entire government works, especially these days that even fresh faces won't help. They're ineffective and repressed if they try to change the status quo, and the only way to get anywhere is to conform to the culture and the demands of the entrenched leaders.
I don't want to hear that it's always been like this, or that we don't understand how things work and that we have to trust them to do what's best. That's a huge load of bull.
Sure there are many valid considerations that go into legislation and oversight that most Americans don't usually think about or even know about, but that's not the point in this case. This failure to overturn the President's heartless veto directly contradicts of the clear wishes of the majority of the American public, and that's just plain wrong.
I send the political action emails to my state reps (that I write myself if given the option), and I get neat little form emails back thanking me for my thoughts, but does it do any good?
Are they effective? Sometimes I wonder, are they even read?
In this case it appears the answer is a resounding no!
And what does that teach people who are trying to be good citizens, trying to make a positive difference by letting their elected representatives know how they feel about certain issues?
Our "leader" says he issues vetoes "just to be relevant".
If that isn't the most asinine and irresponsible statement by a President of the United States in living memory I don't know what is**.
* It's called war, but I define loosely it as some form of military action against different adversaries where people are needlessly dying.
** And Bush has made many worthy of consideration.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Thanks Keith Olbermann, kind of..
It's obvious that you are trying to dissuade those who would confront you personally, which I can completely understand. There certainly enough examples of crazies taking things too far, noting recently that Michelle Malkin went to the home of 12 year old Graeme Frost. And not to be ignored are the malevolent threats posted on the internet sites. There's a big difference though, you aren't an elected official. Congressman Knollenberg is.
But in the case of activist Bruce Fealk you came very close to tossing at least part of him (maybe just his foot?) under the proverbial bus. I got the impression that your personal fear colored part of tonight's piece. Absolutely nothing in the video shown on your show was illegal. You should have investigated that aspect and made it clear. The visit to the politician's home as I understand it was done in 'good humor' (with ice cream offered), and the 'fear' alleged by his wife and their neighbors is completely manufactured.
Politicians might not like dealing with their constituents face to face, but really that's too bad. And when they're out in public as they were in this video they shouldn't expect any form of 'privacy' or just happy contented citizens praising them.
That's not the real world, and that's part of the big problem we're fighting, especially these days. All too many politicians try to live (and legislate) in a separate reality. It's been that way forever to a certain extent, but over the last seven years the Republican Party has brought it to a whole new (and unconstitutional) level, and it has no place in a representational Democracy. Peaceful dissent is a right and a responsibility of a conscientious citizenry isn't it? I believe that you might even find something written about it in a recently 'crumpled' piece of parchment kept in Washington, DC. called the Constitution.
(The actual wording is quite a bit more forceful than mine if I recall correctly.)
You work for a news network (well, partially at least) whose reporters and photographers stake out and intrude on people's lives whether they're politicians or not.
Political activists, doing their patriotic duty as citizens obviously need to act within the bounds of the law, and hopefully in a polite and legal manner (which Bruce Fealk appears to have done), and if they stray beyond that point they should expect the consequences.
If I knock on someone's door and politely ask them directions and they claim 'assault', it's not my fault that they over-reacted. I don't believe there's any law prohibiting citizens from going to their elected representatives homes to ask questions is there? It's not something that I personally would do or advocate except as a last resort, but if otherwise denied, political activists maybe should, and I think the Founders of this great nation would agree!
You can plainly see what kind of staff controls access to Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), and I commend Bruce Fealk for maintaining his civility during this exchange. It can't be easy trying to have a civil discussion in the face of such a apoplectic response from Trent Wisecup (the person controlling access to the congressman).
In a perfect world the politicians would have nothing but happy contented constituents, but in the real world citizens with serious questions have every right, and really the obligation to speak directly with their elected representatives, and when you deny them that [belligerently] and your chief of staff calls those who ask the hard, legitimate questions "un-american" and worse, some of the more 'active' activists might actually go to their home with a video camera trying to ask them the questions they were denied asking earlier. And I realize that Mr. Fealk was at the congressman's home prior to this on-camera incident, but he also had prior run-ins with Trent Wisecup, and as you noted, the staff had a meeting deciding to 'confront' Mr. fealk for being a terrible 'un-american political activist' who dared to ask pointed questions!
But in closing, tonight you chose the safer path, and in so doing strayed from your usual confrontational 'Truth to Power' discourse which so many of us admire.
But in the case of activist Bruce Fealk you came very close to tossing at least part of him (maybe just his foot?) under the proverbial bus. I got the impression that your personal fear colored part of tonight's piece. Absolutely nothing in the video shown on your show was illegal. You should have investigated that aspect and made it clear. The visit to the politician's home as I understand it was done in 'good humor' (with ice cream offered), and the 'fear' alleged by his wife and their neighbors is completely manufactured.
Politicians might not like dealing with their constituents face to face, but really that's too bad. And when they're out in public as they were in this video they shouldn't expect any form of 'privacy' or just happy contented citizens praising them.
That's not the real world, and that's part of the big problem we're fighting, especially these days. All too many politicians try to live (and legislate) in a separate reality. It's been that way forever to a certain extent, but over the last seven years the Republican Party has brought it to a whole new (and unconstitutional) level, and it has no place in a representational Democracy. Peaceful dissent is a right and a responsibility of a conscientious citizenry isn't it? I believe that you might even find something written about it in a recently 'crumpled' piece of parchment kept in Washington, DC. called the Constitution.
(The actual wording is quite a bit more forceful than mine if I recall correctly.)
You work for a news network (well, partially at least) whose reporters and photographers stake out and intrude on people's lives whether they're politicians or not.
Political activists, doing their patriotic duty as citizens obviously need to act within the bounds of the law, and hopefully in a polite and legal manner (which Bruce Fealk appears to have done), and if they stray beyond that point they should expect the consequences.
If I knock on someone's door and politely ask them directions and they claim 'assault', it's not my fault that they over-reacted. I don't believe there's any law prohibiting citizens from going to their elected representatives homes to ask questions is there? It's not something that I personally would do or advocate except as a last resort, but if otherwise denied, political activists maybe should, and I think the Founders of this great nation would agree!
You can plainly see what kind of staff controls access to Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), and I commend Bruce Fealk for maintaining his civility during this exchange. It can't be easy trying to have a civil discussion in the face of such a apoplectic response from Trent Wisecup (the person controlling access to the congressman).
In a perfect world the politicians would have nothing but happy contented constituents, but in the real world citizens with serious questions have every right, and really the obligation to speak directly with their elected representatives, and when you deny them that [belligerently] and your chief of staff calls those who ask the hard, legitimate questions "un-american" and worse, some of the more 'active' activists might actually go to their home with a video camera trying to ask them the questions they were denied asking earlier. And I realize that Mr. Fealk was at the congressman's home prior to this on-camera incident, but he also had prior run-ins with Trent Wisecup, and as you noted, the staff had a meeting deciding to 'confront' Mr. fealk for being a terrible 'un-american political activist' who dared to ask pointed questions!
But in closing, tonight you chose the safer path, and in so doing strayed from your usual confrontational 'Truth to Power' discourse which so many of us admire.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
This is one case in which I will not be tolerant!
- This is a copy of a comment I just posted over at Think Progress(.org) :
I just made the mistake of following the link over to Redstate….
Amazingly I made it most of the way down the first page.
Most of the comments read like they were written by dangerous psychopaths. Some of the comments border on threatening violence and hate speech, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some of them would actually act out their hatred if given the opportunity.
This is not covered under ‘freedom of speech’ and they should realize that.
On the right there was a link to “Conservatives are more tolerant that lefties”, and to the left of that was nothing but comments filled with intolerance and hate.
The nastiness and venom is so thick there, but it’s worth remembering that their actual numbers are thankfully small and closed, as are their minds. That does not mean that it’s to be tolerated or accepted. Decent people have the obligation to say “We don’t accept this, this is wrong!” as loudly and forcefully as we can.
We will prevail in the long run, but not by tolerating this kind of malevolence.
This is one case in which I will not be tolerant!
Comment by TRDaggett — October 13, 2007 @ 11:51 am
I just made the mistake of following the link over to Redstate….
Amazingly I made it most of the way down the first page.
Most of the comments read like they were written by dangerous psychopaths. Some of the comments border on threatening violence and hate speech, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some of them would actually act out their hatred if given the opportunity.
This is not covered under ‘freedom of speech’ and they should realize that.
On the right there was a link to “Conservatives are more tolerant that lefties”, and to the left of that was nothing but comments filled with intolerance and hate.
The nastiness and venom is so thick there, but it’s worth remembering that their actual numbers are thankfully small and closed, as are their minds. That does not mean that it’s to be tolerated or accepted. Decent people have the obligation to say “We don’t accept this, this is wrong!” as loudly and forcefully as we can.
We will prevail in the long run, but not by tolerating this kind of malevolence.
This is one case in which I will not be tolerant!
Comment by TRDaggett — October 13, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)