FDR vs. Obama

Here we have FDR talking about what he has done in three months: (foreclosures especially - at 0:50 seconds)


Now look at today - too early to judge Obama - it's only been three months you see...



Do we ask enough of our politicians today? Perhaps they need to act like statesmen - not politicians.
-----------------
UPDATE MAY 14, 2009 EVERYTHING IS SPELLED OUT FOR YOU RIGHT HERE
"On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45. "
-----------------------------------

The CIA is hiring: Experienced Torturers Needed - (no Muslims need apply)

  
Take a look at (CLICK) this article regarding torture of prisoners in the custody of MY GOVERNMENT! From the article:

"Who the hell authorizes these things?" Soufan reportedly asked the chief CIA officer in Thailand, as Mitchell began stripping the prisoner and blasting him with music from the Red Hot Chili Peppers."

     So here I sit, with only news articles to tell me what my government is up to (that would be torture.)   Thankfully there are some brave souls willing to become "whistleblowers" because their conscience prevents restful sleep knowing torture is going on at the hands of the government of the land of the free and the home of the brave.  

     Whistleblower = Hero.  Talk about standing alone for principle while the rest of the herd watches you hang.  The whistleblowers are the ones that oughta' be put in charge.  They are the only true leaders - it isn't their fault if their comrades don't have the guts or the sense to follow them in doing what is right.  I suppose torture isn't a form of terrorism, because if it were, we'd have to accuse members of our own government of terrorism.  

    Wait - we have a new president - Obama - he'll stop the torture right?  Well yeah, kind of... but not right now. Consider (CLICK) this article for the reality. From the article:

"The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," the president said before departing on his trip to Arizona. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

     Ah yes - the old "National Security" routine!  Somehow this tired pathetic sorry-ass excuse is dredged up again from the sewer of doublespeak by the champion of "Change We Can Believe In."  So lets see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil - essentially live in denial that we Americans are joining the ranks of nations that torture.  So I ask those of you who voted for Obama - how do you deal with Obama's inaction on torture?   What do you tell yourself to rationalize this failure to fulfill campaign promises?  Oh that's right - all he promised you was "hope"- it's gonna' be tough collecting on that contract.  But stopping torturers?  Facing down the military-industrial complex?  That would require big cajones.  Does he have them?  Maybe - but what I see missing is a genuine desire to change the culture condoning torture.  Instead I see a skillful politician "looking busy" for the corporate media - but in reality doing nothing.  As to why - I'll leave that up to the reader.

     Thankfully - the "problem" (torture) is only with CIA - not the military - right?  At least we Americans can rely on our military to stick with their oaths. At least we can count on our military professionals to take care of our boys and girls fighting terror in the hot sandy Middle East - right? Well... NO ... what about (CLICK) this story? From the story:

"US soldiers are now being forced to steal water in Iraq. With supplies tight, and the number of trucks carrying potable water even tighter, troops have resorted to stealing water from civilian contractors. Many have also reportedly suffered from dysentery because they were forced to drink untreated water from Iraqi wells. ... It gets worse. Soldiers say the situation has become so dire they were forced to raid the United States’ own airbase in Baghdad for bottled water. They found the water stored in pallets held by civilian contractors, who were supposed to be distributing it."

     Perhaps I'm just a bleeding heart. I mean - how important can water be in the middle of that sandbox? Can't the troops build solar stills and distill their own urine to make water? Yes - this must be some deliberate effort by our military leaders to "toughen-up" the troops and test their desert survival skills.  Bullsh*t!!  I'm trying really hard to understand why somebody isn't losing their job and suffering severely for not providing water to soldiers.  Perhaps only enlisted are suffering - maybe that would explain it.

     But - at least the military gets it right on the important stuff - like Pat Tillman. Oh, that's right - if one considers (CLICK) this story there is more reason for concern regarding what we are being told vs. what is actually going on. From the article:

"The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan."

----but rest assured my fellow Americans - we later hear from a government spokesperson:

"We feel terrible for what the Tillman family went through, but this matter has been investigated thoroughly by the Pentagon, by the Congress, by outside experts, and all of them have come to the same conclusion: that there was no wrongdoing by Gen. McChrystal," Morrell said."

----hmm, contradictions - who will sort this out?

"Aides to the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will consider the nomination, said they were unaware of any opposition to McChrystal."

----OK - this makes more sense - the watchdogs are asleep as usual - this, at least, sounds credible. UNAWARE!  

     Anyway getting back to the original topic before I got sidetracked - jobs are tough to find these days so put the word out if you have any friends who are talented torturers.  Another job opening is for psychiatric and medical specialists who can keep the accused, I mean terrorist alive, so we can keep torturing them and deny them the gift of death.  Any torturers out there? - AMERICA NEEDS YOU!

Sign up at your local CIA recruiter today.

----------------

Applicants take note - Torturers are expected to bring their own "equipment" - bamboo shoots, waterboarding apparatus, rack, vise for crushing skulls, hibachi for heating red-hot-pokers.  Applicants resume must demonstrate ability to torture someone to the limit of human endurance without causing death.  High peanut oil prices forbid expenditure of government funds for boiling prisoners in oil.  Ear protection required by OSHA to protect torturers from hearing damage due to victims screams.

--------------------

Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land in America? You Decide-------

-----------
UPDATE MAY 14, 2009 JESSE VENTURA on Larry King regarding torture
--------
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
------------
UPDATE McGovern LEADS THE WAY - Where is the support from the intel community?
"I asked again why he stopped the review, but was shouted down by an audience not used to having plain folks ask direct questions of very senior officials, past or present."
------------------
UPDATE MAY 15, 2009 GRAPHIC TORTURE PICTURES - your tax dollars at work
-----------
UPDATE MAY 16, 2009 McChrystal and Pelosi

A Quote from Winston Churchill

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Why are Wars Fought?

     Are there modern parallels with the motives of past aggressor nations? Are there reasons to go to war other than for "freedom" or to "fight terror?"
     Take a look (CLICK) here for an interesting story of resource maps carried by Japanese soldiers into China. Are there modern parallels today?  From the article:

     " The map, titled Resource Map of Iron Ore, Sulfur and Coal in North Zhina (a derogatory term of China used by Japanese), was drawn to a scale of 1:2 000 000 and can be folded into the size of a 32mo (a measurement of book size) book. In short, it is portable. It was published in March 1940 by a Japanese press in south Manchuria.
     Besides marking the distribution, the map classifies resources into different categories. For example, iron ore is categorized into phospho-iron ores, pyrites and ferromanganese ores -- or Zunhua Ore, Datong Ore and Qingdao Ore depending on the production area.
     Transportation networks linking production areas to counties and villages are also detailed."

     What reasons have Americans been given for current wars? Do we have good reason to be skeptical? Would a look at the reliability of past information be a good reason to ask: "Where is the Evidence?"

     Many Americans accept the stated goals of America - after all wouldn't somebody say something if "War on Terror" was a meaningless statement? Surely our great Universities would ensure that statements around which our nations foreign and domestic policies are fashioned would pass the same test as a thesis statement!

       Alas - in reality there has been little outcry from American academia or mainstream media exposing the phrase "War on Terror" for the mindless statement it really is - just the sound of one hand clapping as this Pavlovian bell is rung over and over and over again to the American masses. Instead of a lesson from our great professors busy taking up expensive space and breathing expensive air at our non-iconoclastic universities on how to properly define a problem- we are treated to the sounds of our own cries for truth - not even answered by so much as an echo from the hollow abyss that is most of academia today.

     That said, with a little work one can find many explanations contrary to or never mentioned by American mainstream media for current conflicts. Who are we to believe? So before you answer why America fights wars please consider what a  two-time Medal of Honor winner told us a long time ago:  

---------- UPDATE Good film on the topic? -----------

A Book Review: The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth by Don Robertson

I don't know where to begin. The very mention of philosophy, let alone Epistemology, almost guarantees audience abandonment - unless the audience consists of philosophers I suppose. But wait - we are all philosophers to some degree - since philosophy springs from our natural sense of wonder (Plato?).  So we all practice philosophy to some extent. But as citizens and human beings - does each of us really do as much as we should be doing?  Perhaps this review of Don Robertson's book The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth will:

1. Demonstrate the relevance of this seemingly obscure topic to the "real world" of the reader.
2. Provide a fair analysis with a critical eye.

Before I discuss the book I think it is fair to give some background on myself so the reader can decide whether or not to assign value to my observations and opinions regarding this philosophical topic. I admit that I am interested in philosophy - and that my interest led to study focused mainly on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Some of my ramblings can be found on this blog. So let's begin.

My first impressions of the book itself, The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth:

1. Epistemology? I have to look that up. Does this have something to do with religion?
2. Who is the woman depicted in the cover art? The look on her face reminds me of the expression on my own wife's face each time I bring up philosophical topics. Could this cover art portray Don's poor wife as he discusses philosophy for the umpteenth time? I'm joking.
3. Morality and Truth? Good luck! I can't wait to see this! Define morality? Define Truth?
4. Who came up with this title? It can't be someone trying to generate reader interest - can it?

So I began by looking up Epistemology. Yes, I admit it, I didn't know the definition so according to my Apple dictionary:

epistemology |iˌpistəˈmäləjē|
noun Philosophy
the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

In other words - how do we know that which we believe is true - really is? So this is not an obscure or impractical subject - quite the opposite - Epistemology is an uncommon word for what should be a common act. This is what this book is all about. This is a book not just for the philosopher - but for everyone. It is a wake-up call, a challenge for all of us - to think very critically about everything we think we know. Why? Because unless we examine our assumptions we cannot find where we are mistaken - limiting ourselves to a world painted for us by artists with agendas - rather than a world we've done our damnedest to verify.  Whether buying a new car, voting, or evaluating the validity of the latest world crisis fed to us via TV - we must individually get to the facts.  But how does The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth help us get from where we are now to where we need to be? And why should we bother?

Don Robertson's book begins by blazing a trail right through the heart of academia - mincing no words - sparing no one. He sets an example for iconoclasts and critical thinkers - in a way that is blunt enough to get through the thickest of skulls - even my own. He removes all shame from the act of doubting anyone and everything - he leads by example. Whether you agree with him or not - it is refreshing to me, at least, to read something so free of ulterior motive. But the author must have some motive right? For sure.

I can't speak for the author, only myself, but I detect that the motive of the book is to improve the human condition. Don Robertson has provided his "Moral Imperative of Life" as a guide toward this end. It is:

"The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world."

This concise rule is the author's distillation of much thought and study - brief, to the point, and in my opinion a damned good idea. Much elaboration is provided hashing out the details so the reader can understand fully the author's viewpoint. Toward the end of the book we find more valuable contrarian ideas - good ideas that need to be heard. Ideas about the power of the individual and how we can exercise that power.

I found The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth an excellent book and highly recommend it to all readers - especially readers who vote. This book is unique in that the blunt honesty removes all preconceived notions the reader may have right off the bat - worrying not about hurting anybody's feelings. Although at first glance it may seem harsh, the persistent reader will find that the brutal honesty saves much time - since the reader can forget author's motives and focus on the subject matter. I wish more books were so proudly politically incorrect.

Finally - I must offer one critical point regarding the "Moral Imperative of Life." How can anyone know that the consequences of their actions will indeed turn out for the good? Often a person will take action they think will do exactly as stated by the Moral Imperative - but it seems to me there are always unknowns that will limit homo sapiens. For example a friend sent me a parable describing a man watching a moth/butterfly struggling to emerge from its cocoon. He thought that by doing some of the work for the creature, helping get the cocoon out of the way for it, relieving the creature of this struggle, that he was doing good. But what he didn't know was that this struggle was necessary for the creature to inflate it's wings. In the end he harmed the creature. So it goes with the moral imperative - there is no way to be sure that our actions will result in good due to the unknown.

However - despite the above criticism - we must be bold - we must try - we must exercise our personal power without fear. And this is what this book is all about - to think about what we do, why we do it, what knowledge we base our actions on, how any self-proclaimed expert can claim to know the truth more than we can  - and how we can leave this world a better place than we found it for those who follow.  What could be more important?

American Torture: Would you like your teeth knocked out with your Apple Pie?

  

   I never thought I'd see the day where discussions about torture would go very far. Torture was one of those things that we accused others of - our enemies. Torture was one of those unthinkable acts that clearly defined the difference between US and THEM - you know, the bad people, our enemies. Americans defeated torturers. The decision was simple - torture is disgusting and wrong - what else is there to talk about? Read on.

     Today I came across (CLICK) this article From the article:

     " Alberto Mora says it’s “politically unthinkable” to criminally prosecute the top         Bush administration officials who sanctioned torture. He also says it’s “legally unthinkable” not to hold them accountable."

     Suddenly things become complicated. In today's America it isn't that simple. Now we have to contend with pros and cons, those who gave the order vs. who followed the orders, left vs. right politics and on and on. We can't, it seems, take action because the consequences will "tear the country apart." Meanwhile the criminals responsible escape stage left.

     What about those who've been directly involved in torture, or the observation of torture? What happens to these folks? Are they all bad? I found (CLICK) this story of Alyssa Peterson. From the linked story:

      "Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003."

     Who will take action on her behalf? Who will make sure history won't repeat itself? Perhaps Shepard Smith, of all people, expressing what once was, in this once great country, where torture was so clearly wrong... (warning - appropriate offensive language)

------------------
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 Historian Alfred McCoy: Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity-with Video
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 Sen. Patrick Leahy - agreeing we need the truth - but not tough enough on the administration
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - Open Letter to Obama
-------------
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 DEFINITION OF TORTURE?

----------------
UPDATE MAY 4, 2009 America's Shame - Eric MargolisFrom the article:
"When I served in the US Army, I was taught that any illegal order, even from the president, must be refused and that mistreating prisoners was a crime.
President Obama must show the world that America upholds the law, rejects torture of all kinds, and that no officials are above the law. Otherwise, there is no other way to prevent the recurrence of torture in the future."
---------------
UPDATE MAY 4, 2009 US Torture History-AJ Langguth
UPDATE MAY 5, 2009 Condi Rice stumbles when kid asks about torture -with video
UPDATE MAY 6, 2009 Bush Officials Try to Alter Ethics Report
UPDATE MAY 8, 2009 Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush torture techniques
UPDATE MAY 13, 2009 FBI Whistleblower

Hooray! Today is 6th Anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom Fries-with Video

-------------------------
UPDATE MAY 1, 2009 IRAQ CASUALTY DATA
UPDATE MAY 1, 2009 AFGHANISTAN CASUALTY DATA
UPDATE MAY 1, 2009 Bush admin. created DHS "Rightwing Extremism Document NOT Obama administration - Kurt Nimmo
UPDATE MAY 1, 2009 Obama's Iraq - Jeremy Scahill
UPDATE MAY 2, 2009 Uniformed Iraqi kills U.S. Soldiers
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 A look back at corporate media fawning of the event
--------------------------
Check out this Wiki article so you can join the celebration on this festive day commemorating the fruit of Bush's labors. From the article:

"The vast majority of casualties, among both coalition (approximately 98.3% as of October 2008) and Iraqi combatants, and among Iraqi civilians, has occurred since the speech."

Mission Accomplished!

----------------

Americans: Has your bank robbed YOU?

UPDATE MAY 1, 2009 Senate isn't helping

UPDATE MAY 3, 2009  Top Fat Cats
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009 Senate FAILS PUBLIC on bankruptcy judge options
UPDATE MAY 6, 2009 Let CITI workers eat their own dogfood

-------------------------
That a financial crisis grips America and the world presently seems to be the consensus view. More importantly is how it effects each and every one of us - American or not.  Recent bank failures and bailouts were forced on the public by both Democrats and Republicans alike - taking money from the public to sustain failed banks.  The monetary crisis became the basis for occasional cries from the corporate-owned media for a "global" solution required NOW to thwart DISASTER - just like the bailout. 

 I ask the reader to consider the following every time the phone rings from a mortgage company looking for payment, every time they receive notice of investment losses, every time their government asks for what little they have left, and every time they are told that a "global solution" is the answer.  I ask the reader:  Has your BANK robbed YOU?   (That is...with the help of YOUR government.)

That the economies of the world are interdependent is not new. During the American Civil War cotton was such a (CLICK HERE) commodity as illustrated by the following passage from the linked site:

     "In 1858 Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina replied to Senator William H. Seward of New York:

        "Without the firing of a gun, without drawing a sword, should they [Northerners] make war upon us [Southerners], we could bring the whole world to our feet. What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? . . England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her. No, you dare not make war on cotton! No power on earth dares make war upon it. Cotton is King."

Hammond, like most white Southerners, believed that cotton ruled not just in the South but in the United States and the world. Many economists agreed. In 1855, David Christy entitled his influential hook Cotton Is King. Cotton indeed drove the economy of the South, affected its social structure, and, during the Civil War, dominated international relations of the Confederacy through "cotton diplomacy."

    Was Hammond correct?  It turns out other sources of cotton took over.  The point I emphasize is that international trade interdependence is not new.  I make that point to illustrate that even for a crisis as great as the American "Civil" War,  fought on American soil, the surrender of national sovereignty was unnecessary.  Although the greenback provided for the obscene expenses required to finance the bloodbath; the concomitant changes in monetary and tax policy required for implementation of "greenbacks" arguably would have negative consequences for Americans in the long run.  I mention these historical debates to provide an alternative perspective when a shill from the corporate-owned media claims a "global currency" will solve our money problems.   Who cares?  Why should you?  That the U.S. Federal government's is derelict in its duty as custodian of public treasure is not a secret.  But to what extent are they complicit in assuring the public got the bad deal while the banks escaped with the loot? 

A friend recently expressed consternation when she couldn't make her mortgage payment (her first time ever) as slow-paying customers who owed her money didn't have the funds to pay her.  Their slow payment was, they said, based on the economic slowdown.  Fair enough.  Her mortgage company is INDYMAC.  Consider the following from (CLICK HERE) this article:

"All that was a memory on Tuesday, however, as Rubin and about 200 other anxious, embittered and sometimes angry customers swarmed an IndyMac bank branch in the San Fernando Valley, creating a Depression Era-like scene as they demanded their money just four days after the failing bank was seized by federal regulators."

Could this be the same bank?  She received recurring calls from debt collectors with accents implying that the collection agents tasked with hounding her were from India.  The calls were, and may still be, relentless. How is it, she asked me, that this bank, which went belly-up recently and was bailed out by the feds (her, you, and me)  was still around to collect on debt?  Consider THIS  article excerpt which gives numbers:

"The FDIC estimated that its takeover of IndyMac would cost between $4 billion and $8 billion."

On what ground does said bank stand when lecturing the very public they ran to when they ran their (CLICK FOR NAME CHANGE)  institution into the ground?  How did she benefit from the bailout?  What concessions did her public representatives make to help her ease the pain of making mortgage payments during these troubled times?  The question arises:  Has your bank robbed YOU?  

---------------------
UPDATE MAY 3, 2009