A Word, brought to you by the Violent Femmes:

Well I'm reading this poem
and it's so profound
and I like its rhythm
and I like its sound
it's by a very famous poet
no critic can criticise
and then I pause a moment
and I start to realize
he's tellin'
lies lies lies
on the motel TV.
I dig the evangelist
he'll tell you all about that
and then he tell you all about this
he's preachin' up a storm
by the sea of Galilee
he's mixin' up the truth
with something funny I start to see
he's tellin'
lies lies lies
I never had this problem
with nobody in the government
I guess I always figured
they never mean what they meant
and GOD help us all
not to be so stone surprised
when we wake up in the stars
with the skies in our eyes
if we keep tellin'
lies lies lies

Lies

Hijexx wrote:
Naomi Wolf has an interesting take on what could possibly constitute a "war zone." If you think of the global war on terror including the United States, we are now part of the "war zone."

Note: I have not vetted Naomi Wolf, really only heard about her yesterday with this video. She has a book to sell about America becoming a police state. Fear will help it move. Still, interesting points raised in this 27 minute video:

I've heard of her before. I don't have an impression of her one way or the other but I believe she is generally well regarded. A summary of her views on Wikipedia makes her sound interesting and controversial. Not sure what I think about all of it, but she is obviously not an authoritarian, so maybe I'd like her. Interesting for a feminist to have taken her thinking into this realm. Certainly outside the box.

I haven't heard the video (will do so tonight) but I read a summary of her ten points on Wikipedia. Let me address each:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.

Yeah, but the GWOT is basically over. More in a minute.

2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.

They certainly have demonstrated that they can detain US citizens without trial for years.

3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.

OK. Blackwater. The Army deployment is, however, answerable to us.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system.

OK. Its not clear to what extent this is going on but the infrastructure and legal loopholes are there, at least for widespread monitoring of transactional data, which might be going on.

5. Harass citizens' groups.

This is not going on. Not systemically.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.

This is not going on.

7. Target key individuals.

This is not going on.

8. Control the press.

The Republicans have managed to convince a large swath of the population that the press is politically biased, which allows them to simply lie to their supporters. Their supporters will believe those lies no matter what contrary evidence is presented.

The proof is in the pudding with regard to Sarah Palin. They've been able to get away with presenting VP candidate who is not at all qualified to be president. They've tried to hide this fact by not making her available to the press in general, which is unprecedented in modern American history. The few times she has been interviewed have been disasters, but neither her refusal to hold a press conference nor her failure to perform well when she does take questions has deterred her supporters, as they don't believe anything the press tells them if it conflicts with the talking points of their political party.

This fact is extremely dangerous, but it does not amount to "control" of the press. People have the freedom to point out inconsistenci... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

RE: LAist: Martial Law was Threatened if Bailout Didn't Happen

We have learned from historical experience with severe financial crises that if government intervention comes only at a point at which many or most financial institutions are insolvent or nearly so, the costs of restoring the system are greatly increased. This is not the situation we face today. The Congress and the Administration chose to act at a moment of great stress, but one at which the great majority of financial institutions have sufficient capital and liquidity to return to their critical function of providing new credit for our economy. The steps being taken now to restore confidence in our institutions and markets will go far to resolving the current dislocations in the markets. I believe that the bold actions taken by the Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other agencies, together with the natural recuperative powers of the financial markets, will lay the groundwork for financial and economic recovery.

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Current Economic and Financial Conditions--October 7, 2008

When is Google Finance going to flip their favico?

Question of the Day

Messenger Photos of Mercury

There used to be a time if you didn't have money to buy something, you just didn't buy it.

For many of us -- not least adolescents -- reality is now largely a virtual experience.

If only it were that easy.

We're all losers now. There's no pleasure to it.

Easy Money for Virtually Nothing

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

I enjoyed this history of the Maverick family, many of whom seem to have made their mark on American culture. However, I'm not sure the NYT account is entirely accurate.

Wikipedia has Samuel Maverick as one of the first Slave holders in Massachussets. Wikipedia seems to largely rely on this source which suggests that he got in trouble with the government for bringing slavery to the colony, and not because he was agitating for anyone's rights.

If not the earliest, Maverick was one of the earliest slaveholders in Massachusetts, having purchased one or more slaves of Capt. William Pierce, who brought some from Tortugas in 1638. Slavery was always repugnant to the feelings of our Puritan fathers, and from this fact, and the Episcopacy of Maverick, there was gradually engendered an ill-feeling between him and the government, which began to show itself as early as March, 1635, when the Court ordered Maverick to leave Noddle's Island by the following December, and take up his abode in Boston, and, in the "meantyme" not give "entertainment to any strangers for a longer tyme than one night without leave from some Assistant, and all this to be done under the penalty of £100."

The Nation - Who You Callin’ a Maverick? - NYTimes.com

Valley Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) stood his ground on Friday during the second House bailout vote that passed. He, along with the majority, voted no on Monday and he once again voted no on Friday, although that time in the minority. During a session of congress on the night before Friday's vote, he said proponents of the bailout were apparently saying martial law be put in place if the vote didn't go through. "That's what I call fear mongering," Sherman said.

More strange rumblings about domestic military operations.

LAist: Martial Law was Threatened if Bailout Didn't Happen

We know that if you publish pornographic material on the Internet, federal prosecutors can choose to bring trial against you almost anywhere in the nation. And if Paul F. Little's (a/k/a "Max Hardcore") prosecution is any guide, figure a conviction means about 4 years in the pen, minimum security.

But then, you can argue he got off easy -- the 20 counts of obscenity Little was convicted of carried a potential penalty of 100 years.

There is very little press coverage of this sentencing other than some commentary by Glenn Greenwald. I don't agree with Greenwald. He includes pictures of Abu Ghraib and somehow neglects to mention that people were sentenced to long prison terms over than incident, a fact (among several others) which undermines his point. I didn't read a lot of the attached thread but no one seems to pick up on that. There is, however, a lot of noise about the pornographer in question being a really bad guy who does really bad things and who needed to go down.

I don't know anything about this guy or his porn. However, he wasn't convicted for assaulting or abusing actresses. He was convicted for making consensual porn with adults. He was convicted of obscenity, something that hasn't happened in this country for many years, AFAIK. Something which has been used in very recent history by moralists as a weapon to attack disfavored ideas and groups of people.

After the election in 2004 the Bush administration demanded that obscenity prosecutions be dusted off in order to hand a bone to the conservative base who reelected him. This is one of those prosecutions. It was a success. One of two things will happen from here. Either a new president will put an end to this project, or it will continue to expand, including a greater scope of ideas into the realm of prohibition until it again becomes a serious threat to freedom of expression.

I expect that a McCain/Palin presidency would allow this program to expand. I'm not sure about an Obama/Biden ticket. It seems the sort of thing that the Biden/Clinton wing of the democratic party would strongly support but it might not end up on Obama's priority list. So, its worth paying attention to. It might end here, but it might not, and if it doesn't, it will inevitably become a serious problem.

What's Really At Risk At A Federal Obscenity Trial? About Four Years In Prison

Jello wrote:
Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else's, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because the image on TV reminds him of the mean, brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.

Its to be expected that delegates to the RNC would love their candidate no matter what. An advertisement appears attached to this article which offers precisely the sort of brain washing propaganda that is the foundation of this country's bitter partisanship. Its not just that people are incapable of objective consideration of their political choices, its that they have been taught from a very young age thats it wrong to do that. If you pick a side at least there are some people who can stomach talking to you about politics, but if you refuse to you are everyone's enemy. That means being constantly subject to personal attacks on your thinking from every quarter, strafed with the best oversimplified talking points and logic defying straw men that our nation's pundit class can come up with. It takes serious intellectual strength to remain independent and engaged and very few people have the spine for it.

The most important difference between America and the rest of the world is the bill of rights and the system of checks and balances that usually enforces it. I don't understand why some governments in Asia refuse to allow democratic elections or go out of their way to suppress the development of multi-party politics. Its not as if different people would be in power if they did. Its simply a more refined sort of manipulation... presenting people with false choices... tricking them into voting against their self interest instead of forcing them to.

As for Palin, the post convention boost in the Republican's fortunes appears to be waning. The narrative is that the economic chaos of the past few weeks is costing them. Clearly, a lot of Americans paid attention to the VP debate. Thats Palin's most important moment, and I suspect her impact on people's thinking to be built into the polls over the next few days. All signs are pointing down. America didn't react as negatively to her as I originally expected, but there is only a very tiny segment of the population that is open to the idea that it might make sense to consider their choice in this election, and if they sway it only shows up as a few percentage points in the polls. Thats why Rove didn't bother with the traditional play to the center. There are way more bitterly partisan people out there who don't bother to show up for the polls than objective swing voters who are persuaded by campaigning.

A political system can have three states: Apathy, Partisanship, or Totalitarianism. Having seen all three I continue to insist that the first is the best.

RE: The scariest thing about Sarah Palin isn't how unqualified she is - it's what her candidacy says about America | The Smirking Chimp