Mirror Mirror On The Wall
.0.jpg)
I have been trying a little experiment. I have been going to conservative blogs and calling them the same thing they have been calling us for years. Fascist, America hating, America ruining, appeasing, cowardly, ill informed, delusional traitors. A good case can be made for all of this. Since it is quite well documented elsewhere I won't do it again here.
Guess what, they don't like it. They see it as harmful and overly rough discourse. They think it is shameful speech. They can't believe that someone would speak of them like that. One even implied if someone talked like that on the radio they wouldn't have a job. They apparently never listen to Rush or Sean or Lil Anne spew it on a daily basis. They do hear it but certainly don't realize how it sounds until it is turned on them. That being the point of the exercise. I encourage you to try it yourself. I bet your mileage won't vary much. Lordy, lordy. If they all got a mirror for Christmas we would all be better off.
posted by Ron at 10:34 PM
27 Comments:
This is the Games Profile The Game
Milwaukee-Beer Capital of the World (maybe that
explains it)
Age: Of UNreason
Zodiac Sign: Capricorn (an old goat that will swallow
anything)
Married? No, still waiting for Coulter
Children: Pray that he doesn't reproduce.
College: PE-U!
Political Ideol.: Repuglican't
Favorite President: Duh Bya
Religion: RUSHian Unorthodox
Hobbies: Sports and spreading Neo-Con propaganda
Favorites:
Colors: black and white
Flower: Read My Tulips
Foods: chickenhawks and Neo-Condi Rice
Animals: rogue elephants and sheep
Movie: "Ernest Registers to Vote"
TV Shows: "Hannity and Colmes", FOX News
(Bad) Actors: Bush, Cheney, and entire Cabinet
Author/Books: Ann Coulter The Ann Coulter
Trilogy "Lies and Deceit", "More Lies and
Deceit", "Completely off the Deep End"
Genre: Political Fiction (see favorite books)
Poet/Poem: (Game's Motto) Poetry is for Sissy Boys!
Music: Bush Country
Song: "Proud to Be a Neo-Con"
Say it loud, say it proud :)
man, anon's life must be really pathetic to care so much about me...
anyway,
I'm not going to comment on ron's experiment, since it is childish and took away from the 5% of the time he used to make semi-intelligent comments.
I believe the cartoon can be interpreted as the state of our political system.
the right has way to many people who are what the Dem's used to be when Kennedy was Pres...
Now, there are fewer and fewer actual conservatives left in congress, despite the fact that there are more districts that are conservative. It happens in Wis...Rep runs as conservative, votes moderate or liberal.
A few of them were voted out in the 2004 primaries thank God.
But really, the Republican party of today is slightly more to the right than the Dem's of the 60's and 70's, and the Left is as far to the Left as any party in this country has ever been
and anon..my fav TV show right now is Glenn Beck
Game I just don't get why you think the Dems are so far left. Farther than ever? Farther than FDR, LBJ, How ? The right is waaaaay right. They are almost to the point of authoritarianism:
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Blindly following Cheney/Bush. Maybe out of fear but still allowing them to do anything they want and complaining like a stuck pig when someone complains. What limits do you think they should have in the"war on terra"?
The concentration of power like "enhanced" Presidental power. Willing to trash constitutional protections to be "safe".
I really don't understand how you are missing what is happening to our country. I can only be glad that I am fighting it and not contributing to it.
You are right their are fewer and fewer conservatives. Most are much farther right than traditional conservatives. Goldwater would be a moderate in todays party. John Dean is now considered a liberal. Don't drown in that kool aid man. There is no way the repubs are anywhere near JFK who said, "We must not negotiate out of fear but we must not fear to negotiate. "
I have noted many times on your blog that you guys think you can kill all the terrorists. As a matter of fact that is the only way you think you can solve the problem. I have never seen a bigger warmongering hateful bunch in my life. You have no concept of world events and feelings of people around the world. You only think of your self. Example Madmanjani is the face of Iran but he does not speak for the entire population any more than our Presnit does. Go to www.iranian.com and read a little, check the polls and get a grip on what is really happening. I want to respect you and marshall(jason is hopeless) but I just can't when you fail to have the ability to think broadly and beyond your own interests.
By the way, my experiment proved a point so it was not childish at all except to make many conservatives understand how I and many others feel being treated in such a way. If they want A civil war we are ready to give it to them. The gloves are off.
Why do you bother responding to him here, Ron? His kind of piss-antism isn't worth responding to here. Attack him where it hurts, on his own turf.
The more he & his cronies there open their mouths, the more they look like the fools they are. Here, they're just a fly in the ointment.
Besides, his posts here stand for themselves. He's showing what an ignoramous he is by the posts alone -- let them speak for themselves.
Loosechange.com, or reopen911.org, to see whos really resonsible for the 9/11 attacks and Cheney and Rumsfeld with their lying cheating faces what a fucking show ....wake up the govt did it.
Yep, but it's not going to be anything one can convince the neonuts of though, unfortunately.
General: "I am not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him." 9/10
This is the American JAG Brigadier General
Lonna
Evangelical author's progressive turn: "When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels" 9/11
Amen! Brother!
Lonna
Remember that forest firefighters have started forest fires because they needed money. How much MORE likely is it that terrorism attacks will be staged by people who would profit?? Read the below story and consider the implications...
According to what I heard at Camp Casey (second hand) none other than Daniel Ellsburg, Seymour Hersch, 27 year CIA agemt Ray McGovern, and Gore Vidal suspect a terrorist attack may well be carried out by those in or around our government, blamed on Hezbollah, and then used as an excuse for war with Iran on or around Oct. 15th. in part so the Republicans will have a better chance of winning the midterm elections. I got that info second hand, but these people have proven over and over again that they will tell any lie and do anything to consolidate their power. Only the willfully delusional cannot see it.
Lonna
How US merchants of fear sparked a $130bn bonanza
The homeland security market has an army of lobbyists working for its interests in Washington
Paul Harris in New York
Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer
Brian Lehman's farm lies down a gravel road, between two fields of swaying corn as tall as a man. It is in the middle of Indiana's rural heartland in a landscape populated mostly by bearded Amish farmers and their wives.
Horse-drawn buggies are more common than cars, roads are littered with horse manure and fields are worked by hand. It feels distant in time and place from big cities such as New York or Washington, or even Indianapolis, two hours' drive south.
Yet Lehman's farm, from which he runs a small popcorn business, was recently declared a target for terrorists. State security officials included it in a list of assets considered potential victims of attack, most likely by Islamic fanatics. That was a surprise to Lehman, who had previously never considered Amish Country Popcorn on the front line in the war on terror. But he reckons he knows why he was chosen: 'It's the money.'
Five years after the World Trade Centre fell, a highly lucrative industry has been born in America - homeland security. There has been a goldrush as companies scoop up government contracts and peddle products that they say are designed to make America safe.
The figures are stunning. Seven years ago there were nine companies with federal homeland security contracts. By 2003 it was 3,512. Now there are 33,890. The money is huge. Since 2000, $130bn (£70bn) of contracts have been dished out. By 2015 annual federal spending on the industry could be $170bn.
But state officials want in on the government handouts too. That is why Indiana ended up identifying 8,591 potential terrorism targets (including Lehman's farm) inside its Midwestern borders. But they went too far.
Indiana's total was the most of any state - twice as many as California and 30 per cent more than New York.
The reason is simple. With so much money on offer and such riches being made, there is a powerful economic incentive to exploit the threat to America. The homeland security industry has an army of lobbyists working for its interests in Washington. It grows bigger each year and they want to keep the money flowing. America is in the grip of a business based on fear.
Inside a fancy office block in downtown Washington DC lie the offices of the Ashcroft Group. It is six blocks from the imposing buildings of the Department of Justice where the head of the firm, John Ashcroft, used to be President George W. Bush's Attorney General. As Attorney General, Ashcroft controversially extended the surveillance powers of the state in order to fight terrorism. Now he lobbies and consults on behalf of technology companies seeking to capitalise on the new powers. His clients include firms such as ChoicePoint, which gathers data on individuals and sells it, and Innova, which makes software for surveillance drones and robots.
In turning from powerful official to powerful lobbyist, Ashcroft is a brazen example of what critics call Washington's 'revolving door' - a process whereby officials leave public service for the private sector, exploiting their old contacts for commerce. 'It's become the norm that senior officials open up their own shops in their old sectors. It can be incredibly lucrative for them,' said Alex Knott, project manager for Lobby Watch, part of the Centre for Public Integrity.
In the new anti-terrorism industry, centred on the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, the door is revolving faster and faster. Though the department was created only three years ago, 90 of its former officials have already left to make money in lobbying and consulting. They include Tom Ridge, the first head of the department, who - like Ashcroft - now runs his own company. It is a crowded field. In 2001 only two lobbying firms registered as homeland security consultants. By the end of 2005 there were 543. Rules limit the ability of officials to enter the private sector in their old field for at least a year, but they are easily circumvented. They do not apply to those earning less than $140,000 a year and top-ranking officials often get around that by working in the 'background' at their new firms.
In effect there has been a huge privatisation of the homeland security industry in the US. It extends from surveillance issues to developing technology to working in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where many jobs once carried out by the military are now done by private contractors. At government hearings last year ChoicePoint said it considers itself a private intelligence agency doing the government's spying. 'After 9/11 we have seen the rise of the security-industrial complex,' said Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University and former Clinton adviser.
Some aspects of this new industry and its relationship with American citizens sound like science fiction. Dulles Research, another Ashcroft client, claims its software can detect terrorists by monitoring everyday behaviour such as travel schedules, credit card usage and bank transfers. It is bidding for a government contract to monitor millions of people for suspicious patterns.
That is the tip of an iceberg. The industry has the feel of a boom town where the outlandish and the mundane compete for attention. Four years ago there had not been a single business conference for homeland security firms. Now there have been 50. There is an industry newspaper, Government Security News, once a quarterly, now bi-weekly. Venture capital firms exist solely to invest in new and upcoming national security companies. Across America, universities offer courses in homeland security. 'All this money in the industry is just up for grabs. It's like a goldrush,' said Knott.
Of course, there is a real terrorist threat to America. There are many areas of the country, especially its ports and airports, where money needs to be spent to improve security and prevent a tragedy on the scale of 11 September from happening again. Private firms have a vital role to play in this. But there are grave concerns as to whether the industry has properly addressed these issues.
Instead, critics argue, it has trampled citizens' rights by invading their privacy, created an atmosphere of fear and done little to prevent a future attack. There have been many stories on the mis-spending of huge amounts of government money, from bullet-proof vests for dogs in Ohio to puppet shows in Iowa. At the same time US container ports still monitor little of what is imported through them, and a multi-million-dollar scheme for all transport workers to get a tamper-proof ID is two years late, has cost millions and still does not work. States have also fought over who should get the biggest security grants from the federal government. Midwestern states claim they are ignored and more obvious targets, such as New York, say not enough is being spent on them. All of which adds an economic incentive to play up an area's vulnerability.
This explains why Brian Lehman and his popcorn suddenly appeared on a terrorism target list. Lehman reacted with good humour. 'We've really had a lot of fun with it,' he said. It spurred a wave of interest in the company and - far from hiding away from the 'terror threat' - Lehman put up a new sign to help people find the isolated place. In the annual parade last month in Berne, the local town, his truck was painted with a target on the side as a joke. In a bizarre way, Lehman is hoping that he too can reap a bit of extra money from the boom in homeland security.
Lonna
If you doubt we have become a nation that flouts the law..
Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01
CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.
The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.
The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.
Details of the rough interrogations could come to light if trials are held for any of the approximately 100 detainees who were held in the prisons. President Bush announced last week that he had transferred the last 14 detainees in the facilities to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and had submitted a proposal to Congress for the rules under which the administration would like the suspects to be tried.
Terrorism suspects' defense attorneys are expected to argue that admissions made by their clients were illegally coerced as the result of policies set in Washington.
Justice Department political appointees have strongly backed the CIA interrogations. But "there are a lot of people who think that subpoenas could be coming" from Congress after the November elections or from federal prosecutors if Democrats capture the White House in 2008, said a retired senior intelligence officer who remains in contact with former colleagues in the agency's Directorate of Operations, which ran the secret prisons.
"People are worried about a pendulum swing" that could lead to accusations of wrongdoing, said another former CIA officer.
The insurance policies were bought from Arlington-based Wright and Co., a subsidiary of the private Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association created by former FBI officials. The CIA has encouraged many of its officers to take out the insurance, current and former intelligence officials said, but no one interviewed would reveal precisely how many have bought policies.
As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.
Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.
The proposals have won mixed reviews in the Senate, where they are generally opposed by Democrats and a group of dissident Republicans. The proposals were deliberately omitted, for example, from competing legislation circulated last week by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
Several former intelligence officials who said CIA officers do not need insurance because they can rely on the government to defend their lawful actions depicted the growing number of policies as a barometer of the uncertainty officers have of the legality of their work.
A recently retired CIA officer who said he had not bought insurance contended that "if an individual does get sued in the course of their official duties, then you get the biggest law firm in the world to step in" -- the Justice Department. Justice regulations allow defending federal workers if the conduct is within the scope of an employee's job and doing so is in the government's "interest."
The insurance, costing about $300 a year, would pay as much as $200,000 toward legal expenses and $1 million in civil judgments. Since the late 1990s, the CIA's senior managers have been eligible for reimbursement of half the insurance premium.
In December 2001, with congressional authorization, the CIA expanded the reimbursements to 100 percent for CIA counterterrorism officers. That was about the time J. Cofer Black, then the CIA's counterterrorism chief, told Bush that "the gloves come off" and promised "heads on spikes" in the counterterrorism effort.
"Why would [CIA officers] take any risks in their professional duties if the government was unwilling to cover the cost of their liability?" asked Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), a former CIA officer, during congressional debate that year.
Although suing federal officials for their actions is not easy, it is possible; the Supreme Court left the door ajar in two rulings. It ruled in 1971 that six narcotics agents could be sued for monetary damages arising from a warrantless search. Eleven years later, it held that government officials should be immune from civil liability only if their conduct does not violate clear statutory or constitutional rights that should be known by "a reasonable person."
William L. Bransford, a senior partner at the law firm that defends people who take out the insurance, said he is unaware of any recent increase in claims. But agency officials said that interest has been stoked over the years by the $2 million legal bill incurred by CIA officer Clair George before his 1992 conviction for lying to Congress about the Iran-contra arms sales; by the Justice Department's lengthy investigation of CIA officers for allegedly lying to Congress about the agency's role in shooting down a civilian aircraft in 2001 in Peru; and by other events.
One former intelligence official said CIA officers have recently expressed concern that lawsuits will erupt if details of the agency's internal probe of wrongdoing related to the September 2001 attacks become public.
In his report, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson recommended that the agency convene an accountability board to examine the actions of senior officials. But last October, then-CIA director Porter J. Goss rejected the advice and decided the report should remain secret.
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Friday that "it's fair to say that more employees have chosen to get this insurance, including those who work in counterterrorism." He said the agency's office of general counsel "advises employees to consider it" and called it a "prudent measure, in case of legal claims." But he said more employees at other federal agencies are also enrolling.
CIA employees outside the counterterrorism field who are eligible for reimbursement include the agency's supervisors, attorneys, equal-opportunity- employment counselors, auditors, polygraph examiners, security adjudicators, grievance officers, inspectors general and internal investigators, he said. One in 10 eligible employees sought reimbursement last year, Mansfield said, adding that the fraction from previous years and a breakdown on those in the counterterrorism field were not immediately available.
Brian Lewis, president of Wright and Co., confirmed that the number of new policies "has gone up, especially in the last two years." But he said that the company lumped CIA officers with Justice Department employees who also have the insurance and that he did not have exact numbers for the CIA.
Robert M. McNamara Jr., the CIA's general counsel from 1997 to November 2001, said he advised station chiefs to buy the insurance. "The problem is that we are the victims of shifting winds here," McNamara said he told the officers. "I can't sit here and tell you in all cases that I will be able to defend you."
However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Lonna
I saw this last story that Lonna posted the other day, and thought "unh-hunh. Gee, wonder why CIA counterterrorism ops would need that..."
It's not like they're doctors and need malpractice insurance, is it? They can do no wrong. *smirk*
I love this: Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self
Rf: Lonna's Articles.
Homeland Security just like Iraq and New Orleans are cases where the Haliburtons can rob the public treasury for their own "private",
"free market" gains and destroy the "public" at the same time.
Legal benefits are fine for employees but they should be held accountable for criminal conduct. Notice how the employees who get the "protection" are those with the highest incomes and connections. Not the average lower wage person. The legal system is for sale just like everything else, and when everything is for sale then nothing has any value.
As for the second hand info on Iran
just look at the plans for Venezuela. Regardless of how much a politician that Chavez is, he and his supporters are at least improving the lives of working people in Venezuela and standing up for the rights of Venezuelans and others in South America to manage their own resources. They may not be saints but then neither are the U.S. connected global corporatists who believe anything anywhere is theirs. The U.S. backed, or was used to back, a coup in Venezuela in 2002 and a recall attempt in 2004. Democracy and freedom are used as Orwellian terms to forward their global corporatist operations. Ex.: Iraq. Ex.: Ukraine. The U.S. support of the Orange Revolutions in Eastern Europe is not about "freedom" and "democracy" but about making sure that nominally-U.S. corporate
interests "win" over the Russian "interests" or non-corporate "interests". In the Ukraine the Orange candidate was the victim of fraud and deserved to be elected. Of Course, In Mexico, Obrador was/is the victim of fraud a lot closer to home and the U.S. does what?
Oh, Venezuela. Chavez should win overwhelmingly there this December, but efforts are underway
supported by U.S. interests, shall we say, to make sure that the western state of Zulia remains one of the few places of non-Chavez support and opposition-led state government. The governor there, Rosales, is running against Chavez and should lose significantly nationwide. However, Rosales is a big supporter of and supported by U.S. corporate interests. Zulia is a westernmost state bordering on Colombia. There have been rumblings there, in the past and now, for a seperate Autonomous State. That is not all that unusual for South America. What is different here is that Zulia has had connections to Colombian Paramilitary Forces. A win by the opposition in Zulia could increase these autonomous feelings and lead to "violence" and due to its sensitive location may necessitate
U.S. backed stabilization efforts.
There are already U.S. organizations with corporate connections speaking of the necessity of U.S. action in Zulia and Venezuela. Google: Venezuela, Zulia, Rosales, etc. for various info.
And oh, BTW, Zulia is home to 40% of Venezuela's Oil!
Larry in Roswell
I am glad to see that others are able to follow the money to see the motivations of the captains of industry. Seems like such a basic logical skill. To bad the sheeple who think they someday may share the wealth support their cause. They are unknowingly destroying their chance to do any such thing.
Because in actuality, they are living in the fantasy land that they don't have to really work, and work hard, to get anywhere, and even then they'd be lucky in this day and age.
The honest lazy & "get something for free" agenda (unlike the people who have to work, and do).
They couldn't be more wrong.
And they blame welfare recipients, saying they are the ones who want something for free. Hell, welfare doesn't even pay for the teeniest of bills.
That was always a puzzlement for me to dedanna. Why would someone think 800 dollars a month or whatever was livin the good life. I find it hard to believe that many are doing this to "work the system". The real cheaters in welfare are many on "disability" who are perfectly able to do SOMETHING. This includes a huge number of repubs and people who whine about "welfare". I know cuz I have seen it many times with my own eyes.
I'm in a quandry about the disabled. I realize that a lot of them are able to do something, but remember, I am among the people who were diagnosed disabled -- completely, several times over, diagnosed unable to work, and couldn't get SSDI for shit anyway.
I've had to literally FIGHT, and FIGHT HARD, to be able to walk again, much less to be able to get anywhere in life since. Have had to work my own way up to being able to work again physically and mentally both, with virtually no help because I haven't been able to get medical coverage, because I could get neither welfare, nor SSDI. I don't even know if what I've worked up to is safe for me -- for all I know, I'll end up quadraplegic out of it.
My problem with the disabled, is seeing people get SSDI who aren't even legal immigrants, for something that isn't even a disability, and the government approves for them every time.
I'm sick, literally sick from it a lot of the time, it stresses me so much & pisses me off so bad. This to me, is the true welfare rip-off.
Also, those who have brand new pickups & nice homes, etc. who don't really need the welfare, yet they're approved. I'm not even supposed to be working, and am, and can't get shit for gov't help.
Yep.
Disability programs are like any other government program, it can be properly managed or not and there will be people who try and abuse it as well as people who need it. It is also under attack from neo-con privateers like other government domestic programs because a cancer has to keep devouring.
This Just In. The right-wing hate talkers will no doubt start beating on the point about Air America Radio's bankruptcy proceedings. What they will probably not talk about is the increase in the number of progressive talk programs, independent and otherwise, elsewhere on the internet, radio and t.v. They also probably won't mention Clear Channel's quest, to begin this week, for the next Progressive talk star(s). They also won't mention the continued decrease in ratings for heavily subsidized established right wing talkers.
Like it or not, radio is about entertainment which means it has to stay new, But that doesn't mean that it can't be True, Factual and Sincere as well. Air America's situation is a business one, not about most of its programs' popularity, which could do just as well syndicated or somewhere else.
Larry in Roswell
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Like it or not, the reality is that radio isn't radio any more.
It's computerized b.s. -- where one used to be able to do manually the things that made radio great, are completely missing now & are gone forever because of computerization. It's also much harder to run a live show using the computer -- 12 damned computer steps to do one simple thing that we used to be able to do simply by flipping a switch -- yes, computers actually make things much harder, rather than easier.
Which is why I've completely retired from broadcasting. It's the same way now in t.v., and in almost every media outlet.
Voice tracks eat jobs but I kind of like computers otherwise. I think it actually makes things easier. It sure makes programming more exact.
Have you gotten to where you can run a nice tight show, running up the posts or to the vocals, no dead air under you?
I never could get the hang of that with computers.
Yes, just like carts or anything else to me. Put it on manual if you have to to get the timing down.
Post a Comment
<< Home