Bush and Obama and Cheeeeney...

i really have been wondering for the last several days if there has been communication between George Bush and Barack Obama over everything going on. seems like the question has been answered by Mr. Obama himself:

In an interview with C-SPAN that will air in entirety at 10.a.m. Saturday, President Barack Obama acknowledged having had conversations with Bush since leaving office, though he insisted on abiding by "a general policy of keeping confidence with your predecessor."

Obama Has Talked With Bush Since Inauguration
Sam Stein, Huffington Post
May 23, 2009

personally, i thought that it was a certainty that they have been talking. i also believe that Obama probably has been talking to George H.W., Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. i also speculate that George W. has been counseled by his father, George H.W. on how to respond or, rather, how not to respond to Cheeney's mutterings.

there is much talk that Mr. Bush and Cheeeeney were at odds towards the end of Bush's term in office. Bush himself said it was time to close Gitmo; Mr. Cheeeney has been continuing his talk to keep it open. something is obviously not right here.

now comes word that Mr. Cheeeney is hawking a book deal - Cheney Seeks Book Deal on Bush Years and More, New York Times, 5/22/09 - and the last few weeks of Cheeeeney's actions and behaviour seem to be even more self-aggrandizing as some have come to explain one reason for his whirlwind jaunt. it's almost a book tour being done BEFORE the book is published.

actually, no publisher has even bought the book yet.

not to worry there. someone is just waiting on the chance to jump on that. that person wants to make a lot of money. Mr. Cheeeeney seems to be investing on his reputation more than anything else.

well, he doesn't need the money. does he?

the score seems to be adding up...

the more i've been reading about Obama's release of the torture memos and his decision not to pursue any legal maneuvers the more it seems that most people do not like his stand.

i don't either.

with all the talk during the campaign with emphasis on the Rule of Law, as a lawyer he is shirking his legal and ethical standards as an officer of the courts.

the best argument i've heard was Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night. Olbermann lays out the argument succinctly bringing in historical reference that is quire indisputable, going all the way back to the Civil War.

you can watch and read Olbermann's Special Comment over at Crooks and Liars. it's really to the point.

Countdown Special Comment: Future of US Depends on Torture Accountability

one of the better round-ups of the flurry of pundits, newspeople and other media is over at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish.

he has links to Greenwald, Coles, and others in a lot of posts he's done. one of the more telling post's title is We Are Now Indonesia.

IMO, Obama has surpassed all of the obfuscations over the last eight years in one fell swoop...

obfuscating obfuscations...

Yesterday's New York Times Magazine had a great article on Freeman Dyson, one of the most brilliant people who have lived, at least in the 20th Century. As one piece of evidence was the idea that his college mentor told him that a Ph.D. would be totally useless for him. He knew more than anyone else already.

The Civil Heretic

Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics. Dyson has written more than a dozen books, including “Origins of Life” (1999), which synthesizes recent discoveries by biologists and geologists into an evaluation of the double-origin hypothesis, the possibility that life began twice; “Disturbing the Universe” (1979) tries among other things to reconcile science and humanity. “Weapons and Hope” (1984) is his meditation on the meaning and danger of nuclear weapons that won a National Book Critics Circle Award. Dyson’s books display such masterly control of complex matters that smart young people read him and want to be scientists; older citizens finish his books and feel smart.

The title of the article refers to Dyson being a heretic because he just doesn't see global warming as a real threat. In a nutshell, he says that people like Al Gore and James Hansen, the major proponents of the crisis, are merely believing their own hype. Dyson, on the other hand, says it is not really a crisis of the magnitude they say - yet - nor will it necessarily become one. It's nature doing what it does.

One of the things he cites is that cooler places may be getting a little warmer but hot places are not, and it is really limited to specific areas where there is a CO2 problem.

Personally, I've not liked the term global warming. Instead, I have preferred climate change because it more accurately describes what is happening in different parts of the world. It also is not as frightening. The earth has recorded many climate changes over the millenia. Maybe we are quickening this one, but who is to say that it is not just a normal process that is supposed to happen?

The article on Dyson is fascinating for many other reasons and I really recommend spending the time reading it. He is a subversive as he calls himself and truly brilliant in many areas. He has spent his life obfuscating obfuscations...

Again, its The Civil Heretic

i know where the $350 billion went...

most of the people that Mr. Paulson has running the bailout are from Goldman Sachs. it's obvious that this is their accounting system.

all explained now...

there "probably" is not a god?

From London via the New York Times: Atheists Send a Message, on 800 British Buses

In response to a religious message on the side of a London Transit bus Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, checked out the web site on the sign and found out that she was going to hell. She was taken aback.

and then she thought, how about putting some atheist messages on the bus, as a corrective to the religious ones?

And so were planted the seeds of the Atheist Bus Campaign, an effort to disseminate a godless message to the greater public. When the organizers announced the effort in October, they said they hoped to raise a modest $8,000 or so.

But something seized people’s imagination. Supported by the scientist and author Richard Dawkins, the philosopher A. C. Grayling and the British Humanist Association, among others, the campaign raised nearly $150,000 in four days. Now it has more than $200,000, and on Tuesday it unveiled its advertisements on 800 buses across Britain.

“There’s probably no God,” the advertisements say. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Wow! Think there may be a little backlash going on to the ever-present propaganda coming from the religious?

One very telling comment in the article struck me:

“I think it’s dreadful,” said Sandra Lafaire, 76, a tourist from Los Angeles, who said she believed in God and still enjoyed her life, thank you very much. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t like it in my face.”

Well, Sandra Lafaire, 76,a tourist from Los Angeles, how do you think some of the rest of us feel when at every turn in our daily lives we are bombarded by your opinion?

I get pretty sick of it.

As far as the probably in the ad as well as this blog title, the word had to be used in the ad because of laws and rules in England!

An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.

But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.

For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.

“So as not to fall foul of the code, you have to acknowledge that there is a gray area,” he said.

and advertisements implying that there IS a god are NOT misleading?

just asking...

the national media is having a field day...

and everyone with whom i'm talking here in Chicago is amused.

we shrug our shoulders because the idea of corruption in the city goes back well over a hundred years. the history of the city around the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries makes fascinating reading in books like The Devil in the White City and Sin in the Second City: Madams, Ministers, Playboys, and the Battle for America's Soul, two of the more unique stories.

truthfully, Chicago can be blamed for the ascension of religion into politics that has had the country in a mess for the last 20-30 years. the stage was set right here. if you're familiar with the second book i mentioned, Sex in the Second City, you will discover just how that is the truth.

our biggest amazement is just how stupid Gov. Blago has been. real stupid! one local politician told one of the local TV stations that he is learning sign language to talk with colleagues because "You have to believe that everyone you're talking is wearing a wire." sad, but true.

Rachel Maddow last night pointed out that the media in Chicago was not focusing on what Blago did but on the possibility that he might just be loco. she seemed surprised with it. there are stories popping up about his delusions and behaviours all over the Chicago media. Check out this story in today's Chicago Sun-Times: Hairbrained? Is Blago's hair a sign of sickness?

or the Chicago Tribune: By Chicago standards, Blagojevich isn't crazy.

Illinois' Attorney General, Lisa Madigan [who i wouldn't trust as far as i can spit either] is talking about going to the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Blago unfit: What's next for Blagojevich? Removal?



Obama at his new conference this morning was asked what's wrong with politics in Illinois. he has two views of people involved in government, first as service to others and second as a business; a business that says, "What's in it for me?" he went on to say that there is a great history of Illinois politicians who have been of the former view, but you also have people with bad habits and a culture of politics as a means of self-aggrandizement. that has to change. the latter is the far end of the spectrum, but there are elements that are more subtle in the middle. he mentioned other governments even the federal that do things for political reasons. he hopes his campaign modeled and hi administration will model it. [the previous are more or less my notes while listening to Obama this morning.]

i would add another element - enriching your friends. Bush is using his pen and pencil to do all kinds of orders that Mr. Obama can't do anything about for at least a year. today he doomed polar bears by an order allowing more exploration for oil, gas, etc. and he is about ready to destroy the Utah Redrock wilderness for the same thing.

of course, this is the same thing as Blago did, but Tsar George was willing to wait the eight years to get all the money after he leaves the White House. Blago wanted the money now. it's all a matter of degree.

to paraphrase an old adage:

politicians - you can't live with them...
and you can't kill them.

[for those of you unfamiliar with the original, the word politician was family.]

another assault on the American family...

Edwards Admits to Extramarital Affair,

NYT, August 8, 2008

Now remember that what's her name, you know that skinny anorexic looking pundit, oh yeah, Ann Coulter, said that Edwards was gay. By logic that must mean that by having an affair he must have assaulted the American family even more.

As a matter of fact, if you go to her blog, she comments on it:

ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!

Her point is that the main stream media white-washed [Coulter's word, not mine] the story and scrubbed it from the National Enquirer's revelations not wanting to give it credence and because of the media's liberal bias. [some how Enquirer and Ann Coulter in the same story counters as very bizarre! Almost oxymoronic...] In other words, it's because he's a Democrat and a Liberal. Heavens!

Her proof:

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

See, the connection and the hint is already there It's all because of the assault on marriage by the gay agenda to destroy marriage. The relationship is unmistakable. Queers are either seducing holy, upstanding men or forcing them to have affairs. As long as they're not liberal Democrats. or have pretty hair. or have wives that support LGBT marriage. or...

Wait a minute!

What about John McCain's affair(s)? It [they] are very well documented. As I remember, didn't he leave his first wife for Cindy after his wife was in a severe auto accident? [Sound familiar? Newt Gingrich left his wife suffering in the hospital with cancer for a younger woman also. Seems to be a pattern here.]

And now, others are saying that Edwards is unfit to be vice-president or hold a cabinet position because of this. Given that McCain had affairs, doesn't it mean that he's unfit to not only be preznit but unfit to run for preznit?

Cenk Uygur has a great take on it over on HuffPost - How is John McCain's Affair Different than John Edwards'? check it out.

i'm so confused......


[i know. i know. what else is new?]

quick F.I.S.A. challenge

I predicted in my post F.I.S.A. bill passed..., on Wednesday that as I wrote the post someone was preparing to take it to court.

heads up...

ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law

You can read the entire post at the ACLU website by clicking above, but here are a couple of highlights.

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.

The main point:

Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."

hmmm, let's see...

This means that someone in some officious [notice i didn't say official] government office or Comcast Cable cubicle may be reading this right now and notating that I am writing something that they may determine is a threat to the country's security and forwarding this to who know what other officious office or cubicle.

Oh, and they also know that you are reading this right now; so, they have just sent your IP Address along with the report or opened another report/file all about you.

SURPRISE!!!

Well, you might say, "This is all for national security."

I ask. How are you or I a threat to national security? And, what about the officious person in that officious office or cubicle who now has information on us? Who will/can guarantee that they will not use anything that they determined to be information for spurious reasons of their or the government's design? This law eviscerates the 4th Amendment.

see...

be careful, if you are a Jehovah Witness, Black, American gueer you do have a lot to worry about whether you are going to Montenegro or staying in Chattanooga...

F.I.S.A. bill passed...

Anyone with any sense of the news was aware it would happen. What was surprising to me is the vote was 69 - 28 with 3 not voting: Sessions, Kennedy and McCain. (Maybe, I shouldn't have been so surprised.)

Living in Illinois, it was a split decision. Senator Durbin was one of the 28 voting Nay. Senator Obama was part of the 69 voting Yea. Since there is no such thing as a present vote in the U.S. Senate, he only had one other choice: the not voting one.

You can go to the U.S. Senate website to see how your Senators voted: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304)



you all don't know how difficult it has been for me over the last couple of weeks, listening to the parsing that has been happening in the Obama campaign, to bite my tongue and not say, "I told you so."

trust me, this is just the beginning...

one of the hopes regarding the F.I.S.A. bill is, as you read this, someone is already making the move to have it in court the minute the Tsar signs it into law. so far, even his own Republican federal judges have held against him on things like this.

we'll see...



i'm sorry, i forgot to mention that Hillary was also one of the 28 voting Nay, as was Majority Leader Sen. Reid!

wanna guess what they're selling?

wouldn't take long to twist the real message of this advertisement. messrs. dobson, fallwell, labarbera, et al would be on it in a minute if it showed up in print in the U.S.

so, what are they selling? ----

Et vous, comment dormez-vous?

trans.

And you, how do you sleep?

give?

mattress and bedding...

of course, an ultra-right wing Catholic group in France, E-Deo, has an article on their blog enititled

SCANDALE! Matelsom affiche l’homosexualité dans le métro parisien!

i think you can figure out the first & fourth words yourself. it says pretty much what you are thinking: Matelsom is showing homosexuality in Parisian subway!

now that's a fairly literal translation. what's missing is the meaning behind it. what E-Deo is saying is that Matelsom is trying to push homosexuality on the unsuspecting French people. Sounds just like the christianist whackos that we have. they're the same all over...

Matelsom is the name of the company. If you go to the website, you will see that you go through a process to determine what type of mattress and linen would be best for you depending on your sleeping habits and position for the best night's sleep. it's innocuous at the least. oh, and the company has a totally green line and are green as much as possible with all of their products.

now le pub gai, as the ad would be called, is just one of the print ads in a series showing all kinds of people sleeping. here are a few of the rest:

i can come up with some ominous detritus for these. is the couple in the first one married? did the couple in the second one just do it? does the third one border on child pornography? or worse? we can all play the game...

the company also has a great website with a blog post that is brilliant in response to the rightist/french christianist blathering -

Nous avions souhaité orienter les réflexions dans une démarche plus citoyenne au travers de la problématique du sommeil. Matelsom a pris le parti de vous sensibiliser à l’importance d’une bonne literie notamment en lançant le débat autour de cette question « Et vous, comment dormez-vous ? » et non « Et vous avec qui dormez-vous ? » (comme on le retrouve chez certains detracteurs)

i will translate as best i can.

We wanted to reflect the broadest cross section of people and the problems they have in sleeping. Matelsom wanted everyone to know the importance of good matresses and linens around the question "How do you sleep?" not "With whom do you sleep." (as some of our detractors would have you believe.)

at least we have Lawrence v. Texas to protect us in the U.S. in 2003 SCOTUS said that we could sleep with whomever we wanted and it was none of the governments' business.

of course, it did take until 2003! still, we don't have to worry about anyone checking our mattresses...

errr, do we?