Prairie Justice

BUSH TORTURE POLICY: John Yoo and David Addington @ Congress

2009-05-03T21:30:00.001-04:00

Terror, Torture, and the Dark Side

2009-05-03T20:48:00.001-04:00

Hartmann & Jones

2009-04-19T13:01:00.006-04:00

Thom Hartmann & Alex Jones simulcast their radio shows in advance of the so-called, "Tea Party Protests," a few days ago. It's an interesting beginning, but they (and their listeners), are still talking past one another.

The internet is allowing more & more of us to see past the old paradigms and to see through the propaganda and self-limiting bullshit that we're being inculcated with. I think (and hope), that we'll see more of this in the future. The rate of change is accelerating - novelty is increasing per McKenna.

2009-03-09T12:47:00.005-04:00

Release Neil Young's "Time Fades Away" Album -

Do I really need to say anything more? The headline above is a link to an online petition - Time Fades Away really deserves remastering & re-release on CD. Really. I suppose I could go on & on about the back story & go into all sorts of detail about the history of the songs, the album, the concert where it was recorded, where Neil Young was at in his career as well as mentally & emotionally; blah, blah, blah. This is the internet - if you wanna know all that, you can look it up, just like I did a long time ago when I realized how much I love Time Fades Away. In the meantime, sign the petition linked in the title of this post & listen to the songs I've linked. It's Neil Young, fer chrissakes! May the Great Spirit guide us all...

In A Cabin In The Woods

2009-02-11T01:04:00.007-05:00

The Beatles - Rain

2009-01-26T20:00:00.001-05:00

From Crackle: The Beatles - Rain

What Would You Do?

2008-12-29T16:19:00.002-05:00

Greek Protesters Call for Support - REPOST ! !

2008-12-20T14:28:00.001-05:00

36-666 Jerry Rubin Punks Donahue in his corporate suit 1970

2008-12-10T02:07:00.001-05:00

(REVISED) December 19th 2008 YouTube Boycott (Blackout)

2008-12-09T20:44:00.001-05:00

Who Killed JFK?

2008-04-23T17:44:00.002-04:00

I don't fully trust Alex Jones - I still wonder if he's a disinformation agent. Regardless, this documentary has fascinated me since I first saw it, & the connections between the Bush family, Texas oil money, the C.I.A., the NAZIs, etcetera, are just too plentiful to discount. Eventually, I hope to write a follow-up post to explore these connections, along with further ties to September 11, 2001. Until then, watch this & ponder...

Zombies with Short Attention Span Disease

2008-02-29T11:10:00.008-05:00

Let's play a little game. I'll describe a "mystery disease," & you see if you can guess what it is.

Patients describe the disease beginning with aches, cramps, tingling and eventually numbness in their extremities - first legs, then arms, then fingertips & toes, sometimes in the face. Patients would begin to experience weakness, tiredness & an inability to stand for any length of time. It presents as very similar to Guillain-Barré syndrome, & seems degenerative and related to the nerve system in some way.

Oh, by the way, everyone who has the disease works in a slaughterhouse.

Did you figure it out, yet? OK, I admit, it was sort of a trick question. See, this illness is considered "new." It's Progressive Inflammatory Neuropathy, or PIN (personally, I think it should have been Progressive Inflammatory Grey matter, as long as we're being cutesy with the acronyms).

Perhaps, like me, you thought the description sounded suspiciously like Kreutzfeld-Jacob or Mad Cow disease and if you did, you wouldn't be too far off. My first thought after reading the symptoms was, where do they work & what do they eat? Turns out that not only did the sufferers work in a slaughterhouse, they all worked in the area of the abbatoir where compressed air was used to literally blow the brains out of pig skulls for packaging & eventual human consumption. Yep, they've been inhaling pig brains in the form of a fine mist.

The CDC and the FDA insist that pig brains are perfectly safe for humans to eat, so how could this be?!!? Listen, people, I'm going to say this once and once only - stop eating the brains of large animals & stop believing that people in government know what they're doing!

For maximum safety, I'd suggest you just stop eating brains, but at least make sure the animal they came from is no bigger than a sparrow, fer chrissakes. I get it, your kin/culture group has been eating brains for a long time & you don't want to stop, but how many times does this have to happen before we figure out that brains are not safe for humans to eat anymore? Perhaps they never were and we're only now connecting the dots between madness & all varieties of brain-eating, but it's 2008 now, there's just no good reason to be eating brains!

Medical Mystery Solved In Slaughterhouse

Texas Democratic Debate

2008-02-21T20:02:00.017-05:00

I'm going to try live-blogging this thing. I only had 4-5 hours of sleep last night, so we'll see how it goes.

The crowd is high-energy. Wonder if that'll have any impact on the tenor of the "discussion."
Strange format in the beginning - the two of them stand on stage like idiots, front and centre, while various local politicians come up on stage, shake their hands, then pose for a photo with them.
Barack Obama is getting good at bounding on stage. In a few seconds at the beginning of any event he conveys energy, youth, enthusiasm - things that will contrast well with McCain in debates.
Senator Clinton's latest theme in her speeches is, "Let's get real!" So far in her intro, I've heard her use the word real once - earlier in the day she used at least 10x in a single 20-30 min. speech. I wonder if she's decided to give up on the canned messaging (finally). Certainly couldn't hurt - she sounds stilted when she repeats scripted talking points.
Senator Obama seems flat in his intro. Sounds like he could have a cold, but it could just be strain on his vocal cords. Fatigue perhaps - wonder if there's something else going on...
Sen. Clinton is unswervingly gazing at him & smiling while he gives his intro. - very unnerving, like debating with one's mother. She knows how to use the female intimidation factor to her benefit in these one-on-one debates.

Clinton is on tonight - forceful, succinct when necessary, detailed when she can be. Obama, by contrast, was on the verge of babbling at the end of his answer to the question of how they differ on the economy. I wonder if someone has instructed him to use up as much time as possible whenever possible, a la Senate committee hearing tactics. There's a finite amount of time allotted, after all, so if he can eat it up, the national audience will hear less of Hillary... She's to good at this format to fall for it, though.
Commercial break - time to go to the Little Senator's Room. Overheard:

Barack: How are you doin'?
Hillary: Great!

John King calls them out on their criticisms of one another on the campaign trail.
Hillary comparing Obama to Bush - all hat no cattle.
She tends to draw her chin in toward her neck, giving her more of a schoolmarm-ish appearance. Obama looks almost sleepy at times. How strange that I keep noticing their physical appearance - it's so not me. I blame it on the visual superficiality of teevee.
Obama talking about ability to inspire as the most significant difference between them. Gets a lot of applause by defending his supporters at the end.
"To suggest that I'm guilty of plagiarism because I borrowed a line from one of my national co-chairs, who gave me the line... I think is silly." Or something like that. Smart tack to take on the plagiarism charge. Uses the word again - "We're getting to the silly season."
Hillary - That isn't change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox. Well-written line, but kinda' lost in the grumbles of Obama and boos from the crowd.
Commercial time. Sen. Obama ends on a strong note for him - Sen. Clinton secretive in the way she conducted the health care process in the '90s.
Leaning forward and smiling works well for Hillary - overall, Barack still seems flat & downbeat to me - he isn't smiling as much as usual, although he is coming across as reasoned and coherent. Hillary seems more overtly confident and energetic.
Obama sticking up for his supporters again - Hillary's team implies that Barack's supporters are delusional. I think he used the word 2-3 times - Hillary laughs out loud and he breaks into chuckles at the word. Seems to me he's batting down the cult of personality thing by defending his supporters. Smart tactic. This plus the booing of the Xerox line - Hillary is smart enough to know that this tack won't work with Obama.
Hillary has mentioned John Edwards at least twice, by my count. Smart of her. She just said, "...it is personal to me," in reference to health care, an Edwards line.
The energy sort of drained right out of the thing somewhere. Maybe one commercial break too many. The crowd remained enthusiastic until the end, but the candidates seemed a little sleepy. Could be partly the change from Hillary - it does seem like she knows that she can still win, but not by trying to tamp down enthusiasm for Obama.
Hillary ends on a note of togetherness. Uses Barack's line (or was it Edwards'?), whatever happens, we'll be fine. They shake hands in the middle. Standing ovation.

So far, I'm mostly finding photos of the two of them seated, taken from her left & facing him. Not so subtle tilting toward Obama by photographers and/or editors? He is rather photogenic, but Hillary is also. Interesting.

The debate was a CNN/Petroleum Industry affair, but MSNBC is doing special post-debate editions of Countdown and Hardball, so I'll flip back and forth to check out the corporate media spin.
CNN Pundits are saying that her last words sounded conciliatory. Scratch that: campaign aide Howard Wolfson emails to say it was a commanding moment. Either they're watching the first few moments of cable newscasts to figure out their spin, or it sounded conciliatory to them also. Or both. Talking heads also bring up her answer about "Superdelegates." I don't even remember that question. Maybe it was in that last third when the candidates' energy seemed to fizzle; maybe I nodded off during that question.

Bringing up the boos for Hillary's scripted Xerox line. Eugene Robinson says it didn't seem like her heart was in it, but concedes maybe he's reading too much into it. Olbermann & Robinson point out that it was a genuine, reasoned debate. Gad, I wish they weren't so surprised by that.

Yep, the we're going to be fine line was Edwards, or so CNN just reported. Oops, now Olbermann is chiming in to report the same email. Rachel Maddow agrees with Robinson that Hillary seemed to deliver the Xerox line half-heartedly. I also agree, although I think that Clinton isn't generally good at delivering sound-bites - could very well be because she knows better. I think it's harder for her to be phony than it is for most professional politicians.

Meh, I'm falling asleep at this point - none of the talking heads seem to have any more original insight or analysis. Of course, I started out more drowsy than the candidates were.

The one thing I'm left wondering is what would have happened if Bill Clinton had been used as a campaign energizer, rather than as an attack dog. Even if he had traveled around the country, fluffing up campaign workers & volunteers behind closed doors instead of the big showpiece speeches, I think it would have changed dynamics. Encourage the converted rather than talk at them, and the argument becomes competence and enthusiasm vs. enthusiasm alone. I can't stand Bill Clinton's politics - I think they had as much to do with enabling the G.W. Bush presidency as anything else, but I get it that rank and file Democrats love the guy. I would have had him attacking the right and encouraging their allies & supporters, while Hillary was all positivity + wisdom, all the time. After all, it's not like Hillary's supporters are incapable of being cult-like. It kinda' goes with the territory of top-down politics.

Ironic that Obama has so far out-maneuvered The Man From Hope, but let's see if the party machinery saves it for the Clintons.

Update:

Pretty good debate description/analysis by Karen Tumulty at Time.
Clinton Faces Reality in Texas Debate
Howard Kurtz on Network Coverage of Primary-Night Speeches

Clinton Vs. Obama

2008-02-14T23:52:00.002-05:00

Former President Clinton decries the possibility of a rigged convention and suggests Senator Obama withdraw from the race due to his youth & inexperience. Or something like that.

An Intelligent President

2008-02-14T23:42:00.002-05:00

It's 1960's Nostalgia Week for me.

Why Was Nixon Sweating?

2008-02-14T23:32:00.001-05:00

Best of Both Worlds

2008-02-13T19:46:00.003-05:00

Who needs Clinton or Obama? Look! She's a "black" and a "lady" at the same time! My fellow americanites, here's your consensus candidate:

Hating The Base

2008-02-13T12:53:00.020-05:00

Y'know, I started thinking that maybe I'm wrong; maybe Hillary really is a feminist in some form that I might recognise, maybe she really is to the left of her husband & maybe she really has been biding her time until she can govern from the left. Fat chance.

Today, I saw this story on Aravosis' AMERICABlog:
Hillary Says Black Voters & Democratic Activists "Don't Matter"
Original CNN Story

I know I'm stating the obvious, but the people that she's discounting are the Democratic Party base. Does she think that she can win the nomination with just white women over 50 voting for her? It surprises me that she'd be so open about Establishment disdain for the party's base.

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Although I figure Obama's been bought, it does seem that he's used his organizing experience to build a fledgling movement which is far closer to what Howard Dean tried to do than the usual swing-state strategy used by Clinton, Gore, Kerry & now, Hillary. What strikes me is that he's putting together a coalition that's primarily people younger than 50, well-educated people, leftist rather than centrist, African-American, more service unions than trade unions, more & more Catholics, etc. In other words, very similar in composition to the disenchanted party members in 1968 - the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, SNCC, SDS, hippies, professors, etc, but greatly evolved from where it was in '68. Makes me wonder how many of those '68 dissidents are Obama supporters today.

The top of the party doesn't want a brokered convention - they claim it would alienate the swing voters into voting Republican. However, convention rules allow party elites (aka Super Delegates), to throw their votes to Hillary and bypass any sort of brokering that could lead to an Obama nomination. I imagine they assumed they could get away with it if the need arose, as long as the delegate count was relatively close. Problem is, we're now post-Election 2000, so the party's base is far less trusting of official vote counts & potentially far more resistant to top-down chicanery. I suppose it's possible that past Rules Committees were too short-sighted to plan for a scenario in which an insurgent candidate got this far, although that seems unlikely. Given that the Super Delegate scam was put into place after the Chicago '68 disaster, maybe they just figured that the party base could always be prevented from forming working coalitions.

The New York senator went out of her way to say she was "absolutely" looking forward to the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, where she believes voters are more receptive to her bread-and-butter message.

She also downplayed many of Obama's Super Tuesday victories, describing them as states that Democrats should not expect to win in November.
"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins.

It suggests to me that Hillary is sending a message to the Establishment (her bankrollers), that now is the time to close ranks and make sure the remaining large states go her way, before it gets to the convention. It'll be interesting to see what goes down in the remaining large-ish primary states, especially Ohio and Texas, where we know for a fact that Republicans have strong machines in place. Will Bill Clinton call in a favour from his pal Poppy Bush?

One way or another, I'm hoping the Democratic Convention makes the Superbowl look like a high school track meet. The godsquad figured out how to take control of the GOP, it's about the time the Democratic left took control - and unlike the Republicans, the more public, the better.

Update: Ah ha! Proof that I'm not completely full of crap. Seems some of those irrelevant "Red States" that Hillary discounted aren't too pleased with her assertions.

"Red State" Democrats Dispute Clinton's Spin

On Monday, the former first lady went a step further saying that it would take a "tsunami change in America," for Democrats to carry some of Obama's red states. "It's just not going to happen," she told ABC7 and Politico.

The premise of the argument was disputed by Democratic officials from several of those states, who say the landscape is ripe for the party to make inroads, and see the strategy of writing off the "red states" as antiquated...
"I think a lot of folks here have seen the failed policies of the Bush administration time and again and they are getting tired of this country not moving in a positive direction," said Rick Gion, communications director of the North Dakota Democratic Party. "If there was a year that North Dakotans would go for Democrats this would be one of the best ones."

"We've had Democratic governors over the years. We've had Democratic legislatures. We've had a number of Democratic leaders elected to office," said Kay Brown, communications director for the Alaska Democratic Party. "Certainly it is possible [for a Democratic presidential candidate to win]. I think the Alaska is more closely divide then what you see in Congress."

Fifty States vs. Swing States

Barack Obama, Anti-Manchurian Candidate?

2008-02-12T22:24:00.014-05:00

I've got to say up-front that I still believe the system of electoral politics in America is irrevocably corrupt - in essence, I think it has been made into a sham, an illusion of power & participation designed to fool people into thinking that they still have some role within the Military-Industrial Complex. That said, those who know me also know that I'm an unrepentant political junkie. Not just of theory and political science mind you, but crass electoral politics as well. As much as I know that's it's all rigged, I still watch the spectacle. Other people have American Idol auditions, NASCAR and horrible accidents caught on tape, I have federal elections.

So, why am I on about this and what does it have to do with Senator Obama? Well, here's the thing. As much as I believe the system requires radical alteration, I do still believe in the strength of the U.S. Constitution and the Republic, as designed. I have no hope that Democrats will transform the country, but at a minimum, I expect 'em to defend the Constitution and civil rights and they don't even do that. For me, Dems are more disappointing than the GOP - you know for certain you're facing a fascist when a Republican walks in the room, but with Democrats it's always a crap shoot. Is he Jimmy Carter or Zell Miller? Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein? Paul Wellstone or Joe Lieberman? Ineffectual or malevolent, which will it be?

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 I probably paid less attention than I have to any other election in my lifetime. I clearly remember the hope and optimism that some of the people around me had at the possibility that a Democrat might regain the White House. Me - not so much. First, it didn't seem likely that Poppy Bush would not win and second, I figured that Clinton was lying to the party base in order to get the nomination. There was just no way that guy could possibly govern as far to the Democratic left as the promises he was making, and all those Sister Souljah & Ricky Ray Rector moments... I didn't anticipate the impact that Ross Perot (also a Texan, but one who seems to despise Poppy Bush), would have on Bush's numbers, but I turned out to be right about Clinton's actual governance - that freakin' dude sold the left down the river (please ponder the etymology of that saying, and yes, the inference is intentional), any & every time doing so could benefit his personal political fortunes. By the time he got around to openly colluding with the Bush family after September 11, Clinton as Laurence Harvey almost started making sense to me.

The thing is, despite my usually reliable good sense, there is still a photon of hope within me that some genuine leftist will finally figure out the Quantum/Digital Age inverse of Clinton's short-sighted triangulation strategy. Now, I know full well that even if that happened, such a person would still be unable to instigate the necessary radical change, but they might be willing (and able, given a Democratic Congress), to reverse the worst of the Bush/Cheney assault on the Constitution. Plus, it's long past time to poke the oligarchs in the eye.

Obviously, Obama wouldn't have a multi-million dollar presidential campaign if he hadn't already been bought - every Republican is a pre-ghost Scrooge (Ebenezer, not McDuck), and every Democrat is Redford in The Candidate. None more so than Obama, really - he started out as a lawyer/community organizer just like the Redford character. Of course, Redford never made the sequel. What happens to the young organiser once he actually gains power? If the arc of his candidacy is followed, then the accumulation of compromises and concessions will render him incapable of being the sort of change agent he intended to be when he decided to run. The thing is, though, that if such a hypothetical stealth candidate got in, compromises and all, wouldn't such a person still be more likely to get something big done than someone who never had right intention?

Anyway, I could rant on endlessly about the failings of American faux-centrism, so I'll just give a mundane example of what I'm getting at. I think Bill and Hillary Clinton genuinely believed in universal health care back in 1992, but history demonstrates that he was willing to jettison the whole thing when he thought it might jeopardise his re-election chances. Not even craft some sort of half-assed compromise, but just toss the whole thing out and move on to the Republican-friendly eradication of Welfare. Once he was out of office, Clinton readily conceded that he got the whole thing ass-backwards - he should have started out by offering the GOP Welfare eradication in exchange for universal health care. As a radical, my first choice would be to throw the entire system out and start over. However, while we still live within this oppressive system, leftists with any sort of power have to do whatever possible to mitigate the harm done to those of us at the bottom. Self-serving triangulation fails the Hippocratic Oath - that's just not good enough.

The Pharmacratic Inquisition

2008-02-10T18:50:00.003-05:00

We have got to transcend religion. Not make up new ones, substitute mysticism or pretend the old ones were just myths and tales that we don't need anymore, but transcend. This will only happen when we remember where our apparent need for religion comes from.

Here's the online version of the DVD. You can find the rest of the filmmakers' stuff here: http://www.youtube.com/user/GnosticMedia

Enjoy!

This is a History Channel series on apocryphal and extra-canonical texts from the xtian bible. It's pretty good, I think it may be a PBS documentary that HC re-packaged.

Drexel Democratic Debate (Philly)

2007-10-30T19:24:00.000-04:00

1.5 hours until tee-off time and so far the chit chat on teevee is pretty much, "How can Obama/Edwards attack Hillary and drive up her negatives without driving up his own?" The obvious solution to this particular puzzle is precisely the answer that none of the candidates will choose. None of the candidates is capable of setting aside the demands of his own ego in order to ensure that Hillary, and by extension, the politics of triangulation, are not allowed to represent the Democratic party in another presidency.

To displace the seeming inevitability of Hillary's nomination, the other candidates must give up their individual campaigns and unite behind one person. There are a couple of ways that this could work...

The candidates could unite behind someone who is not currently running, i.e. Al Gore. What are the chances that he would decline if asked by a united front of Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel or, really, any grouping of three or more of them? Of course, they could choose to unite behind one of their own - most likely Edwards or Obama given money and poll numbers. The designated challenger would agree to hold the left line on certain key issues and in exchange would have at least three strong surrogates who would challenge Hillary among key constituencies around the country.

Gad, I'd love to believe that Hillary is triangulating a la her husband in order to get elected, but secretly plans on governing from the left once elected, but that's about as likely as Hillary renouncing her vote on the Iraq war or on the PATRIOT Act.

Liberal ideas have been willfully and systematically demonized in the U.S. at least since FDR's presidency and arguably since before our founding - the Puritans weren't exactly the free-thinkers of their day.

First Test Post

2007-10-24T13:03:00.000-04:00

The Trailer for Mike Dubour's short film, "PUMP: Terror On The Bike Trail." (DivX, 320x240)

PUMP: Terror On The Bike Trail (WMV, 320x240)