By Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy.com
Everyone but the emotionally dead had to feel joy at the news that a pretty young blonde American had been rescued from her Somali pirate kidnappers. Equally thrilling was to learn that the rescue had been a pinpoint operation by our courageous Navy SEALS, who managed to snatch the maiden, and kill nine kidnappers while losing none of their own team.
That welcome bit of uplifting news came as our president shared with us the ongoing struggle that is the State of the Union.
Despite the continued difficulties many of us face in terms of daily survival, it was heartening to know that the country was still strong enough to venture and achieve such a mission in the most dangerous parts of the world.
It was stirring. It was downright inspirational.
***
Remember “Wag the Dog”? The 1997 hit comedy featured a spin doctor and Hollywood producer who, in order to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal, convince the public of a non-existent war. The tail wagging the dog. The art of power through distraction.
In light of the continuation of this sort of spectacle into the Obama era, I’d like to propose a new term for our time: “Wag the seal.”
For this is the second time—and presumably not the last—that Obama has gotten a lift from those daring fellows. And in both cases, close scrutiny raises the question of just who is being had.
Each produced a magnificently advantageous moment for a president sweating a tough and uncertain re-election. But Obama was hardly the only winner. Another beneficiary is surely the Pentagon, which is under severe pressure to restrain itself and cut its size and costs, and could use a favorable performance. Though the US military seems incapable of “winning” the complex and mind-bendingly expensive foreign adventures it launches almost like clockwork, it does seem able to execute small, limited operations that please the public.
And of course there is the retinue that profits from all this, the “one percent” who derive substantial profits from the permanent war economy. Not to mention the oil and mineral companies and all other foreign exploitation, er, exploration industries, whose continued high profits are largely dependent on the continued projection of American strength throughout the world.
Finally, as always, there is the media. For it is at root about good story-telling. And was there ever a better story than a pretty maiden rescued by dashing and clean-cut lads from drooling savages?
***
They tell us that the Somali mission was executed by the same Navy SEALs unit that carried out the biggest coup of the Obama administration if not the past decade: taking down the man who was America’s most reviled, and perhaps feared, symbol of danger: Osama bin Laden.
Most people, reliant on the coverage of major news organizations, rest content that America justly and efficiently dispatched bin Laden. Only those with keen antennae—or those who read accounts questioning the contradictory, irrational and unnecessarily opaque explanations of exactly what happened, realize that something was wrong with that operation. Something more was going on. What exactly it was—whether that helicopter that crashed did not really manage to disgorge its SEAL occupants unscathed, whether the man who we are told was hurriedly dumped into the ocean before proper public verification of his identity was definitely the man who terrorized the world, whether the people living in that house in Abbottabad were unavoidable casualties or executed by design—these things we still do not know.
But one thing is clear: that raid did wonders for Obama and the military. No one dare call Obama a wimp.
***
When you look carefully at the Somali rescue, you see similarly troubling patterns of manipulation, and the pursuit of propaganda victories cloaked as legitimate policy.
Consider the circumstances: an American citizen, albeit one with seemingly the most admirable intentions, was kidnapped along with a foreign colleague while leaving a charity mission in a region with heavy pirate activity. The US began monitoring her situation, and when, we are told, signs indicated that her health was dangerously deteriorating, the authorities launched their operation.
What are the criteria for such operations? At any given time, some Americans may be being held by kidnapers in various parts of the world. As far as we know, most do not benefit from the attention of the US military. In fact, we don’t even know how many are being held because the numbers are kept under wraps—try asking the FBI. In any case, another American was kidnapped in Somalia recently, and his kidnappers have adopted dramatic measures to make sure that another raid is not attempted.
The stated reason for the timing of the rescue of 32-year-old American Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen Thisted, her 60-year-old Danish colleague, was that Buchanan’s health had declined precipitously. Yet concern for the health of Americans is not a settled notion at all. In fact, the majority of Republican candidates for the presidency, the same ones who cheered the rescue, oppose guaranteeing the most basic health needs of all American children.
That Buchanan was in captivity for some time, and that her release came at a propitious moment when Obama was under the maximum media spotlight, cannot be dismissed. Neither can the central role of Obama’s discredited counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, whose shifting narratives of the bin Laden raid remain unresolved and havelowered faith in Obama’s veracity among some Americans. It is important to note Brennan’s close relationship with the Saudi royal family, whose survival depends on keeping sea lanes open near the Horn of Africa where the Somali pirates ply the waters.
So, though as humans we cheer the good result of this particular adventure, we must concede that this is not really about health or even saving lives. It is about “sending a message.” But does the message really get sent to those who would harm Americans? There is little evidence that armed intervention is a deterrent. Indeed, the kidnappers of the other American being held in Somalia seem to have upped their threats of violence since the raid.
No, the message is being sent to us. It is no coincidence that these kinds of affairs always involve the most, pardon the expression, black and white of elements. How often do you hear about a person of color who is being held hostage, has gone missing, or was killed. Or of someone obese, or physically unattractive? Think back over the tabloid stories that have sustained the media for months at a time and riveted the American people. Jessica Lynch. Pat Tillman. Natalee Holloway and Robyn Gardner. When are the villains more nuanced, run-of-the-mill criminals without distinguishing stories? Pirates indeed. It’s almost as if the same fictional producer in Wag the Dog now shuttles permanently between Hollywood and the White House.
GRAPHIC: : http://vir4l.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/obama_i_got_this.jpg
WhoWhatWhy is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news site founded by Russ Baker. Follow it on Facebook and Twitter or visit WhoWhatWhy.com
New Gingrich Speaking at CPAC 2011. Flicker / Gage Skidmore
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily.
by Chisda Magid
A recent political debacle over Obama’s recess appointments raises a fascinating constitutional question and highlights the troubling, aggressive relationship that has developed between the President and Congressional Republicans. This case offers an opportunity to also examine the behavior of Congressional Republicans and the party’s Presidential candidates.
Newt Gingrich has suggested that Republicans should prevent any further funding of the Labor Relations Board (LRB) and Consumer Protection Agency Bureau (CPAB) in response to Barack Obama’s recess appointments to these bodies. (A Recess appointment is when the President appoints an individual, on a temporary basis, while Congress is not in session thereby avoiding the need for Senate confirmation.) Congressional Republicans have already been trying to employ Gingrich’s suggested tactic of financial strangulation against the CPAB that was established as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Republicans roundly scorn. Senate Republicans have also filibustered any nominee to head the CPAB. While the other Republican candidates have not openly backed Gingrich’s idea, they have all condemned Obama for executive overreach and discussed the possibility of legal action. While hyperbolic, Republican complaints raise legitimate constitutional concerns about some of the specifics of this incident, they do not acknowledge the Republican role in motivating Obama’s bureaucratic maneuvering. Obama initially threatened the recess appointment for the head of the CPAB after Senate Republicans filibustered the motion to vote on that nominee or any other nominee to head that agency.
Republicans have inverted the concept of the power of the purse, which refers the Congress’s authority to apportion all government spending. By only preventing action rather than passing legislation to dictate federal spending, Republicans are holding the purse hostage to achieve their aims. Congress normally passes legislation to determine the distribution of funds. However in this case Republicans are preventing the passage of funding legislation – through inaction in the house or filibuster in the Senate – to destroy Congressionally established agencies. Republicans are intentionally paralyzing Congress because they do not have the votes to legislatively eliminate the LBR or the CPAB. They have deftly and effectively manipulated the rules of the Senate, but this tendency towards stubborn and aggressive bureaucratic manipulation cannot be a governing strategy. Obama was forced to make an unprecedented and perhaps unconstitutional move to do something as simple as appoint members to government agencies.
On January 4th Obama circumvented Republican efforts to eliminate the CPAB and the LBR, which Republicans have long scorned for its “pro-union bias.” House Republicans sought to modify a strategy used effectively by Harry Reid starting in November of 2007 to prevent George Bush from installing recess appointments that the Senate was refusing to approve. Reid held pro forma sessions – “a brief meeting of the Senate…in which no business is conducted” – so that no Congressional recess would be longer than three days. Many scholars believe that three days is the minimum length recess during which a president may make a recess appointment. The constitutional question did not arise in the Bush-Reid case because Bush did not try to make a recess appointment between pro forma sessions, which is precisely what Obama recently did.
House Republicans had refused to pass a senate motion to adjourn for recess, forcing the Senate to convene, as occurred in 2007, at least every three days throughout the winter break, theoretically preventing any recess appointments. The White House argued that those pro forma sessions do not count since no business is conducted. So, despite Congress’s failure to pass the motion to recess, the administration argues, Congress is not in session. White House and Congressional bureaucratic maneuvering is creating a growing antagonism between them, as well as an environment that encourages both to seek new constitutional ground to outdo the other. It is unclear whether Republicans will press Obama on the legality of the recess appointments, risking a constitutional crisis that will almost certainly need to be resolved by the courts. If congressional Republicans sustain their stubborn approach to governing, some sort of crisis will surely arise.
The constitutional language that establishes the executive authority to make recess appointments – Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution – is unclear enough that Republicans will likely hesitate before risking a public defeat to Obama in court. While Gingrich’s strategic alignment with the most confrontational elements in the GOP makes the prospect of his presidency particularly troubling, the prevalence of this obstructionist approach likely means that any Republican administration would be beholden to this radical constituency.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter, sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily.
When I first heard about Congress adding a provision to a Defense Authorization bill that would allow for the U.S. MILITARY to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, without trial, just for being suspected of supporting anyone who was “engaged in hostilities against the United States,” I assumed it was just the work of some whacky right-winger who knew that the language didn’t have a chance of surviving the first round of mark-ups in conference committee. When the Senate and House overwhelmingly voted for the bill, with the President signing it in the dead of night when no one was looking, it struck me that something very strange was happening, and so far, no one has offered a serious explanation of why this bill came to be and is now law.
My friend Ray McGovern (former presidential CIA briefer among other things) wrote about this strange new law today in Common Dreams, saying:
Under the law, the president also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion – and it is “suspicion” because a trial can be avoided indefinitely.
Ray and I share much in common, including both of us having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In his article, Ray points out something that I hadn’t thought of. Our oaths of office have no expiration date. Just because we both moved on from our military lives to civilian lives (or in Ray’s case from military to CIA to civilian), the oath still stands. So with that oath in mind, I have a question to ask. Without exposing any military secrets from my past, I’ll use the acronym WTFO? (What the F**&, Over?)
What could possibly have caused even some of the most liberal and conservative of members of Congress to vote for such sweeping power, handed to whoever happens to be president, for as long as “the long war” (as the Pentagon supposedly calls it), continues? Since we fought a revolutionary war against England for, among other things, allowing the military to trash the lives of civilians, it has been clear that the United States military can not and should not have the power to arrest American citizens, on American soil, and disappear them to places like Guantanamo Bay forever.
What terrible and frightful scenario is going on at this very moment that caused an unholy trinity of Republicans, Democrats and the President to literally trash the Constitution and 200 years of successful separation of military and civilian authority?
Somewhere, I suspect, there’s at least one American citizen already being held by U.S. military forces, whom they suspect of being involved in something so horrible that they have to keep him or her locked up while they try to unravel the mess that he or she is involved with. And… if the past is any teacher, that American probably worked for the U.S. military, some American contractor, or the CIA before becoming an enemy of the state. The president must have called key members of Congress into his office and told them the story, showed them horrifying pictures, and told them he needed the authority to do whatever it was he wanted to do or the world as we know it would end.
If this, or something like it, wasn’t the case, why are we not hearing howling from the rooftops over this absolutely unconstitutional and dangerous law? Sure, John Stewart is talking about it, but I’m beginning to agree with my husband who sees John Stewart as part of the “Dilbertization” of America. Dilbert allows people who work in corporations to laugh at the absurd and life-sucking practices of their overpaid and incompetent taskmasters. Laughter is much less a threat than revolution, so laugh away little drones! Now John Stewart gets Americans to laugh at the absurd and liberty-sucking practices of our overpaid, pampered, and incompetent government rulers. Haha. The president just signed away our right to a trial by a jury of our peers. Hahahahaha John Stewart is using a sock puppet that looks like Nancy Pelosi! Oh darn I spilled my soda I laughed so hard.
Ray McGovern is having none of that soda though. He’s wondering when Americans will get off the couch and rise up.
What about us? Can we not get up from our armchairs and do what we can to insist that those liberties be protected? How have we reached such a pass? Have we grown so inured to the repetition from our leaders, including both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, that keeping us “safe” is their first priority, that we have forgotten that the Founders risked everything for liberty, not for “safety”?
Madison already knew far too well what could pose the greatest danger to the Constitution. He recognized the inevitable effects on our liberties of “continual warfare” of the kind we have been waging for more than a decade now:
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” [Or put in today's parlance, the 99 percent under the boot of the one percent.]
“The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
I’m with Madison and McGovern and I’m not laughing. This isn’t funny. This law is, if I may be not overly dramatic, treasonous. Congress and the President have violated their oaths of office by writing and signing this law. If the United States military is holding a U.S. citizen in military custody and has not allowed that person to have a civilian lawyer and access to a civilian court, members of the military involved in that imprisonment have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are committing treason.
Someone needs to speak up. Someone needs to expose whatever dirty secret the President and Congress are keeping. There’s a new Pentagon Papers out there. All we need is a Daniel Ellsberg.
What can we do? This goes beyond letter-writing. We need to go to our representative’s offices and demand a meeting, asking for an explanation of why this language was inserted into the appropriations bill and why it remained there.
Click here to see how your representative voted.
Even if your representative voted no, you need to meet with them to ask what they’re going to do about it. We need to demand that this stain on the bill of rights be erased, quickly. While I don’t agree with the concept of “American Exceptionalism” I will say that we are unique in our history of standing for freedom, even at the risk of our safety. Today, however, we’re laughing our way into the gulag. This is a time when whoever your representative is, he or she needs to be told that we are not a Dilbert/Stewart country. We’re not laughing any more. This is not funny.
Click here to read Ray McGovern’s powerful message on Common Dreams.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter, sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
#1 NORML Sues to Halt Government’s Prosecution of Medical Cannabis Providers
In October, the United States Deputy Attorney General, along with the four US Attorneys from California, announced their intentions to escalate federal efforts targeting the state’s medical cannabis dispensaries and providers. In response, members of the NORML Legal Committee filed suit in November against the federal government arguing that its actions were in violation of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Plaintiffs further argued, using the theory of judicial estoppel, that the Justice Department had previously affirmed in federal court that it would no longer use federal resources to prosecute cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law. NORML’s lawsuit remains pending. Read the full story here.
#2 Members of Congress Introduce First Bill Since 1937 to Legalize Cannabis
House lawmakers introduced legislation in Congress in June to end the federal criminalization of the personal use of marijuana. The bipartisan measure – HR 2306, the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011′ – prohibits the federal government from prosecuting adults who use or possess cannabis by removing the plant and its primary psychoactive constituent, THC, from the five schedules of the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The bill awaits Congressional action. Read the full story here.
#3 Gallup: Majority of Americans Support Legalizing Cannabis
A record 50 percent of Americans now believe that marijuana ought to be legalized for adult use, according to a nationwide Gallup poll of 1,005 adults published in October. The 2011 survey results mark the first time ever that Gallup has reported that more Americans support legalizing cannabis (50 percent) than oppose it (46 percent). Read the full story here.
#4 Over One Million Americans Now Use Cannabis Legally Under State Law
Between one million to one-and-a-half million US citizens are legally authorized by the laws of their state to use marijuana, according to data compiled in May by NORML from state medical marijuana registries and patient estimates. Read the full story here.
#5 Marijuana Prosecutions For 2010 Near Record High
Police made 853,838 arrests in 2010 for marijuana-related offenses according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released in September. The annual arrest total is among the highest ever reported by the agency. Marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (52 percent) of all drug arrests in the United States. Read the full story here.
#6 Largest State Doctors Association Calls For Legalizing Cannabis
The California Medical Association in October called for the “legalization and regulation” of cannabis for adults. The association, which represents some 35,000 physicians, recommends that cannabis be taxed and regulated “in a manner similar to alcohol.” Read the full story here.
#7 Connecticut Decriminalizes Cannabis Possession Offenses
Statewide legislation took effect in July reducing the penalties for the adult possession of up to one-half ounce of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor (formerly punishable by one year in jail and a $1,000 fine) to a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a $150 fine, no arrest or jail time, and no criminal record. Read the full story here.
#8 Vaporized Cannabis Augments Analgesic Effect of Opiates in Humans
Vaporized cannabis significantly augments the analgesic effects of opiates in patients with chronic pain, according to clinical trial data published online in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics in November. Investigators surmised that cannabis-specific interventions “may allow for opioid treatment at lower doses with fewer [patient] side effects.” Read the full story here.
#9 State Governors Call on Obama Administration to Reclassify Cannabis
In December, governors from Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington formally requested the Obama administration to reclassify cannabis under federal law in a manner that would allow states to regulate its therapeutic use without federal interference. The administration in July had previously rejected a nine-year-old petition calling on the agency to initiate hearings to reassess the present classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance without any ‘accepted medical use in treatment.’ Read the full story here.
#10 Delaware Becomes 16th State to Legalize Limited Medical Use of Marijuana
State lawmakers in May approved legislation to allow patients with a qualifying illness may legally possess up to six ounces of cannabis, provided the cannabis is obtained from a state-licensed, not-for-profit ‘compassion center.’ The law is anticipated to be implemented in 2012. Read the full story here.
Cross-posted from Tikkun Daily.
How has it come to this? How is it possible that President Obama will be the one to codify, for the first time since the McCarthy era, the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens?
I will get to the answer. However, first, let me defend the title of this post by making clear that the revised National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) set to be signed by Obama – called “an astonishing attack on our civil liberties” by Sam Seder – indeed legislatively grants the U.S. military the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on American soil without a trial or charge.
While this codified detention authority is intended to be used on terror suspects, the categories of those who can be detained are so slippery and amorphous that they could, in the future, be potentially applied to anyone.
Donny Shaw at OpenCongress offers an analysis I wholly support:
The language of the bill authorizes indefinite military detention without trial for anyone who has “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The key phrases there – “substantial support,” “associated forces,” “hostilities” – lay the groundwork for the military’s detention power to be extended beyond al-Qaeda and the Taliban to anyone providing support for potentially any group that is hostile towards the U.S., domestic or abroad. For example, if a lone-wolf domestic terrorist claimed allegiance to an activist group or cause, nothing in this prevents the military from labeling the entire group “hostile” and using this power to detain them without trial. And the consistent over reactions to social uprisings of the increasingly militarized police forces across the U.S. does not help assuage concerns that this language could be used to justify cracking down on legitimate, constitutionally protected political action.
The most concerning phrase, for me, is “associated forces.” Who is to say that Occupy Wall Street protesters – joined by people “associated” with those who “support” a terror organization – could not be lumped, wholesale, under this authority?
It’s not like militarized police forces across this country aren’t practically simulating this authority by arresting and detaining U.S. citizens, without charge, for merely engaging in nonviolent, anti-corporate protests. It’s not like an independent journalist, John Knefel, wasn’t just this week held for 37 hours, without charge, by the NYPD for Tweeting during an Occupy Wall Street protest.
And it’s not just the protesters. Police across this country continue to suppress journalists’ First Amendment rights by preventing them from covering these pseudo detentions.
Perhaps it’s because such journalists are being viewed as “associated” with the protesters in so much as they are a vehicle through which their messages, and experienced abuses, can be transmitted.
See how that works?
—–§—–
Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, in condemning President Obama’s plan to sign NDAA into law, noted the following historical anecdote:
In the 1950s, President Truman was faced with the Internal Security Act, a McCarthy production which authorized the detention of Communists and “subversives” without due process. What did Truman do? He said it would “make a mockery of the Bill of Rights” and vetoed it. (The veto was overridden, and the powers enshrined were eventually repealed in 1971.)
And so we turn to President Obama, a president who is poised to champion powers similar to those Truman rejected.
How did we get here?
As Glenn Greenwald (and others) have cogently explained, this legislation is merely codifying powers President Obama believes he already has at his disposal. Here’s Greenwald:
…while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill.
—–§—–
I feel this country I love slowly slipping from my fingers. Which is an illusion, really, for it was never within my grasp in the first place.
The expansion of state powers broadened during the Bush era, powers ripe for civil liberty abuses, are being codified by a President who once campaigned against the very practices now being embraced.
The expansion of unchecked police powers – of unconstitutional and illegal First Amendment violations – are being witnessed in our public parks and urban streets with little or no recourse (though suits are being filed).
I feel extracted. I feel as though the rights I have as a citizen to petition the government, to oppose the government, are being extracted. I feel as though the corporate, financial conglomerates and the military industrial complexes are extracting not just my personal capital (taxes), but my very American soul.
And I refuse to have everything be taken without a fight.
—–§—–
Follow the author – David Harris-Gershon – on Twitter @David_EHG.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter, sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Nothing says fun and festive like the Heritage Foundation, which sponsored Tuesday night’s CNN GOP Obama-bash fest. But despite all the good feeling flowing about bombing Iranians and expelling Mexicans, the event lacked the warm fuzzy feeling that oozed out of last Saturday’s Family Leader Thanksgiving debate. Since the liberal media refused to show this tender face of the GOP on national television (the event was only streamed on-line), most Americans missed out. Specifically, they were deprived of
1) A lovely Thanksgiving spread replete with pumpkins, gourds, and what looked like some sort of Thanksgiving Nativity.
2) The tears of tough, law and order candidates whose sympathy has been understandably depleted and spent on themselves.
3) Frank Luntz’s incredible performance as a Christian. Luntz, a Jew, moderated the 
event — in which Christian candidates, seated at a table in a church, waxed poetic on their Christian faith, recounted finding Jesus, and lamented those who hadn’t — as if he’d spenthis entire life going to Church and not synagogue. Luntz himself is quick to judge other Jews, telling, for example, liberal Jewish American parents “You have let your children down. By your religious liberalism, you have done more to destroy a religion than any suicide bomber, any politician or anyone filled with hate ever could. Shame on you.” But I guess passing as a Christian and enabling Christians who consider Jews, at best, “imperfect“, is kosher in Luntz’s reading of the Torah.
4) Michele Bachmann “submitting to/ respecting” the men by walking around the table and serving each of the a glass of water.
5) Christian rockers David Bush & Michael O’Brien’s incredibly moving “(Jesus, We Need You) More than Ever” music video, which was screened before the debate and set a wonderfully Christian tone. The song is brilliant in form and content, opening with a snippet of “America the Beautiful” done in the “Penny for Your Thoughts” musical style featured in Waiting for Guffman.
The good news is that you and your family can spend Thanksgiving watching the Thanksgiving-themed debate. It’s the perfect family activity.
The “More than Ever” video will surely be the entertainment center-piece of your holiday gathering, but it will be the moral center-piece as well, informed as it is by the teachings of Jesus Christ. In the tradition of Christian parables, the video refuses to hit viewers on the head with its meanings or spoon feed its messages. Rather, it challenges the viewer with to analyze and deconstruct it. To help friends and family and yourself get the most of the subtle work of art, I present the following viewing guide. The words in italics are the lyrics of the song, which are visually featured during the video, to re-enforce the urgent message. This was an aesthetic choice, and in no way an endorsement of closed captioning or the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which coddle our disabled, (who would otherwise most likely grow out of their disabilities) and make us less free and less safe! The words In plain font describe the images that accompany the lyrics.
Print out copies for your guests to help them capture the depth, nuance and beauty of what is sure to become an American classic.
[instrumental opening to America the Beautiful" and pan up on rugged patchwork quilt of images featuring words "More than Ever," an image of David Bush and Michael O Brien, and text saying "David Bush" and "Michael Brien" suggesting to the viewer that these two men are responsible for the song you are about to enjoy which is called "More than Ever". The particular image of David Bush emphasizes his resemblance to John Ashcroft, another gifted Christian singer and songwriter ]
fade in text* A land without a conscience
An image of a poster of Chinese Communist and shirt fashion inspirer Mao Zedong, suggesting the soullessness that characterizes the atheist Marxist dictatorships of Chairman Mao and “President” Obama.
An image of a dry crop, suggesting a lack of prospering, lack of growth, lack of life, lack of fecundity. Also suggesting a lack of hopeof prospering, growth etc. The image makes the viewer long for the fertile, prosperous times of yore, when cotton plants were a’bloomin’, and a’ripe for a’pickin’, and all people, black and white, owner and owned, whole person and 3/5ths, shared (in some way or another) hope and prosperity.
Can only pay a toll
An image of a store front with a “Sorry, we’re closed sign” and a gate suggesting that the store is both closed and sorry to be in said closed state. This suggests a bad economy and the fact that we are paying a price even though, ironically, we are unable to pay for anything since when a store is closed there is nothing you can pay for. And even if the store were stocked, it would be closed and impossible to open. Very meta.
We’ve lost our sense of justice
An image of Lady Justice. The video is more overt here, since the viewer needs a break from decoding the past 4 images.]
An image of Supreme Court. This suggests the theme of Justice reflected above. This is for anyone who missed the above, either because they went to the bathroom or don’t recognize Lady Justice, who, for good reason and under John Ashcroft’s watchful eye, is less visible than she used to be.
Jesus, we need You more than ever An image of an inter-racial crowd of people walking down the street. Some of the faces are blurry, all are sad or Maoistly soul-less, suggesting our blurred identities, confusion, and just how much we need Jesus.
today
An image of a white yet sultry and exotic young woman, maybe even Italian, with tears running down her cheek. Her eye make up slightly smeared probably because she was tarted up and thus provoked some kind of attack. Her tears suggest urgency and how we need Jesus not next week, not tomorrow… but… today!.
CHORUS
Come be my King
An image of a silhouette of a man praying at a huge cross who may or may not be Tim Tebow, suggesting how we “bow” (get it?) to our King, the lord Jesus Christ.
And heal a land
An image of an icy window across which it is written “Trust Jesus” presumable by some one’s finger, suggesting that if we trust Jesus we will be healed and if we have lost mobility in our hand or are illiterate, Jesus will heal us and allow us to move our hand and write things like “trust Jesus.”
A sad woman sits in the forefront with a mardi gras scene in the background suggesting that mardi gras (which was one of the factors — if not THE cause — responsible for Hurricane Katrina), as well as other rainbow-themed events, such as pride parades, bring with them sadness and darkness.
Come turn our hearts to you
a little child praying suggesting this as a possible turning-our-hearts-to-Jesus activity.
a light that never fades away
A lighthouse suggesting a house that emits light. This light will never fade away.
Oh Jesus we need you more than ever today
a sad woman sits on a bench with her face in her hand. Unlike the tarted up woman from earlier in the video, this woman is dressed conservatively and she is wearing a wedding ring, suggesting that she is not a whore but a baby killer. This baby killer is upset and she needs Jesus really bad.
A calling to repentance
A man holding a holy bible up in the air suggesting that he is, in fact, calling to repentance
Is hard to realize
a man is covering his ears suggesting that he is in a state in which it is hard to realize something, or anything, quite frankly, because he literally CANNOT hear and hearing something is required for realizing something!
be arrested, while a more extreme Perry suggests that Bernanke be tried for treason and, for his own safety, never come to Texas.[In the interest of time and pedagogy, I leave the rest of the video to you and your guests. By now you should be able to deconstruct the video's meaning. Some images, like a man on his knees, and a building which says CHRISTIAN CHURCH should be easy or easier by now. But the following image is especially challenging, so I'll take the liberty of helping you break it down.]
Why wait until Christmas (Frank, that’s Christian speak for Chanukah) to celebrate the birth of our lord. Why not take the opportunity to turn to Him now. Because, like the song says, we need him more than ever… today. On Thanksgiving and every day, bow your head in thanks that we live in a Christian nation, whose values are unsullied by the Enlightenment and other modernistic perversions of faith.
*fade ins and cross fades used in every transition.
Alcohol consumption causes far greater harms to the individual user and to society than does the use of cannabis, according to a new review published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, the journal of the British Association of Psychopharmacology.
Investigators at the Imperial College of London assessed “the relative physical, psychological, and social harms of cannabis and alcohol.” Authors reported that cannabis inhalation, particularly long-term, contributes to some potential adverse health effects, including harms to the lungs, circulatory system, as well as the exacerbation of certain mental health risks. By contrast, authors described alcohol as “ a toxic substance” that is responsible for nearly five percent “of the total global disease burden.”
Researchers determined, “A direct comparison of alcohol and cannabis showed that alcohol was considered to be more than twice as harmful as cannabis to [individual] users, and five times more harmful as cannabis to others (society). … As there are few areas of harm that each drug can produce where cannabis scores more [dangerous to health] than alcohol, we suggest that even if there were no legal impediment to cannabis use, it would be unlikely to be more harmful than alcohol.”
They concluded, “The findings underline the need for a coherent, evidence-based drugs policy that enables individuals to make informed decisions about the consequences of their drug use.”
The researchers’ findings should hardly come as a revelation. Last week, a just-published study that was completely ignored by the mainstream media reported that alcohol consumption increased lung cancer risk by 30 percent.
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. After all, a February 2011 World Health Organization report concluded that alcohol consumption causes a staggering four percent of all deaths worldwide, more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence. A just-published analysis in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that in the United States alone, an estimated 79,000 lives are lost annually due to excessive drinking. The study further estimates that the overall economic cost of excessive drinking by Americans is $223.5 billion annually.
Naturally, any health costs related to cannabis use pale in comparison. A 2009 review published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal estimated that health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers of alcoholic beverages than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers. “In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user,” investigators concluded.
In an op/ed I wrote last year entitled “Pot Versus Alcohol: Experts Say Booze Is the Bigger Danger,” I cited the findings of numerous independent commissions, all of which pronounced that the risks of marijuana were nominal compared to those associated with booze. You can read these findings here and much of this evidence is discussed in even greater detail in my book, Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?
Nevertheless, despite its enormous societal toll, alcohol remains celebrated in this country — American Craft Beer Week is now endorsed by the U.S. Congress — while cannabis remains arbitrarily criminalized and demonized. It’s a situation illogical enough to drive most anyone to drink.
Cross-posted from Tikkun Daily.
by Stephen Zunes
During the Bush administration, I wrote more than a dozen annotated critiques of presidential speeches. I have refrained from doing so under President Barack Obama, however, because – despite a number of disappointments with his administration’s policies — I found his speeches to be relatively reasonable. Although his September 21 address before the UN General Assembly contained a number of positive elements, in many ways it also contained many of the same kind of duplicitous and misleading statements one would have expected from his predecessor. Below are some excerpts, followed by my comments.
On Palestinian Statehood and Middle East Peace:
Obama at the U.N.
One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences… It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
Obama’s stated support for the establishment of a Palestinian state based roughly on Israel’s pre-1967 borders is far more explicit than that of any previous president, subjecting him to harsh criticism from both Republicans as well as a number of Congressional Democrats. However, given that the Palestine Authority has already “provided assurances” for Israel’s security by agreeing to, as part of a final peace settlement,an internationally supervised disarming of any and all irregular militias, a demilitarization of their state, and the banning of hostile forces from their territories, only to be met by Netanyahu’s continued refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories, it raises questions as to why Obama implied that both sides needed to “bridge their differences.” READ FULL POST
Last month NORML posted a letter from Tennessee Congressman Steven Cohen — co-sponsor of HR 2306: The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 — to Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, which called upon the Obama administration to support changing cannabis’ status as a schedule I prohibited drug and to respect the laws of states that have legalized it for its medical utility.
“We should not deny the thousands of Americans who rely on the benefits that marijuana provides,” Cohen wrote. “There is no evidence that marijuana has the same addictive qualities or damaging consequences as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine and should not be treated as such.”
On Monday, October 3, Drug Czar Kerlikowske responded to Rep. Cohen. In his reply, summarized here, Kerlikowske alleged that the Congressman’s concerns regarding the federal scheduling of cannabis are unwarranted because, “We ardently support research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine.”
Kerlikowske added, “In fact, the federal government is the largest source of funding for research into the potential therapeutic benefits of marijuana, and every valid request for the use of marijuana for research has been approved by the Drug Enforcement Administration.”
Really? So how does the Drug Czar explain this headline — from Saturday’s edition of The Washington Post?
Marijuana study of traumatized veterans stuck in regulatory limbo
Getting pot on the street is easy. Just ask the 17 million Americans who smoked the federally illegal drug in 2010.
Obtaining weed from the government? That’s a lot harder.
In April, the Food and Drug Administration approved a first-of-its kind study to test whether marijuana can ease the nightmares, insomnia, anxiety and flashbacks common in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.
But now another branch of the federal government has stymied the study. The Health and Human Services Department is refusing to sell government-grown marijuana to the nonprofit group proposing the research, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies.
That’s right, the Drug Czar is claiming that the federal government ‘ardently supports’ medical marijuana research just days after the US government formally denied a request for an FDA-approved clinical trial to assess cannabis’ therapeutic safety and efficacy.
Wait, it gets worse. The ugly truth is that the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that oversees 85 percent of the world’s research on controlled substances, is on record stating that its institutional policy is to reject any and all medical marijuana research. “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use,” a NIDA spokesperson told The New York Times in 2010. “We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
For once a government agency was telling the truth regarding cannabis. NIDA categorically does not support such research — despite the Obama administration in 2010 publicly issuing its “Scientific Integrity” memorandum stating, “Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration.”
That is why an online search of ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword “cannabinoids” yields only six studies (two of which have already been completed) worldwide involving subjects’ use of actual cannabis despite hundreds of favorable preclinical and observational studies clearly demonstrating its benefit.
Just how blatant is Kerlikowske’s latest lie? Consider this. According to the White House’s 2011 National Drug Control Strategy, released in July, only fourteen researchers in the United States are legally permitted to conduct research assessing the effect of inhaled cannabis in human subjects. That’s right, only fourteen! And even among this absurdly limited group of investigators, most are involved in research to assess the drug’s “abuse potential, physical/psychological effects, [and] adverse effects.” So says the White House.
Ardent support for medical marijuana research? Please Gil, don’t make us laugh.
Cross-posted from Tikkun Daily.
by Be Scofield
On Thursday, Sept. 29th over 1,000 people marched in San Francisco to voice their frustration against the corrupt financial institutions that have been harming the lives of millions. It was the latest effort in what is a quickly spreading movement. While New York is the largest, there are Occupy movements cropping up in every city – Chicago, Miami, Seattle, LA, Boston and Reno just to name a few.
For those who missed it, the SF march was energetic and filled with passionate, yet frustrated voices. Marching from the former Bank of America headquarters on California street, the group staged a massive picket in front of Charles Schwab. Some entered the lobby while many more tried to push their way in. One protester stood inside with a sign that said “revolution is beautiful.”
After leaving a lasting impression at Charles Schwab the group headed to Chase bank on Market street. Six people were able to get inside the bank and do a sit in, while others filled the entry way lobby in support. The police prevented any more people from entering the bank. Outside, the massive crowd cheered for those inside, “Let our people go, arrest the CEO.” Life sized cardboard images of Chase CEO Jamie Dimon were set against the backdrop of the bank. All six members inside were arrested and cited and then released out a side entrance to cheers and excitement from the crowd.
This is YOUR Movement
The Occupy SF movement needs your help. There are currently people camping out in front of the Federal Reserve in downtown San Francisco at 101 Market Street (near Drumm). They’ll be there every day and every night and they need supplies. The most pressing needs are food, water, blankets, batteries (C&D), disposable phones with minutes and rain gear. Please join them on the streets, even if it is just for a few hours of moral support. Camp out with them if you can. Do what you can to spread the word.
The SF movement began on Sept. 17th, just like the New York one did. People have been camping out since, first near Justin Herman Plaza but now in front of the Federal Reserve building. Right now the movement is in its early stages, but after the large protest yesterday the numbers are quickly increasing. They need people! Do you have something you can contribute? Media skills? Organizing experience? Civil Disobedience training? Can you bring them food? There is no well financed non-profit organization that is calling the shots. It is up to the people, that means you and I, to make a difference!
Here are the logistics:
General Assembly every day at 6pm in front of Federal Reserve building (101 Market St.)
Large meeting Saturdays at 12noon in Union Square.
www.occupysf.com – occupysanfrancisco[at]gmail.com
Photos from Occupy SF
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter, sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
