The Revolution Will Not be Televised

[John Dolva]

Peace implies a degree of unity, satisfaction and tolerance that, should it be achieved, will destroy one of the fundamental driving force of capitalism- inequality and disunity.

Equality and democracy are not in the interest of capital. A divided world struggling for it is.

War on horror has replaced the war on red lunatics, bent on nuclear holocaust, lurking around under beds.

Where there is no conflict it is sought, nurtured and even instigated.

The dissociated psychopathy and sociopathy of der leaders of the free world are the greatest stumbling blocks to a good nights sleep. Unfortunately they are unlikely to retire to a sanitorum for rehabilitation and will need help. The first step is to remove them from the reach of all buttons. The primary means to achieve this is probably at the moment the ballot box. One needs to be prepepared howver to defend the results of a fair vote. Some conflict may ensue, however a cool mature leadership in civil defence should make the transition possible.

[Robert Howard]

Have some of you folks forgotten the posts of about a week ago, in which Tom Purvis--and others--claimed that, unless the US had an actual combat situation into which to send its soldiers, their commanders would be inept?

And so it was that 9/11 occurred, and then Afghanistan, and then Iraq...if you follow their logic, these events were necessary in order to prevent our military leadership from being inept in the event of an "actual" combat situation. The events of 9/11, then, rather than being the tragedy they were, are then transformed into something fortuitous, a lucky accident that allows us to train better military leaders, and due to 9/11, to do so with the 100% backing of the American people.

So, extending this logic forward, America must ALWAYS be at war if there is ever to be a hope of peace. War is peace, peace is war. And George Orwell was a prophet.

In the history of the world some of the most profoundly important events took place with little or no fanfare at all. I will submit that March 9, 2006 is such a date. Why?

Because the 'Patriot Act' was signed into law today, with two votes more than was necessary. For all the rhetoric and media ostensibly waking up to the nightmarish specter of the sword of Damocles, the Democratic Party jumped on the bandwagon, to 'protect us from the terrorists.'

For those who have more than a passing notice in this historic moment, you might read the Reuters article.

below.

"Bush signs Patriot Act renewal By Matt Spetalnick

2 hours, 47 minutes ago

President George W. Bush signed a renewal of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday, hailing it as vital to the war on terrorism, but a key congressional critic said it lacked adequate safeguards for civil liberties.

Passage had been blocked for months by a battle with Congress over how to balance Americans' right to privacy with a need to foil security threats in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks that gave rise to the original Patriot Act.

The White House won approval from lawmakers after agreeing to revisions along with a companion bill that sponsors said would better protect civil liberties under the act.

The fight came down to the wire, with the bill reaching Bush's desk as 16 major provisions of the old law were due to expire on Friday.

The White House signing ceremony came against the backdrop of a move to end a political firestorm over Bush's support for a state-owned Arab company taking over U.S. port operations.

Dubai Ports World pledged on Thursday to transfer operation of six U.S. port terminals to a U.S. entity, a move the White House said should settle the controversy surrounding the deal.

Critics had pointed to the contrast between Bush's hawkish stance in his push for the Patriot Act's extension and what they saw as a lax view of security risks in the ports deal.

Enacted shortly after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Patriot Act expanded powers to obtain private records, conduct wiretaps and searches and share information. Critics said it went too far in infringing on basic rights.

Saying that "America remains a nation at war," Bush called renewal of the act essential. "It will improve our nation's security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people," he said.

Bush's signature made 14 of the Patriot Act's provisions permanent and extended two others by four years. He said renewal allowed law enforcement to continue "pursuing terrorists with the same tools they use against other criminals."

'DEEPLY FLAWED'

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of Wisconsin, who led opposition to renewal, called the bill "deeply flawed."

"Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens," he said in a statement.

Feingold vowed to continue efforts to enact more safeguards on civil liberties.

Addressing Republicans in Georgia later on Thursday, Bush defended his administration's controversial program of domestic spying, saying it had been limited in scope and aimed at eavesdropping on al Qaeda operatives.

Bush, whose approval ratings have been hovering near the lows for his presidency, pressed national security as a key theme for his party in this election year, saying that "our biggest job" was to protect Americans against threats.

Republicans seeking to polish their national security credentials before November's midterm congressional elections said renewal of the Patriot Act was needed to help law enforcement agencies protect America from further attacks.

Legislation had been held up by Democrats and a few Republicans who demanded greater assurances on rights. A compromise won final congressional approval on Tuesday.

One change clarifies that libraries will not be subjected to federal subpoenas issued without the approval of a judge. Another removes a proposed requirement that recipients of such subpoenas provide the FBI with the names of their lawyers.

A third allows individuals to challenge gag orders when they have been subpoenaed to produce personal information. They would have to wait a year to do so.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in College Park, Georgia, and Thomas Ferraro in Washington)"

I suppose some of the comments in the article (which concievably give merit to my assertions) may give me hope that I will not be considered an 'enemy of the state.' To be honest, I really do not care.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

CHILLING, utterly utterly CHILLING. "Why Grandmother what big teeth you have."

Edited March 10, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I think that one can indeed say that the Kerry campaign of 2004 was a "fix".

It just depends on how you perceive the fix: as a personal fix, or a more institutional one.

Right now the Democrats run what I call a 51% strategy. By this I mean that they have essentially incorporated all of the assumptions of our far right, extremist regime, or at least has chosen to not

challenge them head on. The reason the Hillary and the Neveda Sphinx seem to lack ovaries, has nothing

to do with personality, or individual character.

Its the corporations, silly. It has now been twenty years since Tony Coehlo embarked on a deliberalte campaign to make the Dems more amenable to K street. (Of course it was the Dem Cngress that had undermined Carter's progressive campaign reform proposals of the 76-78 period) Soon the DLC was formed to embody this more purely corporate wing of the party at the executive level.

Corporate power is now as strong in the Democratic party as it is in the Republican. Therefor the challenge of the Dem candidate is TO WIN WITHOUT A MANDATE FOR CHANGE--i.e. the 51% campaign: " I would have supported the invasion of Iraq, even had I known that he had no wapons of mass destruction," as Kerry said

to a nation trained to think "this guy is the opposite of Bush"

If they win without a mandate of change then they can simply pick up the winners share of the corporate slush fund. Lose? No problem, Kerry and the Dems raised 500 million last year to not have the name Bush.

This was their only clear platform.

The corporate media tell us again and again that the DLC-51% strategy is "pragmatic" and this realism makes them electable. This is an incestuous lie perpetuated by the elite media (see Adam Nagourney)

and the Dem leadership. The dems lose because the Republicans lies are clear and easily understandable.

The Democrats are paid well not to point out these lies. The public anger with Bush has been ENTIRELY IN SPITE OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. They are, if anything, Bush's prophylactic.

The Dems are in on the "fix" in that they help narrow the official debate to a much narrower range of views than are present in the body politic. Then-- by playing the corporate-scripted role as the oposite of Bush when they are really very similar-- they feed their base the illusion of democracy. Once ensconced in congress or-- if 51% of the foggy electorate pulls thier lever-- the White House they proceed to run away from their base to the right as fast as possible. Meanwhile the republican House and Senate (even though they may be the minority as in 1993) gets on TV every night and shrilly denounces the rightward running corporate dems, as lesbian loving leftists.

The Democrates choose to play by these rules. Why the heck wouldn't they, when even losing by these rules is so profitable? The fix is on! Let us reject the Coehlo-Terry McAuliffe qualude!

[Douglas Caddy]

Have some of you folks forgotten the posts of about a week ago, in which Tom Purvis--and others--claimed that, unless the US had an actual combat situation into which to send its soldiers, their commanders would be inept?

And so it was that 9/11 occurred, and then Afghanistan, and then Iraq...if you follow their logic, these events were necessary in order to prevent our military leadership from being inept in the event of an "actual" combat situation. The events of 9/11, then, rather than being the tragedy they were, are then transformed into something fortuitous, a lucky accident that allows us to train better military leaders, and due to 9/11, to do so with the 100% backing of the American people.

So, extending this logic forward, America must ALWAYS be at war if there is ever to be a hope of peace. War is peace, peace is war. And George Orwell was a prophet.

Mark Knight is correct in his analysis that for America, "war is peace, and peace is war" if U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia is to be believed:

Judicial intemperance - Scalia flips message to doubting Thomases

By Laurel J. Sweet

Monday, March 27, 2006 - Updated: 12:36 PM EST

Boston Herald

Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.

“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.

“It’s none of their business,” continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday’s Catholic Lawyers’ Guild luncheon. “This is my spiritual life. I shall lead it the way I like.”

The conduct unbecoming a 20-year veteran of the country’s highest court - and just feet from the Mother Church’s altar - was captured by a photographer for the Archdiocese of Boston newspaper The Pilot, whose publisher is newly minted Cardinal Sean O’Malley.

Although one of his sworn duties is to uphold the freedom of the press, a jocular Scalia told the shutterbug, “Don’t publish that.”

Red Mass in the South End was attended by some 600 parishioners, including former state Senate President William Bulger, but O’Malley, to Scalia’s regret, remained in Rome.

“I wanted to spend some time with him. He’s a lovely, lovely man,” said Scalia, a Reagan appointee whose wife, Maureen, mother of his nine children, grew up in Braintree. She accompanied him to church.

Newsweek is reporting Scalia told a Swiss audience recently he was “astounded” at Europe’s “hypocritical” reaction to the Bush administration’s efforts to deny civil trials to Guantanamo detainees.

“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” Scalia was quoted as saying. “Give me a break.

The notoriously media-wary Scalia just last month had a Boston man tossed for heckling him at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. In 2004, Scalia’s bodyguard confiscated a reporter’s digital recorder and erased a talk the judge had just given to a school assembly. The Justice Department later ruled the federal marshal had broken the law. In 1996, Scalia told a Baptist prayer breakfast that America was rife with enemies of Christians. In 2004, he ruffled feathers by duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney while the court was considering a case on Cheney’s energy task force.

As for what he gave up for Lent this year, Scalia was surprisingly tight-lipped and kept his hands at his sides, saying, “Christ says don’t do your penance out front. Keep it to yourself.”