Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Thurber Tonight: An encore presentation of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"

BEFORE WE FIRST MET WALTER MITTY, IN DECEMBER --



I wrote a note about Thurber's considerable displeasure with the making of the film version, in connection with the obvious connection between the fable "The Unicorn in the Garden" and his other most memorable piece of short fiction, the altogether dazzling "The Catbird Seat" -- and I included a link to the complete text of "The Catbird Seat" online.





The opening of MGM's 1947 film The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, with Danny Kaye as the intrepid fantasist and Fay Bainter as Mrs. Mitty. Thurber, who was not a fan of the film, wrote in a 1949 letter: "The trouble with the Goldwyn picture was that you could see no difference between Walter's dreams and his accomplishments."



by Ken



"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," which first appeared in The New Yorker of March 18, 1939 (and was subsequently collected in My World and Welcome to It and The Thurber Carnival), isn't anywhere near my favorite Thurber piece, but of course I love it. How could anyone not? I'm not sure Thurber ever reached more resolutely into readers' deep consciousness, nor have many other writers traveled there as confidently or fearlessly.



I've mentioned how disillusioned Thurber became during the writing of the screenplay for the film, which wound up being primarily a vehicle for Danny Kaye's broadest brand of humor (in the early stages of the project Thurber thought he might actually be a good piece of casting), a poor reflection of the author's funny and sad secret journey into these little-noted recesses of the quietly despairing everyday mind. But the film retained just enough contact to touch that secret place in a lot of moviegoers. Ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa.





TO ENTER "THE SECRET WORLD

OF WALTER MITTY," CLICK HERE






THURBER TONIGHT (including WOODY ALLEN, ROBERT BENCHLEY, BOB AND RAY, WILL CUPPY, WOLCOTT GIBBS, RING LARDNER, S. J. PERELMAN, JEAN SHEPHERD, and E. B. WHITE TONIGHT): Check out the series to date

#

DOD announces USRSF [Biff Spackle]

Biff Spackle relays this important news bulletin:

Washington, DC - This morning the Pentagon announced the formation of a new, 500-man elite fighting unit termed the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF).

These forces will be air-dropped into Afghanistan having received only the following briefing on the terrorists:

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

The Pentagon anticipates operations in Afghanistan to be complete by Wednesday.

Hat tip: Contrairimairi

Probably telecom dualopolists AT&T and Verizon now hate NYS AG Eric Schneiderman as much as the banksters do -- and the more corrupt state AGs

Iowa AG Tom Miller: He's shocked, shocked, that anyone could question his toughness with the banks after he raised hundreds of thousands of simoleons from the financial sector upon announcing his intent to "investigate" the banks, which he has done so, so hard. I bet the joke'll be on the banksters when Tom hurls all that filthy lucre back at their stinking feet! (Anytime now, Tom.)



by Ken



Before we descend to the hilarity of sleazebag of the week Tom Miller, let's make sure to get the news out -- and this is big news, regarding what was looking like an unstoppable takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. From Bloomberg:
U.S. Files to Block AT&T, T-Mobile Merger



By Tom Schoenberg, Sara Forden and Jeff Bliss - Aug 31, 2011



The U.S. Justice Department sued to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc., saying the deal would “substantially lessen competition” in the wireless market.



The government is seeking a declaration that AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile, a unit of Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE), would violate U.S. antitrust law, according to a complaint filed today in federal court in Washington. The U.S. also asked for a court order blocking implementation of the deal, the largest announced acquisition of the year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.



“I don’t see any room to settle the case,” said Bert Foer, head of the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, in an interview. “They have clearly drawn a line in the sand.”



AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson’s proposed purchase of Bellevue, Washington-based T-Mobile, announced in March, would combine the second- and fourth-largest carriers to create a new market leader ahead of No. 1 Verizon Wireless. The new company would dwarf current No. 3 carrier Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), which argued against the deal.



“AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market,” the government said in court papers. Dallas-based AT&T fell as much as 5.5 percent in New York trading after Bloomberg News broke the news of the lawsuit. . . .


Now I don't suppose the DoJ is likely to discuss how it reached the decision to intervene, but there's good reason to think that some role, and possibly a major one, was played by the office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Antitrust Bureau Chief Richard Schwartz issued a statement today saying that his boss "looks forward to reviewing the Department of Justice’s complaint to determine the best course forward on behalf of New York consumers and businesses."
Since March, Attorney General Schneiderman has played a major role in the review of the proposed AT&T, T-Mobile merger. Working in close partnership with the Department of Justice, this office has played a leadership role in a group of 26 states conducting interviews and gathering evidence central to this investigation. We have conducted numerous interviews of business enterprise customers throughout New York State and throughout the country to assess whether the merger would result in harm to competition to the business enterprise market, and closely analyzed the parties' claims that the merger would lower costs and improve service to consumers.



Attorney General Schneiderman remains particularly concerned that the proposed merger would stifle competition in markets that are crucial to New York's consumers and businesses. This includes concerns about vulnerable upstate communities, where concentration in some markets is already very high, and the impacts on New York City’s information-intensive economy, which is particularly dependent on mobile wireless services. Simply put, the impacts of this proposed merger on wireless competition, economic growth, and technological innovation could be enormous.
(The release notes that Schneiderman announced in March "that this office would conduct a comprehensive review of the proposed merger.")



It comes as something of a surprise to think that there are people with decision-making authority in the DoJ who might actually be listening to AG Schneiderman. The last we heard, he was being kicked off of the the coalition of state AGs' executive committee that's been exploring some sort of settlement with the big banks over their conduct in the collapsed mortgage industry, presumably out of pique over Schneiderman's outspoken opposition to the proposed "settlement," whereby the banksters would kick in some cash in exchange for being relieved of pretty much any further liability -- allowing them, in other words, to "move on" rather than being forced forever to "look back."



Which is apparently how we address all major problems in the 21st century. We just move on



To be sure, Schneiderman isn't alone among the state AGs. There's a small but hardy band (necessarily hardy, considering how they're regarded by most of their fellows) who also take their oath of office seriously. That number emphatically doesn't include the Big Cheese of the state AGs, Iowa's Tom Miller, the man who masterminded the "settlement" and the man who apparently gave Schneiderman the boot.



Miller meanwhile is feeling aggrieved. His longtime sidekick, Assistant AG Patrick Madigan, whined:
We’ve been accused of being in bed with the banks. To say that to a group of people who have spent the last seven to 10 years fighting mortgage abuses day in and day out is an insult of the highest order. It's just unreal.


Yeah, Pat, an insult of the highest order. Just unreal. I expect you and Tom were really insulted by the unreal Taibblog post Matt Taibbi wrote back in April, titled "Best Way to Raise Campaign Money? Investigate Banks," which began:
A hilarious report has come out courtesy of the National Institute of Money in State Politics, showing that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller – who is coordinating the investigation into the banks’ improper mortgage dealings – increased his campaign contributions from the finance sector this year by a factor of 88! He has raised $261,445 from finance, insurance and real estate contributors since he announced that he was going to be coordinating the investigation into improper foreclosure practices. That is 88 times as much as they gave him not over last year, but over the previous decade.



This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see. This foreclosure issue is a monstrous story that is somehow escaping national headlines; essentially, all of the largest banks in the country have been engaged in an ongoing fraud and tax evasion scheme that among other things has resulted in many hundreds of billions in investor losses, and hundreds of thousands of improper foreclosures. Last week, the 14 largest mortgage lenders a group that includes bailout all-stars like Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, managed to negotiate a settlement with the federal government that will mandate some financial relief to homeowners who have been victims of improper foreclosure practices. It’s unclear yet exactly what damages and fines will be involved in the federal settlement, or how many homeowners will be affected. But certainly there are some who believe the federal settlement was a political end-run around the states’ efforts to extract their own deal from the banks.


"If the banks had to pay what they actually owed" from their mortgage-related malfeasances, Taibbi wrote, "they would probably all go out of business."



In a dandy post on Tom 'n' Pat's Iowhining, Marcy Wheeler takes a closer look at this "fighting mortgage abuses" that, according to Pat, he and Tom have been doing day in and day out these past seven to ten years. (Doesn't that three-year spread leave a lot of days-to-days unaccounted for?) Notes Marcy:
As in the settlement they signed onto with Countrywide in 2008? The one that–according to NV Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Bank of America has basically blown off?
In her filing, Ms. Masto contends that Bank of America raised interest rates on troubled borrowers when modifying their loans even though the bank had promised in the settlement to lower them. The bank also failed to provide loan modifications to qualified homeowners as required under the deal, improperly proceeded with foreclosures even as borrowers’ modification requests were pending and failed to meet the settlement’s 60-day requirement on granting new loan terms, instead allowing months and in some cases more than a year to go by with no resolution, the filing says.



The complaint says such practices violated an agreement Bank of America reached in the fall of 2008 with several states and later, in 2009, with Nevada, to settle lawsuits that accused its Countrywide unit of predatory lending. As the credit crisis grew, the settlement was heralded as a victory by state offices eager to help keep troubled borrowers in their homes and reduce their costs. Bank of America set aside $8.4 billion in the deal and agreed to help 400,000 troubled borrowers with loan modifications and other financial relief, such as lowering interest rates on mortgages.
(See DDay for more on Masto’s complaint.)



Perhaps Madigan doesn’t understand this. But pointing to a settlement that, in retrospect, appears to have largely been a PR stunt as proof that you’re not in bed with the banks sort of proves the point that you are.


Back in April, Matt Taibbi ventured that the flow of cash from people in and around the mortgage industry to Tom Miller was "just something to keep an eye on," adding, "It would be interesting to see a similar analysis on the money these same characters have thrown at the Obama administration in the last year."



Interesting indeed -- I wonder if anyone ever did such an analysis. As he wrote of the bonanza Tom Miller created for himself by making noises about investigating the banks: "This is about as perfect an example of how American politics works as you’ll ever see."



At least for today, however, on the matter of the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile, the Justice Department has taken a different path. It's something.

#

The Big Lie: Farrakhan-backed Islamist Indiana Rep. Andre Carson foments violence using Alinsky-style propaganda against the Tea Party

"Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It." --Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals



Repeat a lie often enough, through enough different propagandists, and a substantial percentage of the populace will begin to believe it.



The tactic is called "The Big Lie" and it was exploited to great effect during the thirties by none other than Adolf Hitler's chief propagandist, Julius Streicher, to demonize Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped and other "undesirables".



And this tactic is being used -- plainly and obviously -- against the Tea Party.



In recent days, the execrable columnist Leonard Pitts, the ethically challenged Rep. Maxine Waters, the half-wit Rep. Frederica Wilson, the rhyming adulterer "Reverend" Jesse Jackson and a host of other far left kooks have echoed the same "Big Lie" as if reading off some invisible teleprompter.



But none has gone as far as the left-wing Islamist race-baiter named Andre Carson:



REP. ANDRE CARSON, (D), INDIANA: Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. (audience members reply, "Yes!") Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party would love to see you and me- I'm sorry, Tamron- hanging on a tree. (audience members reply, "Yes!") Some of them right now in Congress are comfortable with where we were 50 and 60 years ago.


This theme was, in all likelihood, orchestrated by none other than David Axelrod. His purpose, like Alinsky, is to freeze the Tea Party, to personalize it and to polarize it.



Axelrod's obvious and outrageous "Big Lie"? That a disconnected, decentralized group of millions of law-abiding citizens -- people of every race, religion, creed and color... people who believe in Constitutional, limited, financially responsible government... people who gather peacefully in cities and towns across the United States! -- are violent racists bent on re-instituting Jim Crow?



No, Carson, you horrific schmuck: those Jim Crow-types, those Bull Connor-types, those poll tax bigots? They were all Democrats! Look it up, idiot! From the Ku Klux Klan of yesteryear to the Civil War's pro-slavery faction down to modern race-baiters like yourself: Democrats, each and every one.



No, the party of Lincoln and the party of Martin Luther King, Jr. is the Republican Party, you Marxist crackpot!



The Democrat CBC racists must ignore the fact that a growing cadre of strong black conservatives, led by Herman Cain, Rep. Allen West and Rep. Tim Scott, are among the most popular of all Tea Partiers. After all, facts, logic and reason were never the radical left's strong suits.



West himself had harsh words for Carson, writing to the head of the Congressional Black Caucus:



I believe it is incumbent on you to both condemn these types of hate-filled comments, and to disassociate the Congressional Black Caucus from these types of remarks. Otherwise, I will have to seriously reconsider my membership within the organization.



Congressman Carson’s desire to generally criticize a large grassroots group as racist is baseless and desperate. When individuals believe they are defeated in a political disagreement, they normally resort to race-baiting, which in my opinion is in itself racist.



I think what you see is a desire to not recognize some of the serious problems in the black community. To try to have a scapegoat that is the Tea Party … that’s just a distraction. The Tea Party stands for some basic, constitutional principles.


The tactics of Alinsky and Hitler and Farrakhan and Axelrod must be exposed for what they are.



Carson's rhetoric isn't simply hateful: it's dangerous. It sets the stage for violence and unrest. Even if only one person takes Carson's lies seriously, a terrible set of consequences can result. His lies are beyond the pale; they are unacceptable behavior for a member of Congress.



The House of Representatives must not let him get away with this behavior.



Call Speaker John Boehner at (202) 225-6205 and tell him that the Anti-Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Rep. Andre Carson -- must be censured by the House.





What do you call it when everything someone touches turns to excrement?

I like to call it "The Obama Touch".



Turns out another half-a-billion dollars of your money was just flushed down the "green jobs" hole, the inevitable result of the relentless, climafraud, Soviet-style, central planning economic model of the Obama Democrats:



Solyndra, a San Francisco based solar panel company that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government has declared bankruptcy. Last year President Obama touted the company as “leading the way” in the green jobs future he envisions.



Just a few months ago, ABC News revealed that one of the major financial backers for Solyndra is also a major donor to the Obama campaign... The donor, Steve Westley, has subsequently been named to the President’s Energy Advisory Board. Solyndra was supposed to have produced 4,000 jobs with the loan guarantee. Now all of the company’s employees have been laid-off. Mr. Westley is still on the advisory board.



Congressman Cliff Stearns, Chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight Subcomittee, released the following statement this afternoon: "In an apparent rush to push stimulus dollars out the door, the Obama Administration wasted $535 million in taxpayer funds in guaranteeing a loan to a firm that has proven to be unviable in the global market... For months, we have been investigating how and why nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money was committed to this financially troubled company."


When the final history of this administration is written, I predict that we will have seen the most wanton waste, fraud and abuse of the taxpayer in history; in fact, it will have been of a scale so epic and so unbelievably criminal in nature that Richard Nixon will look like George Washington in comparison.





"Android is easily dominating all other competitors in the mobile space"

RIM, Microsoft hardest hit:



According to ComScore, 70 percent of handset owners sent out an SMS during the three-month period. Using a browser and downloading applications came in second and third with 41.1 percent and 40.6 percent of Americans engaging in those activities, respectively...



...ComScore's study is just the latest research to conclude that Android is easily dominating all other competitors in the mobile space. Earlier this month, another research firm, NPD, said that during the second quarter, Android was running on 52 percent of all smartphones sold in the U.S., besting iOS, which secured 29 percent market share. NPD concluded that BlackBerry OS had 11 percent share... Android's success is helping the U.S. smartphone market explode. During the three-month period ended July, 82.2 million people in the U.S. owned a smartphone, ComScore found. That figure was up 10 percent from the prior three-month period...



According to ComScore, Samsung's handsets proved to be most popular during the last three-month period, earning 25.5 percent market share. LG's devices had 20.9 percent share. Motorola, Apple, and RIM rounded out the top five with 14.1 percent, 9.5 percent, and 7.6 percent share, respectively.


I was speaking with an iPhone user today who said that five years from now, almost every single person in America would have a smartphone. That may be a conservative estimate.





Sign of the Times

This may be the quintessential headline of the Hopenchange era.



Feeling stimulated yet?



I'm not. I'm only getting an odd tingling sensation -- and it's not exactly where Chris Matthews said he felt it.





Lungren And Norquist-- Not The Most Popular Corporate Shills In The Sacramento Area



In 2008, the presidential election results in Dan Lungren's northern California district were very close. It was, in fact, Obama's closest margin of victory in the state. Unlike Gore or Kerry, he took CA-3, but just barely, 49-49%! And Dan Lungren, on of the state's most disliked incumbents scraped by with 50% of the vote. The following year Lungren drew a far better-financed opponent Ami Bera, who again held him down to 50%. After redistricting, Lungren will face Bera again-- and in a slightly bluer district. And next year Bera, a medical doctor, should have no problem making sure the district's hard-pressed seniors are aware that Lungren voted to replace Medicare with an inadequate voucher program. The Democratic staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has all the facts and figures. The Republican proposal Lungren voted for would have disastrous impacts on seniors and disabled people in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. Here's how; this is what it would do to residents of CA-3:

• Increase prescription drug costs for 7,900 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $77 million for drugs over the next decade.



• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 109,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district. The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and

younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:



• Deny 570,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.



• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 127,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.



• Require the 127,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $29.7 billion for their retirement-- an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual-- to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.



• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 71,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 444,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.


This district has 127,000 individuals who will enroll in Medicare for the first time between 2022 and 2032. Under the Republican plan Lungren backs and voted for, their cumulative out-of-pocket costs for Medicare coverage during their first 20 years of program eligibility would increase by $41.2 billion compared to their costs under traditional Medicare, an increase of 235%. And Lungren's Medicaid cuts would be catastrophic for district residents as well. Were Lungren's plan ever to become law, Medicaid’s guarantee of coverage would be eliminated, Medicaid would be turned into a block grant program, and the federal contribution to Medicaid would be reduced by nearly $800 billion over the next decade. Other changes voted for by Lungren would allow states to eliminate coverage for seniors, individuals with disabilities, children, pregnant women, and others currently enrolled in Medicaid. These changes would have a profound impact on Medicaid’s ability to provide health coverage to millions of Americans and in the 3rd CD, these provisions could:

• Reduce coverage for 17,900 dual eligible seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to supplement their Medicare coverage or pay their Medicare cost sharing.



• Jeopardize nursing home care for 1,100 whose expenses are paid by Medicaid.



• Impair the health care of 63,000 children, including 2,300 newborns each year, who receive coverage under Medicaid.



• Cut payments to hospitals for 18,000 emergency room visits paid for by Medicaid each year.



• Cut payments to hospitals for 5,900 inpatient visits paid for by Medicaid each year.



• Reduce jobs and hurt economic growth by eliminating $1.5 billion in Medicaid spending.


But these are hardly the only reasons so many people in the district dislike and mistrust Lungren-- and why so many are ready to replace him. Many are uneasy about the dangerous, unsecured chemical facility in the area, the Dry Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which Lungren has helped out with numerous loopholes to prevent them from securing the facility, even though it puts his constituents at an unacceptable risk.

Lungren led House Homeland Security Committee Republicans in voting to kill amendments that would have closed security loopholes and required safer chemicals at the Dry Creek wastewater plant near his district.



Though he promised to return to Congress to keep the country safe from terrorism, Lungren’s primary accomplishment is a giveaway to chemical companies more interested in short-term profit than protecting the lives of Americans.


And, not unlike what happened last week to New York freshman congressman Chris Gibson, Lungren's constituents also told him they had had enough of his fealty to Grover Norquist instead of to them. Lee Fang:

On Wednesday, a constituent in a town hall meeting challenged Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) about his loyalty to Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist and noted corporate lobbyist. Politicians who sign Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform pledge, a popular commitment among Republicans, promise never to vote for anything designated as a tax increase by Norquist’s organization.



During the meeting, held in the Sacramento suburb of Carmichael, a young woman asked Lungren why he took Norquist’s pledge when he should only pledge an “oath of office to the Constitution.” Lungren seemed dazzled, and first misinterpreted the comment as an accusation that he opposes the Constitution. The constituent asked the question again, only to hear Lungren sneer that she hasn’t “been reading the newspapers.” A few in the crowd yelled “answer the question!”



Qaddafi, Libya... Some Other Sides Of The Story





Everybody's happy, happy, happy that the Qaddafi's have been overthrown, right? I mean, once it became public, however that happened, that he was personally behind the Lockerbie bombing-- like someone didn't already know that?-- he had to be deposed. And deposed he was, primarily by the CIA, the U.S. military and the NATO allies. Over the past couple weeks I've been trying to draw comparisons-- imperfect as they are-- between the U.S. overthrowing Qaddafi and the CIA activities that toppled legitimate governments "we" (meaning corporate America) disagreed with in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Ecuador. I left out how the CIA toppled governments in Australia, Italy, Greece and even England. And now I see there are other people thinking along the same lines... like the fine folks at the Revolutionary Communist Party of the USA. Don't laugh.

Qaddafi's overthrow and the victory of the "rebel" forces is being presented by the U.S. rulers, their European imperialist allies-- including Britain, France, and Italy-- and their media mouthpieces as a big victory for the people, a triumph of "democracy" over tyranny, and a vindication of their "humanitarian" military intervention in Libya.  



As the anti-Qaddafi forces took over Tripoli, President Barack Obama stated, "The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator... The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people."



It is nothing of the sort. The unfolding events in Libya are primarily the result of a U.S.-NATO military, political, and economic assault on Qaddafi’s forces, stretching over months.  



The day the Tripoli fell to the anti-Qaddafi forces, the New York Times reported:



"Through Saturday, NATO and its allies had flown 7,459 strike missions, or sorties, attacking thousands of targets, from individual rocket launchers to major military headquarters. The cumulative effect not only destroyed Libya's military infrastructure but also greatly diminished the ability of Colonel Qaddafi's commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations." ("Sharper Surveillance and NATO Coordination Helped Rebels Race to Capital," August 22)



This assault has had not been about liberating Libya or ensuring self-determination for the nation of Libya. Instead, it has been aimed at strengthening imperialism's grip on Libya... [T]he day after Tripoli fell, the New York Times carried an article headlined, "Scramble Begins for Access to Libya's Oil."


It wasn't that big a war. I saw a CNN news crawl yesterday that said it's estimated that 50,000 Libyans died. And I guess that doesn't count the African workers who are all over the country who seem to be meeting a bad fate at the hands of "our" pals. Even a reporter who is totally buying into the "magnificence" (his word) of the battle to free themselves from the tyrant, observed that the whole enterprise has been marred by racism.

"This is a bad time to be a black man in Libya," reported Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News on Sunday. Elsewhere, Kim Sengupta reported for the Independent on the 30 bodies lying decomposing in Tripoli. The majority of them, allegedly mercenaries for Muammar Gaddafi, were black. They had been killed at a makeshift hospital, some on stretchers, some in an ambulance. "Libyan people don't like people with dark skins," a militiaman explained in reference to the arrests of black men.



The basis of this is rumours, disseminated early in the rebellion, of African mercenaries being unleashed on the opposition. Amnesty International's Donatella Rivera was among researchers who examined this allegation and found no evidence for it. Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch similarly had not "identified one mercenary" among the scores of men being arrested and falsely labelled by journalists as such.



Lurking behind this is racism. Libya is an African nation-- however, the term "Africans" is used in Libya to reference the country's black minority. The Amnesty International researcher Diana Eltahawy says that the rebels taking control of Libya have tapped into "existing xenophobia." The New York Times refers to "racist overtones," but sometimes the racism is explicit. A rebel slogan painted in Misrata during the fighting salutes "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." A consequence of this racism has been mass arrests of black men, and gruesome killings – just some of the various atrocities that human rights organisations blame rebels for. The racialisation of this conflict does not end with hatred of "Africans." Graffiti by rebels frequently depicted Gaddafi as a demonic Jew.



...The dominance of relatively conservative elites and the absence of countervailing pressures skewed the politics of the rebellion. We hear of "the masses," and "solidarity." But masses can be addressed on many grounds-- some reactionary. There are also many bases for solidarity-- some exclusionary. The scapegoating of black workers makes sense from the perspective of elites. For them, Libya was not a society divided on class lines from which many of them had profited. It was united against a usurper inhabiting an alien compound and surviving through foreign power. Instead, the more success Gaddafi had in stabilising his regime, the more the explanation for this relied on the claim that "Gaddafi is killing us with his Africans."



A further, unavoidable twist is the alliance with Nato. The February revolt involved hundreds of thousands of people across Libya. By early March the movement was in retreat, overseas special forces were entering Libya, and senior figures in the rebellion called for external intervention. Initially isolated, they gained credibility as Gaddafi gained ground. As a result, the initiative passed from a very large popular base to a relatively small number of armed fighters under the direction of the NTC and Nato. It was the rebel army that subsequently took the lead in persecuting black workers.



Under different conditions, perhaps, unity between the oppressed was possible. But this would probably have required a more radical alliance, one as potentially perilous for those now grooming themselves for office as for Gaddafi. As it is, the success of the rebels contains a tragic defeat. The original emancipatory impulse of February 17 lies, for now, among the corpses of "Africans" in Tripoli.


At least they didn't infect them with syphilis. I mean who would ever do something like that? (The Washington Post story gets all the facts out there except that this was done by a gang of Nazis brought here by domestic fascists in the OSS straight from experimenting on Jews and other captives in the concentration camps. They did lots of experiments in the U.S. and for the U.S.) Off topic... let's get back to Libya. Actually we're going to turn to Africa News for a completely different perspective than the one we're hearing from corporate media cheerleaders for the Military Industrial Complex. I'm not claiming it's a more valid perspective; it's just another perspective to the one we all know-- or should know by now-- is completely compromised and devoid of anything beyond slick propaganda.

Libya's destruction, a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans. The suffering of Libyans has just begun. For there can never be true liberation when your oppressor is the one who defines what your freedom should be. The ousting of Colonel Gaddafi, Libyan leader for 42 years, by the rebels backed western forces especially NATO is indeed a victory for the west whose fixation on Gaddafi's Libya has become worrisome.



It’s definitely not a victory for ordinary Libyans who would continue to suffer a lot of nervous strain and shock after the destruction. Neither is it a victory for the rebels who have been in excess jubilation since capturing Gaddafi’s official residence. “We are free,” they proclaimed in wild happiness.



But they have forgotten one important thing: that they are now slaves to all the countries that helped them kick out Gaddafi.



Apparently the rebels are not ordinary Libyan but a group of people who want the share of the oil with the help of foreign forces. Gaddafi’s main crime may be the fact that he refused to let the west control Libya’s resources, hence he must be eliminated by all possible means.



In their euphoria and in their haste to get rid of him, they forgot that none of the countries that backed them has the interest of Libyans at heart. Let them for once re-visit Iraq.



...Gaddafi should have known that neither America nor its allies forget and forgive. He should have known that the oil in his background is enough to eliminate him by all means. He should have learnt a lesson from Iraq, a nation destroyed by Obama's predecessor on the pretense that the late Iraqi leader possessed Weapon of Mass Destruction which turned out to be a ruse.



It was simply a ploy by Mr. Bush to invade the oil rich nation. There is always an excuse to invade certain countries especially when the rulers of such countries refused to be a stooge.


Earlier this morning author and investigative journalist Russ Baker was asking for some transparency about U.S. intervention in Libya. He's already written about the growing doubts about Libya's complicity in Lockerbie and looking at the American role in the "liberation" of the country... well, like many of us, he smells a rat.

It’s true that Qaddafi, like many-- perhaps a majority of-- rulers in his region, was a thug and a brute, if at times a comical figure. But one doesn’t need to be an apologist for him-- nor deny the satisfaction of seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ouster-- to demand some honesty about the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes to our own government’s role in funding it, and thus every American’s unwitting participation in that action.



Let’s start with the official justification for NATO’s launch of its bombing campaign-- for without that campaign, it’s highly improbable the rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told from the beginning that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombing-- indeed, its sole purpose-- was to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps because of NATO’s initial intervention, the feared Qaddafi-sponsored, genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the military actions one would expect a government to take when facing a civil war:  after all, remember General Sherman’s “scorched earth” policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians apparently didn’t generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we started to hear about other purported reasons for it.  Qaddafi was encouraging his soldiers to…commit mass rape! And giving them Viagra! And condoms!



You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO crew did-- made it up. The media, always glad to have a “sexy” story, especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no evidence to back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if it was true.



...Qaddafi should never be seen as a victim-- indeed, he has always been sleazy and monstrous in various ways. But the US and its allies appear to have cared little about this, while being deeply  troubled by his role as a fly in the geopolitical ointment. A look at the long and complex historical relationship between Qaddafi and the West begins to explain the true reason he had to go. It also dovetails perfectly with a growing body of indications that Western elites encouraged and even provoked the uprising-- while tapping into deep discontent with the dictator.



Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the West’s oil industry and their national security apparatus. In the early 1970s he worked closely with Occidental Petroleum chairman Armand Hammer in thwarting the ambitions of the oil majors. He was a leader in the boycott of Israel and often cozied up to the Soviet Union.



...What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the “spontaneous uprising” of February 2011 was hardly spontaneous. It began even before the Arab Spring itself commenced in Tunisia during December of last year—and it was orchestrated by the West.



...Khalifa Hifter, a former Libyan army officer, had spent the past two decades living just down the road from CIA headquarters, with no apparent source of income.  In 1996, while a resident of Vienna, Virginia, he organized a Benghazi-based revolt that failed. When the current uprising was sputtering in March, CIA sent Hifter in to take command.



When the rebels were being routed, the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly order for Qaddafi. The NATO bombing began almost immediately, under the “humanitarian” label.

Before long, other European countries had covert elements in Libya. The British paper, The Guardian, has just reported the role of British special forces in coordinating the rebels on the ground. This was denied by the UK government . But then another British paper, The Telegraph, cited UK defense sources saying special forces had been in Libya already for weeks, i.e., since early August.)


Hopefully they won't attack Algeria next-- for it's oil... I mean for giving the Qaddafi family shelter. Interesting video below, although the filmmakers seem a little hung up with the Rothschilds.



Shopping for cute little stuff

Hey!
The other day I went shopping. I love buying cute little stuff. They don't cost a lot of money and they make your day :)
Here's what I bought:



This is a small organizer I really need to have in my purse. Love the parrot design!


I tottaly love Pucca! I got this keychain for my keys. I'll always have her with me! yay!


I also got these notebooks for my notes in school. The left is a notebook from the ''Think Green'' campaign that I totally support.

A cute cell-phone case for my cell. It looks like a sock.. haha


A pink basket for my cremes. I hated the fact they were on my desk. So, I thought I have to organize them.

Remember this cute bag I got a long time ago for my cosmetics? I got another one because the last one broke. :(
Here's where you can find this cute bag and lots of other awesome stuff : http://www.ilovewithit.com/home.html

That's all I bought. 
See you at the next post :)
Toodles!

baby penguin wallpaper

baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaperbaby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper
baby penguin wallpaper

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) On The Role Of Government



As I've said before, when Democrats and left-leaning independents decided to show their disappointment in Obama's timidity to fight for working families and their anger with DEmocratic acquiescence for going along with right-wing framing that benefitted the ruling elites over ordinary Americans, dozens of conservative Democrats-- including more than half the slimy Blue Dog Caucus-- lost their careers. That wasn't a bad thing. Unfortunately, the tsnami also took down a handful of progressives who had been standing and fighting. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was one of the good ones we lost. NH-1 is a 50/50 swing district and last year, New Hampshire swung way to the right. A worthless Tea Party sick-up, Frank Guinta, beat her 121,655 (54%) to 95,503 (42%).



Carol has originally beaten incumbent Jeb Bradley in 2006, also a midterm, with a close and unexpected 100,899 (52%) to 94,869 (48%) vote. In 2008, in a rematch with Bradley, Carol won reelection with 176,435 (52%) to 156,338 (46%), Obama winning the district with 53%. If you look at the numbers, what you see is Democrats and left-leaning independents staying how. BIG mistake. Republican turnout from 2008 dropped off by almost 35,000 votes, better than normal for them. Democratic fall off... fell off the cliff-- down almost 61,000 votes for Carol. Voters made their point but it was like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The New Hampshire legislature is a far right extremist operation now that is horrifying voters (and stay-at-homes) and Guinta has been a lockstep, anti-family shill for Big Business, Cantor and Boehner across the board.



Carol is running for the seat again. You can contribute to her campaign here. This week she did an OpEd on the virulent and hihilistic Republican Party attack on government itself. Please take some time and read what a dedicated public servant-- unlike Rick Perry, Carol hasn';t enriched herself while working for the people-- has to say about the legitimate roll of government in the lives of American citizens.



Our Government, Ourselves



by Carol Shea-Porter




While political discourse has taken a dive in terms of civility and substance, actually something far more sinister and frightening is occurring. There are people who are attacking the basic structure of our government and our faith in it. A few are even talking openly about secession because they truly do not believe in our government and our way of life. (We have always had those people, but they were not politically powerful until now.) But most are being absolutely irresponsible, trying to foment--and gain from-- a deeper anger.



In our past, most politicians for office publicly supported our system of government, and believed we could stand together and solve severe problems. Candidates tried to inspire, or at least tried to be careful to attack the opponent or the platform, not the government.



That has changed.



The attacks are damaging an already fragile trust, and many Americans and the world have responded by becoming increasingly convinced that America’s best days are behind us. Confidence and faith in our ability to solve problems are absolutely essential if we are to move forward, but we have irresponsible politicians (and some media and special interest groups) tearing at that faith and trust. Incredibly, a couple of them are running for president.



Here are some examples of how leaders in the past talked about our country and our problems. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at his First Inaugural, “This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper … The only thing we have to fear is fear itself … which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”



It was a buoying remark, a call to hope and patriotism, helping people through the dark days of the Depression.



Remember George W. Bush’s talk to the nation after 9/11? “We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers-- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people …”



On Jan. 9, 1961, President-elect John F. Kennedy said, “Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us-- and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state, and local, must be as a city upon a hill-- constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities.”



Are these current politicians and influential public figures “aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities?”



One of New Hampshire’s members of Congress told the tea party that the federal government was taking away all their individual freedoms. And two tea party presidential candidates also have made inflammatory remarks about our government.



The Hill reported that Michele Bachmann “likened America to the sinking Titanic,” and said, “We have gangster government.”



Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation … And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”



This is not responsible leadership. These are outrageous comments, meant to denigrate our federal government.



The interesting thing is Bachmann has sought and received earmarks and Stimulus Act money from the “gangster government” (that would be U.S. taxpayers) and Perry brags about all the jobs in Texas that came from United States Oil and United States defense dollars.



There are other reckless leaders. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, got almost every single Republican in Congress to sign his no-tax pledge even though he was clear about his intention to hurt our ability to administer this great nation. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”



How can this great country recover and grow with this kind of attitude? How can we pay our bills and invest in technology, infrastructure, and medical research with this blind vision? How can we handle natural disasters like Katrina or attacks like 9/11 if we drown our government? How can we educate or defend ourselves, if we drown the major sources of government funding?



Harry Truman said, “No government is perfect."



We the people have to keep striving, but we need leaders who encourage progress, not defeat, and confidence, not despair.

Bollywood Hot Actress Riya Sen High Resolution Wallpapers Latest Updates







Bollywood Actress Prachi Desai Exclusive Wallpapers Latest Updates 2011









Bollywood Actress Anushka Sharma In Blue Dress Looking So Hot







Bollywood Actress Anushka Sharma Latest Hot Photoshoot 2011