Evening Blues Preview 4-23-15
This evening's music features Texas blues guitarist Phillip Walker.
Here are some stories from tonight's post:
We might get a reprieve from the authoritarian surveillance state thanks to internecine fighting amongst republicans. Go to it fellas!
GOP infighting threatens NSA bill
Republicans are in a state of disarray on surveillance reform, with Congress barreling toward a May 31 deadline to extend or curtail some of the NSA’s key powers.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr want to reauthorize the bulk collection of phone records — the most controversial program revealed by Edward Snowden’s leaks. Presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul want to effectively end it, as do many House Republicans. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who will be a key player in any legislation, hasn’t decided what to do.
The split highlights the persistent divisions between libertarian-leaning Republicans who see NSA spying as a threat to Americans’ privacy and GOP national security hawks who don’t want to tamper with the U.S. intelligence apparatus. Even with the ticking clock — which many lawmakers hoped would force a decision after a similar effort failed last year — GOP members are far apart on the issue. ...
It’s the second congressional effort to reform surveillance practices since Snowden’s leaks revealed the vast nature of the NSA’s operations. But if lawmakers don’t do anything this time, key parts of the PATRIOT Act will expire, including the provision the government has used to justify bulk data collection. Tech companies rattled by the disclosures about NSA surveillance via their Internet services have been pushing for changes and want more flexibility to disclose the government orders they receive. ...
One option for reform could come from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). The former Judiciary chairman introduced a bill last year that won a few Republican votes but ultimately failed in the upper chamber. Leahy is likely to reintroduce a similar measure this year, and reform advocates hope GOP members — faced with the prospect of sunsetting NSA authorities — will be forced to accept some changes.
Obama incinerates some more innocent civilians with his fleet of flying death robots:
American and Italian Hostages Killed in US Drone Strike, White House Reveals
A U.S. drone strike in January killed two hostages, an Italian and an American, being held by al Qaeda in Pakistan, the White House revealed on Thursday. ...
According to the statement, the failed counterterrorism operation targeted an al Qaeda-associated compound in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where authorities said they had "no reason to believe either hostage was present." ...
In a televised address on Thursday morning, President Barack Obama said he "takes full responsibility" for the deaths.
For years, the White House has rebuffed criticisms of its counterterrorism operations and refused to divulge information about civilians killed in U.S. drone attacks. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that between 2004 and 2015, as many as 960 civilians may have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, including up to 207 children.
Alka Pradhan, an attorney with the international human rights group Reprieve who represents other civilian victims of drone attacks, noted in a statement that Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Lo Porto "are far from the first innocents to die by our drones, and in no other case has the US apologized for its mistake."
US Claims Russian Military Buildup Along Ukraine Border
Offers Neither Evidence Nor Details on Deployments
With their prototypical lack of evidence and a conspicuous lack of any details, the US State Department is once again accusing Russia of a military buildup along the Ukrainian border. ...
The allegations also included claims that Russia had put some of the air defense systems inside Ukrainian territory, though they did not offer details on this, and it’s unclear from the allegations if this deployment was purported to have occurred in rebel Donetsk or in Crimea, the later of which Russia annexed last year but which the US regularly refers to as “Ukrainian territory” for the sake of such allegations.
Why Didn't Bush/Cheney Prevent 9/11? - John Kiriakou
Announcing her latest campaign for the presidency, Hillary Clinton declared she was entering the race to be the champion for “everyday Americans.” As a lawmaker and diplomat, however, Clinton has long championed military campaigns that have killed scores of “everyday” people abroad, from Iraq to Yemen. As commander-in-chief, there’s no reason to believe she’d be any less a hawk than she was as the senator who backed George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, or the Secretary of State who encouraged Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. If her nomination is as sure a thing as people say, then antiwar organizing needs to start right away.
Hillary has already won the support of those who continually agitate for war. “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, told The New York Times last summer. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he said, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
We’re going to call it what it is: More of the same sort of murderous policies that destroyed Iraq, destabilized Libya, killed women and children with cluster bombs and drones in Yemen, and legitimized the undermining of democracy in Honduras. There’s little chance the Republicans will nominate someone better, but given Clinton’s record as a senator and Secretary of State – the latter giving us a very good idea of how she would approach foreign affairs once in office – it will be hard for them to find anyone much worse. ...
When Barack Obama became president, the antiwar movement became his first casualty – followed by a group of Pakistanis droned to death three days after his inauguration. We should never lose hope that we can bring about positive change, but actually changing the world for the better requires being aware that whoever sits in the White House come January 2017 is not going to be our friend.
Horse Race Comedy Extra:
Hillary Clinton Calls For 'Toppling' The 1 Percent
Hillary Clinton believes that strengthening the middle class and alleviating income inequality will require "toppling" the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to a New York Times profile published on Tuesday.
The Times article quoted a host of Clinton confidants characterizing Clinton's economic policy record as a populist agenda akin to that of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). That includes a view that the ongoing accumulation of massive wealth at the top of the spectrum is holding back the broader economy.
In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart.
Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on Mrs. Clinton’s policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.
The Clinton campaign told HuffPost they could not confirm the precise language of the quote, but did not distance themselves from its populist essence.
Sen. Warren to Those Promising TPP Would Be So Great: 'Prove It.'
Senator explains that real reason TPP remains so secret, even as Congress begins voting on measures to ram it through, is because 'if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'
Prove it. Let the American voters, the press, and the global public see and read the fine print of this so-called "free trade" deal.
That's the basic message contained in a new statement released by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) after President Obama said earlier this week that she and other opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were "wrong" when it came to their objections to the pending 12-nation agreement.
"The Administration says I'm wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about," Warren wrote in a blog post addressed to constituents and the general public on Wednesday. "They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can't see the actual deal."
Recommended:
Reading I.F. Stone on Earth Day: Why We Still Won’t Get Anywhere Unless We Connect the Dots
Comments
Foreign investors awarded 444 million under NAFTA
Ethyl
,
S.D. Myers
,
Pope & Talbot
, AbitibiBowater,
Metalclad
,
Feldman
Karpa
,
Corn Products
International
,
ADM/Tate & Lyle
,
Cargill
, TCW Group
,
Mobi
l Investments
, RDC
, St. Mary’s
, TECO
,
Clayton/Bilcon
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
ISDS
Robert French, chief justice of the high court of Australia, highlighted his concerns about the impact of ISDS clauses on our judicial systems, when he quoted Professor Brook Baker of North Eastern University law school’s assessment of the Eli Lilly case:
"After losing two cases before the appellate courts of a western democracy should a disgruntled foreign multinational pharmaceutical company be free to take that country to private arbitration claiming that its expectation of monopoly profits had been thwarted by the court’s decision? Should governments continue to negotiate treaty agreements where expansive intellectual property-related investor rights and investor-state dispute settlement are enshrined into hard law?"
- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/why-support-tpp-when-it-will-let-foreign-c...
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
It appears that The Aspen Institute's and No Labels'
most recent endeavor is to control the Presidential Debates--making sure that no other candidates, aside from their hand-picked, toxic corporatist/neoliberal ones, are allowed a platform during the upcoming Presidential Debates.
I hope to have more to post on this topic, soon. But things are definitely getting "curiouser and curiouser."
I ran across a WaPo piece last evening that announced that (in February) Vin Weber signed onto the Bush campaign.
Yet, he's part of, if not spearheading, the effort [which formally began in January of this year] to allow a "so-called" Independent Presidential candidate to participate in the Presidential debates.
Here's what one blog says about the effect that the "Change The Rule" drive will have on the Libertarians, Greens, and Justice Party, if it is successful. (I'll have to do further digging to verify their allegations.)
This is an incredible move--especially since "No Labels" picked up almost 60 US Congressional seats in just the 2014 midterms!
(I still haven't had a chance to check on the 9 "too close to call" races, but will do so ASAP.)
The good news is that "maybe" more folks will take these two Dem Establishment/corporatist 'outfits'--The Aspen Institute and No Labels, much more seriously.
I heard Vin Weber being interviewed by XM radio host Michael Smerconish last evening.
Here's a screenshot of Smerconish's "Poll Question" from last night--haven't updated it, but it stayed in this neighborhood for at least 4-5 hours.
Just imagine how many well-meaning progressives could fall for this attempt at denying any real alternate voice(s) in the Presidential debates.
As an aside, the very first caller after the Weber interview was a Nadar supporter--jazzed up about the attempts of "Change The Rules."
The real implication(s) seemingly went right over his head!
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Your analysis
I know you have spent some time researching the No Labels people so I am really looking forward to your analysis of this.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks--I'm concerned, and intend
to follow this endeavor to it's conclusion.
Hopefully, the FEC will nix this attempt, and there will be little more to say.
But, I'll try to get the word out, in the meantime.
Vin Weber was interviewed yesterday because he was trying to "get the public" behind their petitioning of the FEC. (his own words)
And, I agree with Al. I just hope that we can counter their attempt.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
That's how it works doesn't it. They put some lipstick
on a pig and sell it as prime rib. People buy it.
Why doesn't Obama go on TV to apologize for killing
innocent women and children in his illegal drone war. What bullshit. He goes on TV to take "full responsibility"
for killing a couple Americans, something cops do every day, and the focus is on that and not the illegal
and immoral imperialist war in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he said it, the buck stops there, it's on him, he's
the war criminal.
I agree! (n/t)
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Bentleys for Bombs
link
i have a feeling that when the saudis downfall comes...
it's going to be very ugly.
Yes, the whole Saudi clan hasn't exactly amassed good karma
Of course, they can buy themselves all the good press they want — controlling, as they do, a huge media empire.
It's Saudi selbstbeweihräucherung, as the German expression goes.
In churches with a lot of ceremony, you know how there's often a robed acolyte who, as a gesture of extra reverence, is swinging an incense burner?
That's what "beweihräucherung" refers to (weihrauch = incense; rauch = smoke) with the added prefix selbst = "self."
So, the metaphor is of someone thinking they can exalt themselves by enveloping themselves in a self-made rhetorical cloud of "holy smoke."
That's one really helpful insight I continue to get from reading Asad AbuKhalil's blog "Angry Arab News Service".
Supposedly serious, trustworthy U.S. news organizations (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc.) are always quoting from Saudi-owned media — without once informing readers and viewers of the very relevant fact that the source quoted is, in fact, Saudi-owned. Or that — as even a cursory glance at their biographies and resumés would confirm — the individual writers or commentators are nothing more than Saudi cronies or hired mouthpieces.
you make me smile about the way you explain
"selbstbeweihräucherung". So vivid.
https://www.euronews.com/live
oh, that's disgusting, the Prince couldn't be any cheaper
in its attempt to "honor" his pilots for killing people.
https://www.euronews.com/live
One Bentley for each dead child
link
Maybe if the Saudi bombers could target children the prince might have to up the ante to two Bentleys
McConnell bill would extend NSA surveillance
someone was going to do it
Evening Blues...
Has the best news
From all the best sources, IMO! TY.
The...
Evening Blues digs up the news that the MSM buries. Hi Syd.
Hear, hear! ;-) N/T
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
heh, thanks for the vote of confidence...
evening syd!
Great news picks, joe
Here are a few more stories I was looking at today:
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
OMG, what is happening?
What's our Jihad???
https://www.euronews.com/live
evening pluto...
thanks for the news stories! that story about the protest in kiev against us interference is quite interesting. there's something that they'll never report here.
look at this
Our risky game in Ukraine
Then this is from a serious news paper in Germany:
Who killed Buzina and Kalashnikov?
Speculations after two murders in Kiev: Were radical nationalists involved or was it a Russian provocation?
Someone has to explain to me what the LaRouche people are all about. To me they seemed crazy, but I don't understand what they are. Never took care of finding out.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I was told LaRouche was connected to John Birch
…but like you, I never bothered to look it up.
I read most news sources, anyway. (Although Kiev Post may be the sickest publication I've ever read.)
There's a global propaganda war going on. Mostly a war between the Anglo press and the rest of the world. And a news blackout for Americans. For example, this from Poland:
Straight from the horse’s mouth, but not on your lying western TV screen. Polish liberal-conservative member of the EU parliament Janusz Korwin-Mikke spills the beans about who was behind the Maidan massacre.
Not really surprising, but surprising is that a Polish MP is openly admitting it.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Try to help me a little more, please ...
unlike you I am not skillfull and trained to read most news sources and so I am grateful to learn from those, who do. I had a reason why I am asking for LaRouche. Yesterday night when I searched for more sources on the Ukrainian issue I ran into this article, which got me so confused I gave up reading it and I only later realized it was a LaRouche publication.
Facing Terror under a Kiev Regime - ‘Both Nazi and Fascist’
I can't understand what's going on here.
Is that "Progressive Socialist Party ... " a right-wing "ahem" progressive socialist party or a left-wing "ahem" progressive socialist party"?
If LaRouche is a Bircher (and right-wing idiot) then my questions is how this article plays fuzzy with "progressive socialism".
and ..
https://www.euronews.com/live