Memorial Day 2006

Let me give you a word, ‘free speech zones’. That’s three words, you say? Actually, it’s only one: repression.

From Wikipedia:
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones existed earlier, instituted by the Clinton administration, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration.

The American public has accepted the concept of “allowable speech”. Oh sure, there’s been some opposition, but, by and large, the public and the media has gone along with this. It’s been seen as a “reasonable method to ensure public safety”. It extends from the lone dissenter wearing an unauthorized T-shirt to groups expressing a message out of compliance with the guidelines. These ‘zones’ have been moved further and further from the eyes and ears for which the message is intended, to where we see them now sometimes a mile or more from effective range. In today’s world, “If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?”, is an even more apropos question.

There are now public venues where only pre-screened guests are allowed. Any dissenter that manages to enter is soon hustled off, and, in some cases, arrested. We have already seen pre-emptive harrasment of groups thought of as possibly protesting an event, such as a presidential visit.

We have given the president the right to detain American citizens on American soil, and hold them indefinitely, without charge, and without access to the courts. All of this within the bounds of the US. I’m speaking, of course, of Jose Padilla. But what we forget, at our peril, that if we allow it to happen to one, we have given permission for it to happen to anyone, even ourselves.

‘Situational ethics’, A concept that allows people to believe that which would be immoral under all circumstances, except for this one instance. The problem with that mindset, is that that one instance becomes many over time, and the immorality becomes acceptable.

Which brings us to Iraq.

Ten years ago, in May of 1996, Madeline Albright, then the US Secretary of State, stated, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.”, in response to a question about the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children caused by the sanctions on Iraq. [ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 ]. Well, you say, we had to stop Hussein’s weapons programs, we had to do it.

In 1991, the US deliberately targeted water and sewage treatment plants, knowing that this would cause death and disease. After bush 1’s war, the sale or importing of chlorine and other water treatment supplies and equipment, such as pumps, were proscribed. Again knowing that this would exacerbate the situation.
[ http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html ]

With this blatant example of biological warfare with the purpose of genocide to place before them, is it any wonder that people like osama bin laden could find easy recruits. Is it any wonder that many people in that part of the world would be happy to see us disappear, or even better, humbled and brought to our knees?

And this was just the runup to bush 2’s culminating war crime, the invasion of Iraq.

The cost? Uncounted tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. Tens of thousands wounded and maimed. In a wrecked country like Iraq, think of what that’s going to mean as these crippled people try to eke out an existence. Tons of depleted uranium ammunition used, leaving the environment poisoned for decades to come, with the radioactive dust and residue left by their use. (Murder, rape, and looting- the legacy of george w bush)

Biological warfare? Nuclear warfare? We had no choice, we had to do it.

Today, the US Department of Defense acknowledges 2464 US military killed, and 17869 wounded (as of April 30).

Why? The bush still has not been able to give us a coherent reason after 3 years.

This Memorial Day, we need to ask ourselves, how much longer are we going to allow this farce to continue? How much longer are we going to allow the bush administration to kill our children, trample our rights, steal our treasury, and turn our resources over to international corporations? How much longer do we want this criminal enterprise to continue?

The decision rests with us,”We, the People”. Can we truly sit by and let it continue? Can we truly sit and watch it like a drama on the TV? Our parents left us a country with, at least in theory, democratic ideals. Our government no longer even professes to believe in those ideals. Is that what we want to leave to our children? A gutter valued world, where they can’t even turn to their government for help or protection? Indeed, one where they have to view their own government as the ‘enemy’? A country where the only allowable dissent is whispered conversations between friends, outdoors, away from the eyes and ears of their government?

That’s not what our armed forces fought and died for. We owe them for that.

Swept under the carpet

Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War
by David E. Sanger and Jim Rutenberg
May 26, 2006
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26prexy.html


WASHINGTON, May 25 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago.

Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room, the two leaders steadfastly refused to talk about a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq — a pressure both men are feeling intently. They stuck to a common formulation that they would pull troops out only as properly trained Iraqi troops progressively took control over more and more territory in the country.

But in an unusual admission of a personal mistake, Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." ….

read more


How do you sweep tens of thousands of dead people under the carpet? This is what bush, blair, and the NY Times appear to be attempting. Nowhere in this article is mention of the tens of thousands, likely well over 100,000, Iraqis who have died as a direct result of the invasion of Iraq by bush and his legions. I guess, like that asshole tommy franks says “We don’t do body counts.”

bush and blair, what a pair. And the fucking Times ain’t much better. Neither are the times we live in for that matter. Here’s the two men responsible for the first big war crime of the 21st century, and this article treats them with respect and sympathy. “Chastened” my ass. In the first paragraph, the new reason for the war was to elect a constitutional government. Iraq already had a constitution. yeah, sure Saddam didn’t exactly pay attention to it, but then again, neither does bush.

“A chastened bush admits mistake”.

This war, this crime, is so obscene and devastating for the Iraqi people. Besides the horrific human cost, the destruction of the infrastructure, and the poisoning of their environment, and our armed forces, with their DU ammunition, bush and blair continue to demean them by refusing to acknowledge the cost of this war for them.

There is no ‘chastening’ here. Everything they said was carefully ‘vetted’ for political impact. These two men are still just as arrogant and unfeeling as they have been through this whole affair.

Haditha massacre

from chuck wilson


In WW2, as we lost good honorable men in freeing counties from the yoke of a diabolical mad man, adolph hitler, who was supported behind the scenes by none other than prescott bush, our country was held in high esteem. But something you might not know was, hitler as well as prescott bush, were members of skull and bones, the brotherhood of death, a satanic group, part of what we call the illuminati.

They worship the god of satan, jah-bul-on. George w. Bush, the lover of little boys, was also a member, he took the name majog, the name of the evil army led by satan to visit earth and destroy the kingdom of christ. The idiot bush, the phony john kerry, and of course bill clinton are all members of skull and bones. When we look at these evil leaders one common denominator is the amount of lies and death that follow in their path. Mostly women and children, the innocent! Nothing justifies the cold blooded killing of children! Yet in iraq and afghanistan and other countries, our leaders not only condone this behavior but thrive on it!

There are many paths between these people and child kidnappings and sexual abuse, and death, the indulgence of the sex trade flourish under their leadership, the death of innocent women and children by these men is in the millions! Yet the people of this country, the good god fearing people, don't voice a word in protest! Turn their back on the actions of these demonic leaders who perpetrate these vile acts in gods name, and under the pretense of saving us from terror. When in truth it is to satisfy their satanic god and further their goal of world domination!

The only reason this behavior is allowed to continue is because the so called christian people, have turned their back on the lord! Remember if you don't speak out, then you’re guilty of their sins! You'll spend eternity basking in the heat of lucifer!

-Cjw


For more about the Haditha Massacre:

What May Come of the Haditha Massacre

Marines 'to face charges over the Haditha massacre'

Haditha Massacre Is Iraq's Mai Lai
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3275

In Haditha, Memories of a Massacre
By: Ellen Knickmeyer
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/89506

Message received

Justice Department Denies ABC Report of Hastert Investigation
May 24, 2006 20:25 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aiGNp04DLQoY&refer=top_world_news#

May 24 (Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department said it isn't investigating U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert in connection with a lobbying scandal.

``Speaker Hastert is not under investigation,'' said Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos.

The statement was issued tonight in response to an ABC News report that Hastert had come under scrutiny by prosecutors investigating the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Hastert's spokesman, Ron Bonjean, also issued a statement denying the report.

``The ABC News report is absolutely untrue,'' Bonjean said in the statement. ``We are demanding a full retraction of the ABC News story.''

Hastert, 64, an Illinois Republican, has served as House speaker since 1999.

Hastert ‘In the Mix’ of Bribery Investigation

May 24, 2006 6:24 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html

Brian Ross Reports:


The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.

Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government….

read more


How’s that for sending a message to old denny boy? I guess the fbi didn’t like hastert’s recent criticism. Just letting congress know the bushistas are not going to accept any criticism from anybody.

And sure I know hastert is likely as corrupt as the rest, but leaking the investigation the day after hastert criticizes the raid on jefferson’s office? That ain’t nothing but a message.

It’s going to be a nasty 5 months.

Costs?

Trial and Errors in Iraq
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201153.html

The trial of Saddam Hussein has resumed. It has been going on for seven months -- a day here, a day there -- providing the former Iraqi dictator the chance to make the odd speech, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and, in short, to turn the entire proceeding into a metaphor for the American occupation of Iraq: chaotic, endless and, worse, meaningless. The way things are going, the trial is more about George Bush than Saddam Hussein.

How this has happened is almost beyond comprehension. The Bush administration was out to make two points, one political, the other ideological. It was important for the trial to be an all-Iraqi operation, and it was equally important to impose the death penalty.

So we are stuck with a trial that has become a microcosm of the way the Bush administration planned and executed the war itself. On most days, it has been a sputtering charade, which somehow has managed not to highlight the many crimes of Saddam Hussein but to obscure them. This is an important point, for behind the stated reason for the war itself -- ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction -- was the repellent nature of Hussein's regime. It was no mere run-of-the-mill Middle Eastern dictatorship, like that of next-door Syria or, in its own way, Iran, but a place where the state could murder casually and with impunity -- and often did.

It was a place of torture. It was a place of massacre. It was a place of unspeakable terror. It was a place where children were killed. It was a place where women were raped. It was a place -- just to cite what happened to the Fayli Kurds, a small ethnic group from near the Iran border -- where families were rousted from their homes, the men separated from the women (and never seen again), the women raped and abused and sometimes forced at gunpoint across the frontier into Iran. Some died of exposure in the mountains and some died of fatigue and some were killed in the crossfire of Iraqi and Iranian troops then fighting their war in the 1980s. So far, none of this has been mentioned at the trial.

For many who supported going to war in Iraq, the nature of the regime was important, even paramount. It is disappointing that this no longer gets mentioned. I suppose the handwriting was on the wall when Michael Moore failed to mention Hussein's crimes at all in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." Years from now, someone coming across the film could conclude that the United States picked on the Middle Eastern version of Switzerland. Now, all the weight is on one side of the moral scale.

But what would have happened if the war had actually ended back when George Bush stood under that "Mission Accomplished" banner? The U.S. combat death toll then was 139. (It's now approaching 2,500.) Would it have been worth 139 American lives to put an end to a regime that had murdered many thousands of its own people and had been responsible for two major wars? After all, aren't some of the people who want Washington to do something in Darfur the same people who so rigorously opposed the Iraq war on moral grounds? What if we could pacify Darfur -- immense, arid and without population centers -- at the cost of 139 American lives? What is the morality of that? Two hundred thousand have already died there. Should we intervene?

Pardon me for raising the question without answering it. I do so only to discomfort, if I can, some of the people who are so certain of their moral righteousness when it comes to the Iraq war. I want to know why the crimes of Saddam Hussein never figure into their thinking and why it was morally wrong -- not merely unwise -- to topple him. Raising this question in no way excuses the Bush administration's incompetence, fibbing and exaggerations, and the way it has abused American democracy. All that remains -- but so does the lingering question about morality.

This is why the trial of Saddam Hussein is such a calamity. The only redeeming element of this wretched war is its moral component -- the desire of some people to do good by ridding the world of a thug and his regime -- and that story, once so simple, has been obfuscated by delays and antics. We have somehow turned a criminal into a clown. It's a metaphor, it's a commentary, but mostly, like everything else about this war, it's just a damn shame.

cohenr@washpost.com

****
Richard,

You ask about the cost in American lives. What about the cost in Iraqi lives? At a minimum, the US aggression, for whatever reason you want to put forth, has cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Perhaps you might wish to put your question to them.

We in America seem to forget that the losses in our military adventures include more than the loss of American lives. By themselves, a terrible cost to pay, both for their families and the country. But before we go asking ourselves was it worth it, we need to add in ALL the costs.

By the time of bush's "Mission Accomplished" skit, the administration still hadn't gone beyond WMD for it's reason for war. As the lack of their existence became more and more public, the reasons for the war became more and more incoherent. After three years, the administration still cannot give the American people, or the world, a coherent and consistent reason for our invasion of Iraq. So, was it worth it? How the hell can anybody know? We don't even know why the hell we're in Iraq in the first place.

I would think that would be the first question you'd want answered.

Tom Marshall
http://tmars.iwarp.com/guerrilla_campaign

The beasts who would destroy us
By Sheila Samples
http://207.44.245.159/article13148.htm


"The demonic appears most terrible when it assumes dominance in some one person. They are not alwaysthe most admirable persons, either in mind or in gifts. But a tremendous force goes out from them, and theyexercise an unbelievable power over all creatures. It is in vain that the brighter part of mankind tries to throwsuspicion on them as betrayers or betrayed; the masses are attracted by them."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


05/22/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- America has lost its way. We are a confused nation, beset on all sides by fear and paranoia. After the orchestrated 9-11 attack on New York City and Washington D.C., and its follow-up anthrax attack on Democratic legislators, Americans of all stripes rushed en masse to George Bush's Fools' Gate to trade their morality and compassion for empty promises of security. The consequences of that Faustian trade are unbelievable. In order to be safe we signed a pact with Decider Bush to condone any atrocity he could dream up so long as it happened in other lands to other men, other women, other children. He agreed, and further decided that no law conjured up by mere man applied to him, especially the U.S. Constitution, and demanded we sacrifice our freedoms as collateral for this evil pact.

How easily we were fooled! Fat, indolent, and full of self-righteous pus, we were ripe for harvest. We are at the mercy of The Decider, who is manipulated from behind the scenes by unelected neo-Straussian thugs lusting for the matrix of a One World Order. They are joined by Christo-fascists soiling themselves at the thought of gaining dominion over the government apparatus and realizing their dream of stoning gays and liberals to death, and by rapacious corporations intent on ransacking the universe until it is stripped of all treasure and resources. Although their agendae differ, this greedy axis shares a single goal -- that of complete power and control -- an area where morality dies aborning. They also share one other critical attribute -- they are aggressively anti-American -- traitors contemptuous of representative democracy who will not rest until every last vestige of it is wiped from the face of the earth.

The war they are waging is on us.

We have lost much over the past five years, but nothing as profound as our spirituality. The religious among us are little more than blind sheep milling around, stumbling in single file in the direction of the loudest voice blaring from Tower of Babel churches and media ministries. They are unable to discern good from evil and incapable of recognizing the filthy hypocrisy of the religious right's fundamentalist theocracy. And there are more of them every day -- God's warriors eagerly following the divinely inspired Bush into a dark world of assassination, torture, murder and madness. Bush is "born again." He said so himself. God talks to him. Would he do anything that was not God's will?

I wonder if there is just one true Christian who can look at what Bush has done in the last five years, and what he is threatening to do in the next three and say that Bush is "born again"? Do Christians not know their own God? Did not God warn us to be vigilant against the "Deceiver" masquerading as a messenger of light lest we fall prey to, and become a part of, the evil swirling around us? Are we not responsible for discerning the nature of the beast -- the false prophets sent out into the world?

I do not recognize this devilishly destructive, violent god of the evangelical religious right who has sent Bush on his genocidal mission. The God I am familiar with is the One to whom my mother knelt in tearful prayer each night and raised her sweet, wonderful voice in praise each day. He is the One to whom David sang in Psalm 5:4 --"For thou are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with thee. The boastful may not stand before thy eyes; thou hatest all evildoers. Thou destroyest those who speak lies; the Lord abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful men."

Do not be deceived. Emerson says that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment, and each breath Bush, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the hypocritical Republican Christo-fascist machine emit are putrid blasts of evil lies. As Carolyn Baker writes so succinctly..." The religious right of twenty-first century America is anti-American, inherently violent, and a cruel, tyrannical, punitive, force of death and destruction. "

Baker says the "unredeemed, the unbelievers, the poor, the feminists, the gay and lesbian, the disabled, the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, and those who are conscientiously following divergent spiritual paths of their choice, are suffering in the wake of Christian fundamentalism’s devastation of the economy, the earth, and the human race." She says adult human lives do not matter to these people and, unless we follow their tenets, we deserve to "burn in hell for all of eternity. Hence, we are expendable, inconsequential, and a force to be conquered, broken, imprisoned, or killed."

How easily these creatures who have never served their country in uniform send others to be maimed, broken and killed in an endless "war on terror," which is nothing but an abstraction whose reality lies in the mind of the beholder. Day after weary day the bodies pile up at the feet of the stubborn, mean-spirited Bush and the beast he has unleashed upon the world whose thirst for blood cannot be quenched. There have been 2,471 Americans slaughtered because of the shameful lies told by Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and others -- and especially by the dishonorable Colin Powell who carried the beast's water all the way to the United Nations. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistani men, women and children have perished on the alter of Bush's god, who is even now panting to bury his fangs in the throat of Iran.

The present-day "religion" has little to do with Christianity. It is all bloody politics. The Republican party is little more than a fascist religious cult whose goal is to take over this republic and rule it by the cold compassion of the Old Testament God. For those who doubt that consolidating power and controlling politics is far more important to the religious right than saving souls, Katherine Yurica reports in her The New Messiahs text that Pat Robertson announced publicly on his 700 Club at a time when the religious right was gaining dominance, “We have enough votes to run the country -- and when the people say, ‘we’ve had enough,’ we’re going to take over the country.”

Yurica said there was never any doubt of the ultimate goal of not only Robertson, but Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye and many others. "What is dominion?" Pat Robertson asked his television audience, “Well," he said, "dominion is lordship, to reign and rule."

And kill. The scent of innocent blood sends these guys into nearly as wild a frenzy as it does Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Falwell recently announced in trembling excitement, “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I’m for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”

Robertson has called on his followers to pray for the deaths of Supreme Court justices. He has called for the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez no less than three times. Both Falwell and Robertson openly blamed the attacks of 9-11 on gays, lesbians and pagan liberals. If Robertson weren't so dangerous the blasphemous "chats" he claims to have, wherein he trivializes, demeans and ridicules the Creator of the entire Universe, would be hilarious. Just last week Robertson babbled that God gave him a heavenly weather report. "If I heard the Lord right," he said, "storms and possibly a tsunami would hit US coasts this year."

And, in April, God helped him cure a woman of her asthma. Robertson said fortunately he had his wife with him -- "this haunting woman...very attractive -- striking brunette, 45 years old, you know thin, 5'8" kinda thing..." Robertson said he prayed, "Lord, what's wrong with her?" And God said, "ask her about her sex life." Robertson and God argued for a bit before Robertson asked her about her marriage, which she said was "wonderful." He turned back to God, reminding us again that he had his wife with him, and asked, "Lord, what's the matter?" God insisted, "Ask her about her sex life." So, as soon as ol' Pat asked her about her sex life and she said she didn't have any, God cured her of her asthma.

The beasts who would destroy us -- will destroy us -- if we are not vigilant -- walk among us not as the hideous demons they are, but hide their true nature behind the masks of their twisted ethos, disguised as bumbling, arrogant fools. Thanks to them, America is no longer a Beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world, but a flickering ray of shame and derision. Thanks to them, God has become a symbol of hate and terror. Because of their lust, the American Flag is now America's funeral shroud.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net

© 2006 Sheila Samples

Something's Burning

by Kim Redigan
Published on Monday, May 22, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0522-25.htm


I confess to not having read The Da Vinci Code. Quite frankly, I have been too busy trying to keep up with the prolific body of fiction emanating from the White House these past few years to have time for outside reading. From the epic story about weapons of mass destruction to the little morality tale featuring Jessica Lynch, this President cranks out fiction like I, a good Catholic mother, once cranked out babies.

Which beings me to The Da Vinci Code.

It seems that some of my co-religionists have issued a fatwa of sorts against reading and viewing a work of fiction that they believe has the potential to lead vulnerable souls astray. If it’s not a bespectacled wizard diabolically inserting himself into the Scholastic Book Club, it’s a summer beach book with a religious theme that’s going to lead us all straight to hell. Yes, during these past days the alarms have sounded and we have moved into the Christian version of high-alert code red.

Now, lest I seem flippant, let me assure you that I take both my spiritual condition and my literature very seriously. Whether or not I take issue theologically with the book’s premise is not the point here. As one whose tastes run more toward political texts and slow-moving travel documentaries, it is unlikely that I will ever pick up The Da Vinci Code.

Does this mean that I am out of the weeds, spiritually speaking? Free from the devil’s snare? Part of the angel band willing to exchange their library cards for a set of golden wings? Am I now among the ranks of the righteous who can smugly say of our fallen brethren, "We warned them. They lost their souls at the multiplex. Let them burn"?

No.

Something is burning alright, but it’s not the souls of book-loving Christians who know how to distinguish their faith from fiction. Many of my religious brothers and sisters are so busy looking for the devil in books and films, that they fail to smell the smoke that’s filling our world and choking the human family. Yes, something is burning . . . Iraq. And we set the fire. We’re losing our souls alright, but not at the local movie house.

We may be using depleted uranium and white phosphorus in Iraq and killing tens of thousands of people, but we’re keeping Harry Potter out of the hands of our kiddies. Preemptive war? Torture? Racism? Surely Jesus will understand these little oversights in light of the effort required to keep potential backsliders out of the bookstores. We may be up to our elbows in blood, but our hands are unblemished when it comes to holding a questionable book.

While many of my fellow travelers may prefer to live in the world of fiction populated by the President and his followers, those of us who live in that place that he disparagingly calls the "reality-based" world see where things are heading and it sure ain’t the promised land.

Led by false prophets who have wrapped the cross in a flag and leaders who will kill for a buck, this nation is losing its soul - without even picking up a controversial book. We have embraced an ethos of violence, xenophobia, hypocrisy and greed - even before the film was released.

Tonight people will die in Iraq. Afghanistan. Gaza. Detroit. But that’s not our concern. We’re so busy leafing through books in search of the devil that we missed seeing Jesus in the eyes of those we kill and neglect.

Kim Redigan is a teacher and activist from Detroit.

Uprising at Guantanamo

from Lenin’s Tomb
Friday, May 19, 2006
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/05/uprising-at-guantanamo.html


America's own Chateau D'If is experiencing a desperate, doomed revolt by prisoners armed with weapons made of fans and light fixtures. They stand no chance against soldiers and professional torturers armed to the teeth and in control of almost every inch of the base, and so you could reasonably conclude that they are at this point indifferent to death. If you like, the United States has detained large numbers of people - many of whom we now know are to be released uncharged, which is to say that they have been trapped in hell for no reason, let alone a good one - and created suicide attackers out of several of them. This follows attempted suicides by four prisoners, using hoarded medicines. Commander Robert Durand says he can't discern a motive or a message, which means he either intends to insult our intelligence or his own.The US has supplied the motive in abundance, and the response of many detainees is to attempt slow, agonising suicide. The message is that they are being held by such an inhuman, savage state that they'd rather die than continue in captivity. Donald Rumsfeld, in response to the hunger strikes, was kind enough to confirm this by describing them as "a diet". The invertebrate UN human rights watchdog that asked nicely for Guantanamo's closure because it seemed inapposite for a government so vocal about the human rights record of others to be kidnapping people and detaining them, indefinitely and without trial, and then torturing them, got its response today. The US said that the real problem is there aren't enough interrogators.

A Time For Euthanasia

by Mary Pitt
5/18/06

The old dog has outlived its usefulness. Granted, we have loved it dearly for its caring companionship and its contribution to the safety which we have found so precious. It still has the endearing tail wag when we approach and always seems glad to act in an ingratiating manner, but the teeth have grown smooth and the body is reluctant to move. When threatened, it can only growl and bare its now-useless teeth, trying to convince us that it is still "on the job" and performing its usual duties. But, however, much we love it, we must let it go; we must put it out of its misery for its own good, and ours. We are as helpless with it as we would be without it and it is time to find a new dog that can still hunt. Yes, friends, it is time to give up and end the life of the Democratic Party.

For too many years, the official party line has been one of compromise and conciliation, of "playing nice" no matter how rough the game may get. When faced with campaign after campaign of Republican dirty tricks, they have deigned not to fight back in a similar matter with the truth as a powerful weapon and expose the opposition as the phonies they actually are or to oppose the infractions against the very laws in the formation of which they have participated. They stand silently while the Constitution is blatantly reduced to a "goddam piece of paper" and the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence merely an antiquated political statement. One by one, the amendments to the Constitution which guarantee the civil rights of each and every American citizen have been negated in the name of "National Security".

Since the dastardly destruction of the World Trade Center, our "Democratic" representatives have bought into every lie that has been offered by the adminstration. They blandly accept the claim that "the world changed on September 11, 2001". But those whose vision is still twenty-twenty can see that the "world" is still the same. It is the United States that has changed, and they are complicit in that change. The one-time bastion of peace and freedom, the example to all the world of what a nation should be has fallen into disrepute with a greater rapidity than the dive in President Bush's poll ratings. They believed the President's rantings that "they hate us and want to kill us, so we have to kill them first", and they allowed the unnecessary invasion of a helpless Iraq at the cost of the abandonment of the search for Osama Bin Laden and now they cannot even bare their ineffective teeth in an effort to correct the dire situation which that caused and to require withdrawal of our troops.

After the towers fell, we watched, aghast, as blanket authority was given to the adminstrative branch to make all decisions, the oppressive Patriot Act was passed by a Congress, most of whom had not even read it. And then, rather than to admit that they had made a mistake, they renewed it on request! Now and then, there have been "objections" and a show of a bit of independence, but it always disappears when it is time to count the votes. They sit by and do nothing as the laws that they pass are nullified by the President on signing by "administrative exceptions"; they see pay-offs and corruption and make little or no investigation into whether or how they can bring this arrogant administration back under Constitutional control. They are afraid to attempt any constructive measures because they have lost confidence in right and truth as the strongest weapons of democracy, recognizing only things they can count, majority and the ballot box, things that they cannot win unless they demonstrate a passion for protecting them.

Every time they attempted to stand up to protect the people, Mr. Bush would scream "Nine-eleven", and they would scurry under the porch and then return to their docile submission, allowing the illegal orders to stand and the rights of the citizens to be even further compromised. Now, Nancy Pelosi has announced that there will be no movement toward impeachment if they win the majority in Congress this year! The only possible advancement in the fortunes of this old and decrepit party is furnished by the penicillin of progressive branches within the party who are working on the state and local levels, but the infections in the head of the aging body are fighting back against this needed medication and the prognosis is not good. The Progressives are finding new and aggressive candidates to run for office, but their choices are too often rejected by party-liners who are chosen by the party leaders for their "years of loyalty and hard work". Thus, there will be no permission for the necessary application of "new blood" to create the energy that will allow the body to recover.

But time is short! The wolves are circling at the door and even our telephones are useless to make calls for help and a young, aggressive watchdog who will fight tooth-and-nail to save the inhabitants of this nation from destruction is essential to our survival. The endangered people of this nation/family must make a decision and make it soon. The "old dog" must be put down so that a new one can take over and perform the duties of protecting us from the corporate wolves. Let us hope that we can quickly find one with real teeth and the willingness, wit, and strength to use them effectively on our behalf. The decision can no longer be delayed and the first step must be taken.

It's time to euthanize the Democratic Party.

Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansan, a free-thinker, and a warrior for truth and justice. Huzzahs and whiney complaints may be sent to mpitt@cox.net

A reality bite

from President Bush's Address to Nation
Monday, May 15, 2006

"...Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency...."


from The San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
- Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL

"Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities...."



What a bullshit artist.

Saving The Internet Is Saving Freedom

By Doris Colmes, MSW
5/14/06

Way back in Viet Nam times, not only didn’t we have the internet, we didn’t even need it. Hey, we were out there marching and hollering because we were all pretty much aware of the lies our government was attempting to foist on us. How so? Well, for one thing, the Viet Nam war was the first war ever to be reported via live TV. This meant that TV reporters, TV cameras were out there, shooting the truth. This meant photographing for eternity, that little girl fleeing naked from napalm. It meant photographing for eternity an “allied” officer shooting a dissenter in the head as the dissenter knelt in the dirt at the officer’s feet. And it meant photographing for eternity that famous, infamous wagon-load of injured U.S. soldiers being transported out of a battle zone. Hordes of helicopters flying over villages “destroyed to keep them safe from the Viet Cong,” replete with the murdered lying in the mud. It was all there for us to see.

If our government was hiding its true motives for involving the U.S.A. in a manufactured war, lying blatantly about the Vietnamese sinking ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, it didn’t matter. All of us who protested were able to access media, were able to watch live coverage of this sin against humanity on TV and decide for ourselves how we wanted to deal – or not deal – with it. .

All that has changed. This time around, all media is censored, only news that the government believes will assist in propaganda efforts is being released, and that ain’t much. Apparently, the “Decider” running this Iraq version of Viet Nam has decided that even a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Therefore, in today’s Iraqi Viet Nam re-play, you may view soldiers in Baghdad, rifles at ready, gaining forcible entry into homes, charging upstairs while occupants watch silently We may view soldiers in their tanks and humvees driving along roads surrounded by unexploded “I.E.D,s” (improvised Explosive Devices) along with lots of photos of Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts.

But, if you want to see what infants severely deformed by their father’s Depleted Uranium absorption look like; if you want to see what the actual demolition of an entire city (Fallujah) looks like; if you want to see Afghanistan again under Taliban rule; if you want to see the actual face of war, you need the internet.

Turn on the morning TV news, and you get to learn how the latest celebrity is getting divorced, having a baby, living in Bahrain, dating his ex mother-in-law. Read the newspaper, and learn how the city is reconstructing a sewer pipe, closing schools for lack of money, or messing with local taxes. Oh, sure, there are some choice items, such as the third highest CIA director being chased down for some scandal or other, how Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff are being tried by jury (any year now?) but the actual news behind our government’s decisions, behind how the wealthy are being spared taxation, how a horde of guilty secrets, secrets that affect us all, beginning with our wallets and ending with our actual safety are being hidden? For that, you need the internet.

Except, folks, right now, this very moment, our government is attempting to rid us of internet freedom, and, in that process take away another big chunk of the First Amendment. How so? Here goes:

The United States Congress is currently drafting a bill known as “The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act of 2006”, known as “COPE.” This means privatizing the Internet, by allowing such private corporations as AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon and others to actually own it, and, in the process operate the internet and other digital communications services as private networks. The bill very, very clearly states that “certain classes of Internet providers may-- not unreasonably-- impair, interfere, restrict or limit applications or services such as Web sites or voice-over IP phone connections.”

On April 26, 2006, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications rejected an amendment to the bill (the Markey Amendment written by Ed Markey, D-Mass) that would have strengthened provisions for network neutrality. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 28 to 8. (see end notes for URLs)

I clearly and irrefutably understand what the First Amendment is all about. Freedom of Speech is sacred to me. I do – via extraordinary experience as a ten year old Jewish kid in Nazi Berlin – understand what the denial of this freedom can mean.

“Regulating” the internet, charging for its use, even “monitoring” it, is simply one more step towards fascism. When I can’t say what I feel, when I can’t express these feelings freely on the internet, I am being muzzled. (Been muzzled on pain of death before, so believe it: been there, done that)

I do not care a hoot who invented it. For all we know, it fell out of a Pentagon DOD window, onto the head of a fifteen year old computer geek who ran with it. What I care about is what it has become: A free and open avenue of communication.

What matters is that it is ours now: Ours, all of us with access to it. And even those who don’t use it own it. We made it, we use it – and for what? Well, amongst other things we use it to exchange the truth, that’s for what! From the Moscow Post, to the conservative Manchester Guardian, from reputable U.S. and international internet sites, we get to learn what our own media conceals. And then, are free to exchange this information with fellow internet users all over the planet. In the process, we make friends, socialize a bit, and get to know whose information is trustworthy and who’s just in it for laughs, or to “spoof” or “spam.”

I am also completely aware (again via past personal experience in Nazi Germany) of the degree to which this administration has actively censored, regulated and propagandized all news media, both print and TV. But, via the internet, I can get actual news from the European media, a bit above and beyond what is force-fed us here. Those idiot “celebrity” articles mentioned earlier, are a tried and true way to divert our citizenry’s attention from actual news. In Nazi Germany, all it took was Nazi heroine Leni Riefenstahl flying an airplane with her hair streaming, or climbing up a mountain wearing a radiant smile along with her cleats.

If we are deprived of free and complete and independent access to the Internet, we will lose the last vestige of getting the real news, and the last vestige of free and open communication available to any of us.

I just wrote a scathing letter to my legislative representatives, stating – amongst other things – “Please remember: I am old, but I sure vote.” All of you who read this, must do the same. Let them know how you feel. Let them know. After all, you are undoubtedly reading this very article on an internet site, are you not?

(Doris Colmes is an independent writer in Portland, Oregon. Her book, “The Iron Butterfly” was published in 2002, and she received the Kay Snow Award for non-fiction in 2003. She can be reached via: www.doriscolmes.com )

End Notes, Sources and Resources:
Wallace Koehler at: wkoehler@valdosta.edu
http://mydd.com/images/admin/Markey_Net_neutrality_Amendment.pdf
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/issues/net_neutrality_/index.cfm
Gun Owners of America at: http://savetheinternet.com/=coalition
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf
http://www.doontmesswiththenet.com
http://savetheinternet.com
US Congress drafting bill that may affect internet freedoms at:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Congress_drafting_bill_that_may_affect_internet__freedoms
In all of these email addresses, any words not directly connected to be printed as one word are separated by “underscore+ which does not show up when addresses are automatically underlined.

Additional Contacts
National Cable & Telecommunications Association at:
http://www.ncta.com/IssueBrief.aspx?contnentID=2715

Common Cause, “Hands off Our Internet!” at:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b-1386967


Sorry to have taken so long -- had to get goosed by current events to start up again. Peace, Doris

It’s dancin’ time.

The Impeachment Campaign, Part 3
by the Rude Pundit

“…For Democratic Congressional candidates, it's simple enough. (And if they're not doing the following already, they are missing out on a golden opportunity.) Choose any random Democrat running against a Republican. Let's say Lois Murphy, running against incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania's Sixth Districh. Gerlach has got his Bush-cangue already, so in every ad that Murphy runs, every appearance that Murphy makes, she should make sure to mention how much Gerlach is beholden to Bush and Cheney. Hell, she should makes sure that she always says, "Jim Gerlach and George Bush believe..." And fill in the blank. That's the weight, man. Hell, with Gerlach and other House members, there's the added weight of Tom DeLay: "What Jim Gerlach, George Bush, and Tom DeLay did..." And who the fuck's gonna vote for him? Someone who actually still supports Bush and DeLay? That's gettin' to be precious, precious few people, and we'd call them "bugfuck insane."

The guilt-by-association rhetorical device is specious and overused, except when it's true. And with a President and party so hated by nearly the entire nation, when the only "victory" that Bush is said to be "celebrating" is more tax cuts for the very wealthy, well, it's time to move in for the rhetorical kill, and that's to use Bush against his party. Again, as the Rude Pundit said yesterday, the idea is to force Republican candidates to choose between supporting Bush or denying him, and either way there's a bear trap waiting to chomp down.

Democrats need to bathe in the streams of blood pouring from the wounded administration and the hemhorraging Republican Party. They need to celebrate like ancient rites would have them, eating the hearts of their enemies to make them stronger. …”

(read more)

The Welfare Kings

by Dean Baker
May 10, 2006


Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

At a time when tens of millions of workers are struggling to pay for gas for their car, electricity for their home, and medical care for their families, the Republicans have stepped forward with a plan to help. They want to give another $20 to $30 billion in tax cuts to the rich.

This temporary assistance to the needy rich (TANR) takes the form of a 2-year extension of a tax cut that made the maximum tax rate on stock dividends and capital gain income 15 percent. While tens of millions of ordinary workers pay income tax rates of 25 percent on their wages, the Republicans argue that Bill Gates and his billionaire friends shouldn’t have to pay taxes at more than a 15 percent rate. Most of this tax break goes to the richest 1 percent of the population. This is because they hold most of the country’s stock—and even when middle income people hold stock, it is usually in retirement accounts, which are not affected by this tax cut.

The Republicans don’t argue that rich people should pay lower tax rates just because they are rich. Republicans—and many Democrats—argue that rich people should pay lower tax rates because they get their income from owning stock instead of working for a living.

(read the rest)

A quote for our times

Found at Tennessee Guerrilla Women
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/05/mark-twain-on-stephen-colbert.html

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
--Mark Twain, Notebook, 1904

What a great quote. and how sadly true. It’s fascinating to watch how many people are beginning to criticize the Enlightened One, now that the bush has tanked. Even people who, not so long ago, equated said criticism with treason. Just amazing.

So You Want To Be A Citizen

by Mary Pitt
4/27/2006

My Aunt Tildie has been gone for an extended visit with one of her granddaughters and I thought it would be nice to see her again. I love her active mind, her awareness of whar is going on in the world amd had missed her irrepressible commentary on social problems. As I rang her bell, I could hear the bustle inside as she came to the door, threw it open wide, and motioned me to sit in the usual chair. Without the amenity of the usual offer of a cup of tea or other social protocols, she began telling me what was on her mind.

"Did you see it? Well, did you?" she gushed.

"See what, Aunt Tildie?" I queried, "What are you talking about?"

"The so-called immigrants protesting in the streets demanding their rights and citizenship, as if they had earned them!" she blurted.

"Yes, Aunt Tildie, I saw them but I had no idea that they would upset you so."

The very old lady paused for a deep breath, which she obviously needed, since her face had turned bright red from the excitement and the barrage of words. "Well,"she continued, " there were signs saying, 'I am not a criminal", when by the very fact of having sneaked across the border, they all became criminals, whether that was their intent or not. There were signs demanding 'the vote'! How could they possibly think that they could vote when they have no idea of the issues or the candidates. Besides, we have plenty of voters like that already! That's how we got into this mess in the first place."

"Now, now, Aunt Tildie," I interjected, "I know that you have a real point in there someplace. Suppose you just settle down, collect your thoughts, and tell me what it is about all this that really bothers you."

"You're right, child," (I love it when she calls me "child".) "Suppose we have a cup of tea and I will tell you why I am so irate."

As we sat and stirred our tea, she began again, more quietly. "You know, we have always taken great pride in our nation and our family's service to it, as patriotic as can be, and we revere our founders and the vision they had which was responsible for their creation of a free country, one of law and order, in which we could all work together for the common good. I lost a husband in World War I and a fiancee in the Spanish flu which followed after. Your own brothers and others of my nephews served in World War II, some perished, and others came home with terrible wounds and mental problems, but none of us, including them, ever questioned the rightness of their sacrifice.

"That's what it means to be a citizen of this great country, to love it enough to sacrifice everything for its continuation. We have seen many immigrants from many nations come to our shores. The Africans, of course, had no choice in the matter, being kidnaped and brought in as slaves. but they became as good citizens as any. So did the Irish in fleeing the potato famine, the Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, and all the rest who dreamed for years of a life of freedom and opportunity. They all suffered prejudice and poverty until they learned our language and adapted to the American way of life.

"They were all different, but they had one thing in common. They knocked on the door, so to speak, made application to immigrate and they waited their turn for admission. They filed their papers and were processed according to our laws and, once here, they worked hard at learning our language and our way of doing things until now, when they are part of our common culture and our destiny. This is also true of those of Mexican ancestry whose ancestors were either here at the time of the founding or legally migrated later.

"But these people have broken down our back door and come into our home, taken the food from our children, stolen our jobs, our schools, and our health care, and now they insist that we put their name on the title to the house! It just is not right!"

Sensing the sweet lady becoming more upset, I attempted to mollify her by suggesting that it was an "interesting" way of looking at the problem, but she had not finished. "I saw a show on CNN today. They had a Mexican lady who was working in Georgia. She had sent money home for a smuggler to bring her children over, but they were stopped and sent back. She went back to visit them! She said that she told them that if they wanted her to, she would stay with them, but they wanted her to come back and send for them so they could go to school. Then she cried because she got caught driving without a license and had to pay bail, so that she is now afraid to drive. Doesn't she know that the same thing would happen to me if I were to drive without a license?

"And why doesn't she have a license? Because she is not a citizen! And she is not a citizen because she doesn't belong here! If she had done the proper paperwork and waited in line as so many of her countrymen are doing, she might have been here legally by now, be going to school to learn to speak English, and have her children with her, growing up and learning to be Americans. Or, if she and all the rest like her had stayed in their own country and worked to make the needed changes as our own pioneers did, they might have had an entirely different country and would not need to leave it to better themselves. But that is the problem the world over, Everyone wants what they want NOW! Instant gratification is the order of the day!'

"But, what are we to do with them? The Democrats seem to agree with the President that we need another amnesty because it would be impossible to round them all up and ship them home. There are just too many!", I asked.

"We don't need to round them up and ship them back! We can enforce the law against hiring them. We can forbid the free medical care, the free education for their children so that they will know that they have to go home. We can set a date, three years, five years, while we secure the border, that they have to go home. Have offices ready in Mexico to issue secure identity cards like the ones some states use for food stamps, a swipe card with a secret PIN number. They will have to go back to get the card and then we can keep track of them and know where they are."

"I don't mean to argue with you," I said, "but what do you think of the idea that would make it a felony for churches and charitable agencies to provide assistance to them or to hide them from law enforcement?"

"Heavens no!" she exclaimed, "That's what they do! We don't want to kill them! We just want them to go home and stay there until they have permission to come back to work, but not to stay. There are no problems in this situation that cannot be worked out with compassion and common sense. Even the status of the children born here can be provided for with a little work, cooperation, and thought."

"Well, they don't seem to want to pay their dues for citizenship but think they only have to get here and then, perhaps pay for the privilege," I suggested.

"Pay their dues! I like that expression!" she chortled, "Previous immigrants paid their dues, for sure. Long before they came here, they applied for visas and then they waited, sometimes for years. During that time, they studied and they planned. They knew that they must know some English and so they studied; they read and talked to people who had been here; they considered which part of this great land would suit them better for climate and have work that they knew how to do. They didn't just throw a pack on their back and sneak across the border in the middle of the night to come here and just take whatever they want!

"Then they come out and parade in our streets under a Mexican flag and claim that they were here first! These people not only do not know a thing about the history of the United States; they don't know much of their own history! First, only the indigenous people of the Southwest and Northern Mexico were 'here first'. The rest are descended from the Conquistadores from Spain just as we come from the Northern Europeans. They also conveniently forget that the United States won the Mexican War! American soldiers took the entire country but, finding nobody with the authority to surrender, the President declared Mexico 'ungovernable', called the soldiers home, re-drew the boundary lines of the United States to the present configuration, and 'declared peace'!"

"That's interesting, Aunt Tildie," I responded, "I grew up in an area that was developed during the Mexican War but never studied much about it while I was in school."

"That's because there wasn't much to it! The Mexicans, under the French and Spanish rulers, had resented our taking of Texas and decided to take it back. In the process of trying, they were totally over-run, a new government was formed, and we lived in peace with them until the present day. But then, globalization took over our own government and they began making treaties like GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA, American factories moved to Mexico's cheap labor and then, on to Southeast Asia. Their President Fox got together with President Bush and decided that an 'open-borders' policy was a good idea. Mexico virtually abandoned responsibility for their own economy and the welfare of their people. Now the people, having seen the American dream, have decided that it is theirs for the taking and our government has done nothing to stop them.

"One would think, given the seriousness of the situation, that our government could have increased the number of Green Cards that were issued to relieve the pressure, but administration decided to just let it happen! The Republican base were thrilled at the opportunity to obtain cheap labor ‘under the table’ with no benefits and no insurance. This President appears to have no respect whatever for the traditional way of doing things or for the laws that were established for the purpose of establishing an orderly manner of society. He views himself not as an elected agent of the people, but as an absolute monarch! Saddam Hussein would not disarm fast enough to suit George W. Bush so we are now butchering millions of men, women, and children in Iraq, all over nothing at all, and soon it will be happening in Iran. While we are 'fighting them over there', we have been invaded by millions of civilian Mexicans who have no loyalty for our country other than the fulfillment of their own needs."

"Yes, child," she concluded, "I am afraid that the American as we have known him has become a dying breed. Politics and personal gain has trumped patriotism and national sacrifice for the common good. Good old American common sense has gone the way of the dodo. Those who knew the way of life of a few years ago will pass on and the youth and immigrants will become the guides for a nation that will become prey for the other greedy nations. We will go the way of ancient Greece, just history and ruins. It makes me sad and very, very tired."

Not being willing to have the beloved old lady further upset by a discussion of the progress of the "world war on terror", I excused myself and left her, still deep in thought, nodding, in her rocking chair.

Aunt Tildie always leaves me with food for thought and I often enjoy it, but this spoonful of truth will not allow the strongest of antacids to cure the ache that it has put in my belly.

Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansan, a free-thinker, and a warrior for truth and justice. Huzzahs and whiney complaints may be sent to mpitt@cox.net

Defending Bloggers from SLAPs

by Juan Cole
5/01/2006
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/defending-bloggers-from-slaps-it-was.html
It was bound to happen. "Blogger hit with Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit." Props to MBA for trying to help.


MBA Member Hit With Multi-Million Dollar Federal Lawsuit
April 27, 2006
http://www.mediabloggers.org/archives/2006/04/mba_member_hit.php

MBA Member Lance Dutson who blogs at Maine Web Report was recently served with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Maine. The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and defamation for reporting and commentary written and published by Dutson on his blog.

"This case is nothing more than an attempt by a deep-pocketed litigant to bully a blogger for criticizing state officials and state contractors"", said MBA President Robert Cox. "We have successfully defended MBA members in nine previous cases and I don¹t expect the outcome here to be be any different."

Dutson went public this morning with news of the lawsuit and provided key links here including his account of the events leading up to the lawsuit and the complaint served on Dutson by the local sheriff at his home in Maine. Dutson has vowed to fight.

"The idea that criticism of the state government can be defamatory is absurd", said Dutson, "This attempt to bludgeon critics of the state government is not going to work."

Through it's legal defense initiative, the MBA provides member bloggers with "first line" legal defense, pro bono advice on how best to respond to legal threats related to the member's blog.

"Bloggers don't usually have an in-house legal department or high priced outside First Amendment counsel, but they're at least as likely to need one as any MSM outlet. That's where we come in," said MBA General Counsel, Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm.

Dutson has secured the services of Greg Herbert of Greenberg Traurig, a specialist in media law and First Amendment/defamation litigation and private attorney Jon Stanley. The MBA, through Coleman, will act as co-counsel.

Herbert noted, "Many of these cases, where a large corporation sues an individual for criticism over the internet, appear to be motivated, primarily, by an attempt to silence legitimate criticism and suppress speech."

In addition to providing pro bono, "first line" legal advice, the MBA seeks to raise awareness of attempts by governments and corporations to intimidate bloggers and citizen journalists by encouaging members to report such actions on their own blogs and encouraging all bloggers to carry the news throughout the blogosphere.