A Historian Discusses “The Three Wars You’re Not Allowed To Say Anything Bad About…”

From TheRealNews.com, posted 17 May 2009:

Howard Zinn speaks at The Progressive Magazine’s 100th anniversary about the three wars we hold “holy” in American culture. He proposes that a just cause does not automatically mean a just war. Before (or after) a war, one has to consider the human cost of the war.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2540319&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

read more | digg story

Daily Kos TV – Republicans Repeat History of Kicking Dem. Presidents’ Pets

In the 1944 Presidential election, Republicans attacked FDR for his dog, Fala, in much the same way that President Obama’s Republican critics are attacking his dog, Bo.

On September 23, 1944, FDR took his critics to task in what became known as the “Fala speech.” Watch:

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2534538&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykostv.com%2Fw%2F001334%2Fvxml.php%3F448]

read more | digg story

A Historian’s Take on the Present Political Landscape and its Majority Party

From Politco, 11 May 2009 post, by Prof. Matthew Dallek:

From their efforts to enact bipartisan health care reform to shaping energy and environmental legislation, Democratic moderates form a crucial bloc of votes that will define much of Obama’s legislative agenda…[snip]

…[Moderate Democrats remember] Clinton enacted a landmark budget in 1993. It raised taxes on corporations and the wealthy, put limits on new social spending and ultimately helped cut the budget deficit and produce a budget surplus in 1998. Clinton’s presidency “marked a profound change” in the Democratic Party’s direction, argued Kenneth Baer, the author of “Reinventing Democrats,” a history of the DLC. Before Clinton’s ascendance, Democrats “had been seen as profligate ‘tax-and-spenders’”; with Clinton in power, however, Democrats “had a president who championed … fiscal restraint.”…

read more | digg story

Some fascinating data based on more than 120,000 interviews completed over the past four months, on the way that partisan identification breaks down by age.

From  FiveThirtyEight.com, 9 May 2009 post, by Nate Silver:

Partisan ID Gap, Based on Identity of President When Voter Turned 18

...It’s become common knowledge that the younger generation is highly predisposed toward Democrats. (Actually, that’s not quite right — they’re more predisposed against Republicans than they are toward Democrats — but the net effects on their voting behavior are probably about the same.) What’s more remarkable, though, is how sharp the increase in the partisan ID gap becomes at about age 25. People aged 26-34 are pretty Democratic, put people aged 18-25 are really Democratic…

read more | digg story

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2499809&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykostv.com%2Fw%2F001300%2Fvxml.php%3F448]

I think that I may have just had my mind blown.

Wow!  Absolutely compelling!  I just finished watching, and I’m a little numb.  Shocked, maybe, is a better word for it.

Part I, I was pretty well familiar with, but I loved the way it was presented.

Warning to potential viewers: If you’re anxiously awaiting The Rapture, you may want to skip this one.  It’s not that you don’t need to see it… It’s more that you’re not likely to accept it.  Should you decide to view Zeitgeist, you may want to have something to bite down on when you do.

Parts II & III blew my mind.  Again, elements of the narrative –  war on false pretenses, and some of the Fed. deviousness — I was aware of.  However, the 9/11 truth evidence, the American Union, and World Gov’t/micro-chip evidence was eye opening.

Too often, the 9/11 Truth advocates are presented as wing-nuts.  I’ll no longer think of them that way.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2495674&w=425&h=350&fv=docId%3D-594683847743189197%26playerMode%3Dsimple%26hl%3Den]

From CommonDreams.org, 7 May 2009 post by, Jermy Scahill:

…First, I would recommend that anyone who thinks it is a “stretch” to prosecute lawyers who provided legal justifications for torture to read the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Specifically, read these portions:

Article 21. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

[...]

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

[...]

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

The US is legally bound to this convention and I would argue that the attempted legalizing and authorizing of torture, such as was done by Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury is exactly what this treaty addresses and bans…

read more | digg story

A Vietnam era interrogator discusses his interrogation experiences during that war making the point that brutality is a slippery slope that must be guarded against.

From the LA Times 27 April 2009 post, by Frank Knepp:

The most he gave up were false tidbits of a well-crafted cover story. Only when confronted with captured confederates who could identify him, and captured photographs showing him with Ho Chi Minh, did he confess his identity. It was good old-fashioned research and analysis, not torture, that first dented his armor.

read more | digg story