Rainy Day Reading Room

Hi DiAnne,

I saw a plug for this one from your list the other day:

Tragedy and Farce: How the American Media Sell War, Spin Elections and Damage Democracy -
Nichols & McChestnuy

I was interested as well, although did not purchase! Taking a break after being depressed by What's the matter with Kansas!

Rainy here, too, although we escaped the flooding they got a little farther north. Scary.

One more thing on that book - FreePress.org is offering that book if you join them. Here are some things they say about it:

Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy

By John Nichols and Robert McChesney

Cartoons by
Tom Tomorrow

Foreword by
Tim Robbins

"John Nichols and Bob McChesney are the Paul Revere and Thomas Paine of our time. We ignore them at democracy's peril."
Bill Moyers

"An appeal to reason in a dark time."
Thomas Frank

"Tragedy & Farce's title is taken from a quote by James Madison: "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.""

Apparently not due on shelves for a few more weeks.

What did Karl Rove tell James Dobson that convinced him to support Harriet Miers?

What does Dobson know that the American people don't?

Fineman on Hardball - White House expects several indictments in Plame investigation. Divisions forming between Andy Card contingent and Karl Rove contingent.

Miers apparently has strong ties to Rove. If Rove is indicted, does that further taint her nomination?

Matt, I'd say yes, her nomination would be tainted by close association with Rove. I was surprised to discover that Ann Coulter, extremist right wing shouter, is hoping that Carl Rove's career will soon be over....

DiAnne, I keep telling progressives to read Outsourcing America, by Lou Dobbs. Our side just doesn't know enough about economics; we have a lot of smart people on our side, but we lack knowledge about economics and big business. Outsourcing America taught me a lot.

Nice reading list. Now if I only had time to read them all--even a couple.

When I see lists like this, it gets me thinking about what the hell the point is of writing all these books. How much more do we need to know about totally ****** (Please keep it clean. Thanks.) we are if Bush et al stay in power?

And why is it so hard to convert even a small percentage of the outrage the public should feel from reading even one of these books into meaningful action.

I know, writers gotta write, it's what they know how to do, and readers gotta read, but if we don't want to keep reading books like these (until Pat Robertson and the Dominionists take over, in which case they'll just shoot the authors of such works for, as Mistress Coulter so delicately puts it, "treason"), then somebody somewhere is going to have to get out of their reading chairs and kick some serious butt, including persuading some of their still-asleep friends to come with them. I've gotten to the point where I don't want to read any more books analyzing the inequities of the world; how about someone write a clear plan for how to get out of this mess, and just assume the bad stuff?

Buzzflash has headlined a WaPo article this way:

Bush Launches KGB Franchise in U.S.: "As part of the expanding counterterrorism role being taken on by the Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agency covert operatives need to be able to approach potential sources in the United States without identifying themselves as government agents."

Here's the beginning to the WaPo article and the link:

Request for Domestic Covert Role Is Defended
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 8, 2005; Page A04

As part of the expanding counterterrorism role being taken on by the Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agency covert operatives need to be able to approach potential sources in the United States without identifying themselves as government agents, George Peirce, the DIA's general counsel, said yesterday.

"This is not about spying on Americans," Peirce said in an interview in which he defended legislative language approved last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The provision would grant limited authority for DIA agents to clandestinely collect information about U.S. citizens or emigres in this country to help determine whether they could be recruited as sources of intelligence information.

"We are not asking for the moon," Peirce said. "We only want to assess their suitability as a source, person to person" and at the same time "protect the ID and safety of our officers." The CIA and the FBI already have such authority, he added, and the DIA needs it "to develop critical leads" because "there is more than enough work for all of us to do."

read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701807.html

Finally, someone put it all together in one place:

Republican Child Molestershttp://www.armchairsubversive.com/

Title says it all:

Schwartzenegger Enlists McCain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5335040,00.html

"How Fitzgerald Might Expose the Niger Forgery Scandal through His Plame Investigation
by emptywheel

I've said on multiple occasions that I don't think Fitzgerald has evidence yet from the Plame investigation pertaining to the Niger forgeries. I've said that Fitzgerald needed to flip Bolton and not just Judy to get to the Niger forgeries. But I think I was wrong. I think Fitzgerald may be able to get to the Niger forgery scandal too. Here's how."

more at:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/
scroll down a bit

Posted by: Amy at October 10, 2005 08:26 PM

Awesome link! I'm passing it along.

Venezuela Switches to Euros -- Currency Collapse in the U.S.?

The U.S. economy faces utter collapse if OPEC and other oil-producing countries were to begin pricing their oil in euros rather than dollars.  When Iraq tried to switch to euros in 2000, they were attacked by the USA soon thereafter.  
Recently, Business Week reported that oil producer, Venezuela, "has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe."  

The importance of this news should not be underestimated.

Read the rest at

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/10/192940/00

This may be why Pat Robertson has been on a roll.

This may be why Pat Robertson has been on a roll.

Posted by: DiAnne at October 10, 2005 09:08 PM

I'm sure you're right about that DiAnne. My husband's European relatives, one of whom works for the World Bank, point to the threat of oil being sold in euros as the reason behind the Bush Invasion of Iraq. This would be a huge blow to Wall Street.

Perhaps Dick knows more? Or Chuck?

Hello All,
I am back from five days in the depressed Buffalo economy, and ready to catch up. Saw LOTS of progressive support there--people have --mostly--been burned enough.

Stephanie came by and we talked a lot about activism and what she wants to do next--there are some actions coming down the pike, but for now, I think it is important to keep encouraging the legislators and media members who are fighting hard for the truth.

Call them up every day and thank them--ask how we can help.

I may have already said it, but I saw Dick Gephardt on the plane to London and at Heathrow in Customs. I thanked him for everything he has done to get rid of the "miserable failure" (he should recognize his own words from the primary debates!) He was more impressive in real-life than on tv or in photos. They usually are!

By the way, I wonder what's the deal with the followers of Lyndon Larouche? They are all over the U district - 2 big packs of them. I even saw a bunch in France and somehow they find a way to have stacks and stacks of their handouts. Some of the stuff makes superficial sense but keep reading and it's cult-like and Larouche is a felon who has changed parties many times and can't run for office. Still - who funds them? My son says they don't have to account for themselves like other "candidates" since Lyndon isn't a real candidate but that they took in more money for the 2004 election than John Edwards! I asked where they get all their labor and he said they give them cheap housing in "Larouche houses" and that they're mostly runaway kids. He considers it a cult and waste of time, attracting kids away from true progressive causes. Just wondering about how they are funded though.

This is from an anti-Larouchie. As one who lost a friend to Scientology and who grew up watching Moonies and Hare Krishnas and other cults in the streets, this is wierd stuff. Of course, we always had a Revolutionary Chinese bright yellow bookstore in town too, so I guess this is just part of the wierd far left. Then there were those so far to the left they advocated violence, like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers but over the years the violent faction has moved more right (think anthrax killer, WACO, Oklahoma City bombing, abortion clinic bombing).

"Policitically the group is far right wing, although it aligns itself with the Democratic Party. (The LaRouche candidates almost always run on the Democratic party). Actually, LaRouche is a good example of why "left" and "right" sometimes lose what little meaning they have. LaRouche's group used to be called the U.S. Labor Party, and were definitely a part of the New Left in New York in the early 1970s, engaging in violent confrontation with other New Left groups, principally to make sure that when the Marxist revolution happened, they would be in control. A friend of mine who was part of the New Left in New York at the time has an amusing tale of a friend (former Wobbly and lumberjack -- sized as the stereotype goes) grabbing a couple LaRouchies who had entered a meeting with pipes, and throwing them against a nearby wall. (Trotskyite intellectuals, with too much time spent reading, and not enough time in physical culture).

LaRouche's concern about Soviet activities may be in part a function of his funding. I have it on good authority from a friend (no longer employed by CIA) that the CIA found plausible evidence that LaRouche's funding (at least at one time) came from the Red Chinese -- which would certainly explain his emphasis on the Soviet Union's aggressiveness, and his interest in maintaining American military strength.

Listen carefully to the LaRouchies -- their ideology is a variant of traditional populism in much the same way that the Nazis were a variant of traditional socialism."

Wow - everything I didn't really want to know - he has run for President 8 consecutive times - the perennial candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

The importance of this news should not be underestimated.

Read the rest at

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/10/192940/00

This may be why Pat Robertson has been on a roll.

Posted by: DiAnne at October 10, 2005 09:08 PM

Holy Smokes!!!! Wonder where Iran sits?

Welcome Back, Karen.

We missed you!

Odd...

First Rove goes into hiding.

Now Cheney is a no-show at an important neoCON fundrasier.

Looks like somebody is hiding in a few caves, waiting to be smoked out by the big "I" (as in INDICTMENT)!

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/As_Vice_President_ducks_dinner_buzz_1010.html

Read the second to last line of this obituary. It made me laugh.

http://www.legacy.com/chicagotribune/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=15361018

Posted by: Amy at October 10, 2005 08:26 PM

Amy, my cousin is Executive Director for a non-profit in the Denver area that works with violated children, social workers, parents, and the police.

She showed me data that showed that most perps commit their crimes against children thousands of times to each time they are caught. Many thousands.

Posted by: oncall at October 10, 2005 10:26 PM

That's cute, Oncall. Good idea, too.

CNN (not the Headline News, the other CNN channel)
is doing a BIG bit on Karl Rove and the inquiry right now!

Frog March!!!

This White House and this current majority party (Republicans and NeoCONS) is looking to be the most corrupt in history. I can't help wondering if we need to impeach or if it's good enough to just take over Congress and to keep letting their corrupt stench pour out for all to see.

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at October 10, 2005 07:21 PM

No. The fact is the religious right wants her in there because she will more than likely overthrow Roe vs. Wade.

Rove's implication in the outing of Plame doesn't touch Miers. And, Dobson will take care of any objections if they arise.

Off topic:

The Illinois Family Institute, headquartered in my hometown is in the proccess of trying to get an anti gay marriage amendment bill on the November ballot. If this referendum makes it to the ballot, it will help the right wing candidates get their constituency to the voting booth. The district that I live in (sixth congressional for Illinois) is very conservative, but Christine Cegelis did get 44% of the vote in 2004 against Henry Hyde. Hyde announced his retirement recently and the hand picked reactionary Republican candidate, Peter Roskam needs to have this measure on the ballot in order to get his base to the polls. Roskam is right of Hyde and Hastert. This race appears to be shaping up as one over gay rights. If that is how the race is played Cegelis will lose. Our best chance is to keep this initiative off the ballot. 283,000 signatures are needed to get the initiative on the ballot.

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/

Miers nomination reveals inner Bush:

"But if there's anything Miers has in common with Roberts it is their many years spent defending wealthy corporate clients. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Corporations need love too, and Bush gives them plenty.

"Miers has an impressive record of pro-bono work on behalf of the indigent, but she has spent most of her legal career working for a large Texas-based firm that focuses on corporate law, defending firms like Microsoft and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association against consumers and other annoyances to corporate profit margins.

Roberts similarly has lawyered and lobbied for a long list of corporate clients who may turn up in future Supreme Court cases. Awkward."

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune. Interesting article on why Bush might have nominated Miers....

http://usa.altermedia.info/usa/Impeach-Bush.html Does George Bush understand about WAR CRIMES? Does George Bush know about the 1996 WAR CRIMES ACT?

Indigenous Guatemalans are refusing military help following their tragic disaster. Years of death squads haven't exactly won hearts and minds there. Thinking of these brave people tonight.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051010/w101044.html

Also noting that Germany's government is top story on Google - have been watching. 8 of 14 departments had to transfer over to the conservative control, if I understand it right. I just emailed a friend in Germany to please explain. it doesn't sound good. & coalitions combining parties this far to the left and right, respectively, have previously ended very very badly. My son thinks that in US it's kind of a good thing that we don't have a coalition government. We may have swung pretty far to the right, but we don't have to give seats to actual communists and fascists.

Does George Bush know about the 1996 WAR CRIMES ACT?

Posted by: DiAnne/Alan at October 10, 2005 11:34 PM

George Bush doesn't know squat. He doesn't know his rear end from a hole in the ground. HIs brain is in the permanent power saving mode.

I look confused it's because I'm thinking. Samuel Goldwyn

Re Mier's nomination,Randi Rhodes had this to say today and it gave me hope:"The reps have NO interset in removing Roe V Wade as it keeps the 'right' pumped up and gets them to the polls."
Never thought of it in that light,but makes sense!

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 10, 2005 10:56 PM

Truth, for the record, assuming that Miers in confirmed, there are still five votes in favor of Roe - Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Bryers, and Souter. Miers would only be the fourth vote against Roe.

Pat Buchanan had something very interesting to say yesterday. He sees the Republicans losing seats in the Senate in 2006, and thinks that this is the Conservatives last chance to really impact the Court. I also think once the balance is at 5-4, the pro-choice Republicans will be forced to vote their conscience. Hence, so long as no one else dies or is forced to leave the court between now and 2007, Roe will not be overturned. With all the scandals that are about to break involving the Bush Admininstration and the GOP, the next President is increasing likely to be a Democrat. The only question is who. My bet is that their first name will be John, and not Hillary.

Patti

What you're saying - about keeping the right pumped up so they'll vote - my son even learned that in his political science classes. So Roe v Wade never REALLY gets overturned, there is never REALLY national gay marriage allowed (or banned) and if there aren't those wedge issues, they'll create more. Government is more pro-business than pro-social conservative. It's making them mad (the social conservatives) too. My hope is that it'll split the Republican party all to hell. I'd love to see fringe parties, like when Robertson ran - the lunatic fringe. & it would be great if the "coalitions" of Christians began fighting and bickering & wasted time instead of being anally organized.

Matt,

My guess is that Roberts will not be for Roe vs. Wade.

What happens then?

That's four no votes - Roberts, Miers (or whoever ends up in the Chair), Scalia, Thomas.

So long as no one else leaves the Court, there's no change on the basic Federal right to an abortion. There might be a change on issues like Partial Birth, but not on the basic Federal right.

If any of the other five are forced to leave, then you've got a situation where Roberts gets to demonstrate if he truly respects precedent, or simply lied to Congress. And if he simply lied, then you've got controversy between the states, nutjobs like Randall Terry being empowered to raise havoc everywhere, the very real possibility of violence between pro-choice and pro-life advocates - and, eventually, a huge backlash against the party who created this entire ruckus.

One more thing. If Roberts chooses not to respect precedent, he's confirmed the perception that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a political tool, and that Supreme Court justices say one thing while looking to land the gig, and do something completely different after they're on the job. My view is that Clarence Thomas lied to get on the Supreme Court - and I don't mean just about Anita Hill. I mean about not having made up his mind on abortion, and probably any number of other issues. If lying about oral sex is an impeachable offense, what about lying to the United States Congress about your judicial philosophy, or having not prejudged an issue? What Clinton did was trivial compared to what Thomas did, at least in my opinion.