From Class War Films -- "Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine"

After just having had a brief conversation about international banksters on the previous post with Bro.  Amenta, I started perusing my BlogList, stopping in at This Can't Be Happening.  And wonder of wonders, there sat the recently posted, Class War Films video talking about the same, damned thing!  It's a wonderful follow-on to Glen's video and -- by watching and paying attention, "...we may be able to awaken and fight the beast directly and not sideways" as Amenta told me.  Please, do both:

Arthur Silber on the "Supremes" ruling: Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People

Just like most of the rest of the country, I was waiting to see what the "Supremes" would do with the Changeling's so-called signature legislation.  And when the word came down from on high--I said to myself, "Self, there's plenty in this milk that ain't clean!"

And as I trawled the internet to see who was saying what, so I could formulate what I believed should be a necessarily scathing condemnation of the "games people play" at other's expense--I  came upon Arthur Silber's, Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People, and he'd said everything I was thinking, and more.

So, once I finished reading all of it, I emailed Arthur and asked his permission to cross-post the piece.  And no, it's not because I'm lazy.  It's because he hits all the nails on their proverbial heads when it comes to addressing points about this decision that should be considered when one critically thinks; it's all about who's doing what, for whom and most importantly, why.

Take some time and read it slowly (internal links and all).  I'm certain if you allow yourself to, you'll find way more truth here, than anywhere in the mainstream media.  Do enjoy!:

~#~

Choosing Blindness and Stupidity, and About Helping "Some" People


The self-satisfied smugness and self-congratulation now exhibited by many liberals and progressives is abhorrent and nauseating. In addition to the general argument I made earlier today, I want to address two further issues.

In a brief article, John Stauber captures the essence of the Supreme Court ruling with full accuracy:

It was a brilliant move by far Right (but oh so likable) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care. ...

He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens. ...

Any real reform — call it single payer, or medicare for all — is doomed in bipartisan fashion. The “pragmatists” who are for Obamacare are duped if they think it is going to be expanded to single payer. From this point on, it will only be picked over and further reinvented to empower the insurance and drug industries.

In my post from December 2009 -- "How Bad Is The Fuck You Act?" -- I closely analyzed some of the extraordinary mental contortions and distortions engaged in by Digby. I began by noting the following:

First, and this merits strong emphasis, the "health care reform" legislation will fatally undercut all the goals set forth by Democrats and progressives themselves. To restate the point: if the Democrats and progressives are sincere and genuinely committed to what they say their goals are, they should be working day and night to defeat this abomination. That most of them are doing the opposite is deeply revealing. And they are doing the opposite for the most transparent and pathetic of reasons: they are desperate for something they can call a "win" as an alleged demonstration of perceived political power."

After examining Digby's "argument," which is fully representative of "the Horror Hall of Mirrors of the fatally corrupted world now inhabited by the 'leading' progressives" (and not only with regard to this subject, but in connection with every issue of significance), I said:

And the people who won't be helped are precisely those people these same Democrats and progressives endlessly told us they so desperately wanted to help when this wretched, abysmal process began.

This is the very definition of moral and intellectual bankruptcy. In certain respects, it is not possible to go any lower. If you're willing to give up this much -- and as far as "health care reform" is concerned, they've given up everything that matters -- is there anything at all you won't give up? This is the inevitable result of engaging in this manner with a fundamentally corrupt system:

Thus, the lesson: when you choose to
be a critical part of a system that has
become this corrupt -- and the endless
corruptions of our corporatist-
authoritarian-militarist system have
been documented at great length here
and in other places -- you will not
ameliorate or "save" it. The system
will necessarily and inevitably corrupt
you.

That last point is absolutely critical, and it must never be forgotten.

I want to stress that it is a huge error to believe that liberals and progressives who are happy about the Supreme Court "victory," and who generally support Obama and view his reelection as vitally important -- despite the fact (among other similar facts) that Obama asserts that he can murder anyone he wishes, anywhere in the world, for any reason he chooses or invents -- will somehow recognize the truth and come to their senses. I'm not referring here to those Americans who barely follow politics and who vote automatically and without any measurable degree of analysis and consideration beforehand, if they vote at all -- but to those liberals and progressives who follow politics even somewhat closely. And I'm especially referring to liberals and progressives who are active in politics, including writers and bloggers.

It must be understood that they cannot and will not grasp the actual meaning of the Supreme Court ruling, just as they will not grasp the meaning of Obama's other numerous, heinous acts. I explained some of the reasons for this phenomenon in a post from almost five years ago: "Blinded by the Story." I noted the self-proclaimed inability of leading progressive bloggers (including Atrios, and Digby once again) to understand why the Democrats acted as they did, and then wrote:

I suggest we take these leading lights of the progressive blogs at their word: they most certainly do not get it, and they absolutely cannot "for the life of [them] figure out why the congress is doing this."

I also note that, following the Senate cave-in, Atrios has dubbed Harry Reid the "Wanker of the Day." Will all this diminish in even the smallest degree Atrios's, or Digby's, or any other leading progressive blogger's efforts to ensure a huge Democratic victory in 2008? Of course not.

The reason for that is very simple, and it goes to the progressives' central articles of religious faith: The Democrats aren't really like this, not in their heart of hearts. The Democrats don't actually favor a repressive, authoritarian state. The Democrats are good, and they want liberty and peace for everyone, everywhere, for eternity, hallelujah and amen.

People who continue to believe this have evicted themselves from serious political debate, and they have willingly made themselves slaves to their enthusiastically embraced self-delusions. They confess a comprehensive ignorance of history, a stunning inability to understand the political developments of the last century, and a desire to place the story they have chosen, primarily because it flatters their own false sense of vanity and self-worth, above every relevant fact.

None of this has changed in the five years since I wrote it; to the contrary, developments have proven the truth of these observations repeatedly.

But one derivative aspect of this sickening business has changed, and I also described that aspect in the earlier entry:

Whenever a preexisting and preselected narrative assumes primary importance in this way, the longer one clings to the preferred story, the stupider one becomes. This is why the truth or falsity of the stories we tell is so critical, and why our methodology matters so much. If a story that is central to our view of ourselves fails to comport with the facts, and if we refuse to give up or even question the story, this necessitates that we block ourselves off from more and more information that might "undermine" that story ... Rather than eagerly seeking out further facts and trying to find out if a given story remains accurate or needs to be significantly revised (and sometimes even jettisoned altogether), we will lower our heads, narrow the scope of our inquiry, and progressively restrict the kind of data we permit ourselves to examine and even acknowledge. As time goes on, our intellectual curiosity steadily decreases. We won't want certain facts and information, because we might have to wonder whether particular cherished beliefs are correct.

With regard to these issues, people do not stay the same. The intellectual framework within which they operate either increases or decreases; to put it informally, they become smarter or dumber.

In those cases where the preexisting and preferred narrative is crucial to a person's self of self-worth (and often, when it is critical to their livelihood), it is close to impossible that a fundamental reassessment of that narrative will be permitted or seriously considered. The only direction psychologically is steadily downward: the frame of reference constantly diminishes, and the person becomes less and less able to address any issue accurately and truthfully. Neither "side" has a monopoly on this fundamental failure -- and even though both conservatives and liberals furiously deny that they act in this manner, their own commentary and behavior reveals the truth on a daily basis.

The other issue I want to discuss is a contention that was frequently offered during the debate over the health "care" bill, and I'm certain it will put in another appearance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. A certain kind of commentator would ruefully note the bill's numerous shortcomings (including the fact that it was bought and paid for, and sometimes written, by the major insurance and pharmaceutical interests), but go on to support the bill anyway -- because, they claimed, it would help "some" people.

This is one of the most awful arguments imaginable. I discussed it in detail here: "Concerning Those Who Manufacture and Eat Shit." My particular target was Paul Krugman, but many others proceed in the same manner. So I will simply offer my analysis again:

I would not argue and, in fact, I haven't argued that this bill won't help anyone. I've seen lots of analyses that force me to conclude that the bill will help far less people than its supporters claim, but time will tell as they say. I think it's going to be very ugly, and I also think partisans like Krugman will never acknowledge just how ugly it is.

But the fact that this bill will help some people is a ridiculous, completely asinine standard. It is utterly illegitimate as a matter of analysis, as well as being vile in moral terms, to use the fact that it will help some people as justification for its passage. Think about it for a moment. Any bill in any political system will help some people. This is true even in a dictatorship, and even under totalitarian rule. As I feel compelled to remind people when they appeal to the "sanctity" of "the law" (which I noted only yesterday I myself shit on insofar as what most people mean by such vacuous blather is concerned), even dictatorships have laws. Hey, I'll make it easy for you to ignore this argument by violating a singularly idiotic prohibition. They had laws in Nazi Germany. And guess what? All of those laws helped some people. In some instances, perhaps it was only sadists who enjoyed torturing and murdering other human beings -- but some of Germany's laws certainly helped them do that.

Or to pick a less confrontational example: many laws in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia indisputably helped those who were members of the ruling clique or well-connected to same accumulate wealth and/or power, or benefited them in any number of other ways. So the laws helped some people. Take a more obvious aspect of the same issue: in any corporatist system (such as ours), legislators receive all sorts of payoffs for enacting legislation that benefits certain interested parties. When the legislation is passed, it's passed because it helps those interested parties. That's true of any major piece of legislation you care to name (and almost all minor ones as well). You need only trace back the effects of the legislation far enough, and you'll find an interested party that sought to have it passed. And the payoffs help the legislators themselves. So some people are always helped.

That cannot ever be the standard for judgment. The standard must focus on the primary or major effect of the legislation: on what lies at the heart of the bill. What lies at the heart of the health "reform" bill is a massive transfer of wealth from "ordinary" Americans to an already hugely wealthy and powerful insurance industry via the mandate system, which is made still worse by being a subsidized mandate system (which means that taxpayers are robbed at gunpoint twice). As a result, the legislation in its totality is, right, a piece of shit.

And that's all I have to say about that.

For the moment.

~#~

And when that moment has passed Arthur, I'll be reading. I don't know about anybody else, but I need commentary, critically thought-out (as opposed to what passes for "news" in this country), in order to continue doing my "first works over" as James Baldwin so wisely advised us, so very long ago. Thanks again--very much.

Related:
- Seven Consequences of the Healthcare ruling
- Nobody Wins: High Court Backs 'Obama/Romney Care,'Leaves Public on Life Support
- Drugmakers Wary Despite Apparent Win
- Health Insurers Duck Worst-Case Scenario

The Changeling and the Democrats still lying about equal pay

Well.  Well.  Well.  Dems push 'paycheck fairness' bill.  Now this would have been some stellar politrickin' - if not for their hubris. Some of us have long memories - and they didn't wait long enough.  From the Politico piece:

“Either Ledbetter was the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history,” he said, “or Democrats are getting nervous about new polls that show Obama losing ground among women.”

Have to say  - even though the latter might also be true for those into polls - I'm going with the former.  And as you walk with me,  do keep the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind, particularly as you see Boxer's mug framing the issue - not Pelosi's.  But I digress.

In the Fall of 2008, when I took my old behind back to school to work on a master's degree in Journalism (full disclosure:  took a leave of absence, didn't finish), my Covering Capitol Hill class required we actually GO to some committee hearings and then come back and write about them.  I chose the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).  In light of the Democrats' pure f*ckery tomfoolery - here's that first paper (which I'd posted here on January 31, 2009):

###

Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:

” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”

If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.
The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:

• provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
• substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
• promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
• remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
• ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments

If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

###

Staying with the Politico piece:

In January 2009, when Democrats controlled both chambers, the bill cleared the House but fell two votes shy of the 60 needed to move forward in the Senate.

Republican opposition has given Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a chance to frame the issue of equal pay as yet another example of the GOP’s war on women.

“As I look at the record of Republicans on women, it is not good,” Boxer said. “Personally, I say it’s a war on women. The more they protest it, the more I say it, because I truly believe it.”

But Republicans say such legislation is unnecessary since the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is already on the books. President Barack Obama himself has toured the country talking up the Ledbetter Act, which was the first bill he signed into law upon taking office. The law “ensures equal pay for equal work,” he said in Maine this past March.

“I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons,” he told the House Democratic Caucus in 2009. (emphasis mine)

First of all, let's look at the emphasized portions, shall we?  Women,  most importantly marginalized women of color - please hang in there with me:

•  It's been three and a half years since the Democrats dangled this carrot in your face (they also held the majority when Shrub went to war, but that's off-topic).  Two votes in the Senate kept this from passing!  Really??  Yes really.  Amy Siskind lays it all out, here.

Though she obviously had no real power in how the vote would go - she certainly represents someone who supposedly had some real power.  Most relevant in this piece, is Siskind's #4 on the "Cowards" list:

Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett (D) (Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls) -- progressive blogger Joanne Bamberger said it best on Facebook: President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarrett have said time and again they are committed to passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act and it was a priority to them. Wednesday, fair pay failed by 2 votes. They couldn't use their "commitment" to women to get us 2 votes?

Enough said (keeping manipulative, hubris and lying in mind?).

• Of course Republicans have given Boxer a chance to frame the issue as "the GOP’s war on women!"  - there's no difference between the two of them , people!!!

• Republicans saying the law is unnecessary is at least honest, because they truly believe that.  Plus, they already know that Ledbetter was " the biggest bait-and-switch scam in history!!” 

But keeping the reposted paper in mind, the Changeling on the other hand - is a LIAR  (quite animatedly bolstered by the then, just happy-dancin', now boisterously vocal, Mikulski):

And so is Nancy Pelosi (which is why Boxer - not Pelosi is out front, framing this issue for the 2012 election):

Back to the Politico piece:

Democrats counter that the Paycheck Fairness bill is much stronger than the Ledbetter Act. They say Ledbetter keeps the courthouse door open for women to sue for discrimination, while Paycheck makes it tougher to discriminate in the first place. Ledbetter does not address compensatory or punitive damages; Paycheck does. And Paycheck makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers for inquiring about their colleagues’ wages. (emphasis mine)

Keeping the words manipulative, hubris and lying in mind - finally, they admit it!

Two and and a half years later, I wrote this - Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women" (that picture is as funny now, as it was then!).  I'm sure the Walmart women knew exactly what was up with the Changeling and his crew after that.

It's taking everything I have - to contain the absolute schadenfreude I'm  feeling about the clearly exposed Democrats, and their deus ex machina that is the Changeling (and no, Republicans don't get a  free pass in this farce, but I'm not talking 'bout them right now). 

I'm exercising this restraint solely because, rather than arousing your naked emotion, I want you to first, consider this quote - 

"It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have."

Mr. James Baldwin

And secondly, because I'd like to try to inspire some of the critical thinking skills Margaret Kimberley so effortlessly exhibits - from the 16:35 to the 23:25 click in this video.

There's a whole lotta hoodwinking and bamboozling goin' on folks - and it's not just the Republicans who are doing it.  

300,000 vs one million - a pre-election, Grimms' fairytale?

When I got this email from "Reform Immigration FOR America," my immediate response was the side-eye directed at the Obama administration:

For the past few months, you’ve called and petitioned the White House and the Department of Homeland Security asking for them to show some courage and protect our immigrant communities. Our demands have been heard and the Administration has taken a step in the right direction to fixing our broken immigration system.

Yesterday, senior administration officials announced that all 300,000 cases currently in deportation proceedings will be reviewed by DHS, one-by-one, in an effort to focus purely on “high-priority” cases of criminals and individuals who pose a serious threat to the US. Cases deemed “low-priority” will be completely removed from the case log and, non-criminal immigrants once facing deportation, will have the possibility to obtain work permits.

The announcement is the first pro-immigrant procedural change that will provide some relief to DREAMers, LGBT spouses, victims of domestic abuse, and other non-criminal immigrants currently in deportation proceedings.

While the announcement is complicated, we’ve summarized the procedural changes DHS has announced they’ll make.
This is an important step in the right direction. We urge the Administration to enforce this policy vigorously and follow it through to its full logical and moral conclusion: suspend deportations of all those who work hard every day to create better lives for themselves and their families.

Congrats on this victory, and thanks for all you do

While I am happy for my brown brothers and sisters (nothing wrong with "gettin' while the gettin's good" as my granmother used to say), I think it a little presumptuous to say this move signals that their "demands have been heard" - particularly given the timing of this "procedural change."

If we're honest, "Obama administration works to rekindle excitement among Hispanic voters" is really what the reviews are about. Just sayin'...

I once was blind, but now I see?

(h/t Crew of 42)

Passing 218 - 210 in the House, with 5 abstentions, here's a breakdown of the voting on the Changeling's and Boehner's, hardly bi-partisan, "Please sir, can I have more"/debt-reduction bill (such an oxymoron!)

Hopefully for their sake, come 2012 - after (maybe) having been thrown a few crumbs and (definitely) more bullshit promises - the CBC and the rest of the "faithful" will remember this bamboozle and say:

~#~#~#~#~

"Hopefully for their sake, come 2012, after (maybe) having been thrown a few crumbs and (definitely) more bullshit promises..."

And just like clockwork...

UPDATE/Politico - President Obama looks past debt debate to job creation:

President Barack Obama turned his attention to jobs immediately after the Senate passed a measure that raises the debt ceiling and reduces the deficit by at least $2.1 trillion, narrowly averting a government default.

"We can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the brunt of this recession," Obama told the nation on Tuesday, pledging to fight for "new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth." (emphasis mine)

...the "bullshit promises" begin.

"Immediately?"  Please!  He was selected THREE YEARS AGO! {SMDH}

And on another note; seems, rather than "crumbs," the Pentagon will continue to get almost the whole loaf (minus the two butt ends of course) in furtherance of empire - Tomgram: Engelhardt, Two-Faced Washington

Paycheck Fairness, Ledbetter and the "Walmart Women"

I'm no attorney, but I think I'm safe in saying that - had Congress passed that pesky Paycheck Fairness Act (about which I wrote here and mid-page here) instead of Lilly Ledbetter, the "Walmart Women" would have had some real muscle behind their fight for equality.

Maybe, they would've been able to use pages 8 - 11 of Paycheck's amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b) to skip the Supremes altogether, rather than having this cruel joke played on them:  "The Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart."

Pelosi and the Changeling, with their respective, bamboozle-cum-hoodwink little jigs, had so many women believing he'd rode in on his white horse and saved the damned day, that Ms. Magazine got this absolutely hilarious cover out -- PDQ (Come on now, tell the truth and shame the devil -- how many of you ran right out and made them a lot of money buying their little poster?).

Congress and the Changeling, with the Supremes bringing up the rear with this ruling, have told women - in no uncertain terms - "We will do nothing to change the status quo so - just stay in your damned place!

UPDATE:  "It's Time For Congress To Act On The Paycheck Fairness Act"  Well, at least one Congress Critter had the 'nads to tell the truth!

My, my, my...

The Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning head of "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" speaks...



...and plenty of exceptional, "we're-so-much-better-than-those-savages-over-there-celebrating-American-death-in-the-streets" Americans - celebrate.





Did you now?  Not what some folk are already saying (Warning:  photo is graphic, even if not real).  And really, after all this time hunting him, can you see them quietly disposing of the "trophy" - at sea?

And one other thing.  While I totally agree with what Messrs. Sirota and Hedges have respectively said in their pieces below - a common, seemingly inherent "white-American" hypocrisy reared its ugly head, stuck out its tongue and said, "Nah, nigger ya'll still don't count."

In his, "USA! USA!" is the wrong response, David Sirota says:

This is bin Laden’s lamentable victory: He has changed America’s psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he’s helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history -- the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed. (emphasis mine)

I've really had enough of whitewashed history (one of the main reasons we can't productively talk about race in this country). Somebody please tell me - how exactly has "America's psyche" changed?
From the time it accepted its first ebony cargo from Senegambia courtesy of the British  - via The Good Ship Jesus (apology from the captain's descendant notwithstanding), to the Indian Removal Act and the taking of Osceola's head, to the Ku Klux Klan, to Apache helicopter pilots and boots on the ground, to leading NATO's "humanitarian"/assassination mission that took-out a father and his children - America has BEEN a pretty "bellicose" society, cheering on killing with little or no assistance from anybody (except the "usual suspects") - least of all Osama bin Laden.

And in Chris Hedges Speaks on Osama bin Laden's Death, he says:

I despair that we as a country, as Nietzsche understood, have become the monster that we are attempting to fight. (emphasis mine)

S-o-o-o, "we...have become the monster that we are attempting to fight."   Really?  And who was the monster during slavery, and the pursuant (and continuing) Jim Crow?  To paraphrase Pogo Mr. Hedges - as a country - "We have met the 'monster' - and he is us."

James Allen's introduction to "Without Sanctuary" is as relevant of America today (thanks to WikiLeaks and YouTube) - as the very American era it portrays:

Without Sanctuary is a photo document of proof, an unearthing of crimes, of collective mass murder, of mass memory graves excavated from the American conscience.  Part postal  cards, common as dirt, souvenirs skin-thin and fresh-tatooed proud, the trade cards of those assisting at ritual racial killings and other acts of a mad citizenry.  The communites' best citizens lurking just outside the frame.  Destined to decay, these few survivors of an original photo population of many thousands, turn the living to pillars of salt.

After almost 45 years, Dr. King's, "Beyond Vietnam:  A Time to Break Silence" is still right.  And having a society-identified, Black man in the Big House - with an apparent penchant for assassinations and a serious case of Can't Remember Shit when it comes to them - hasn't changed a damned thing.  {smdh}

UPDATE:  This piece in Spiegel Online is an interesting commentary on how the Changeling has "upped our status" in the world (every bit of snark intended).  All I could think - upon seeing this photo #1 in the gallery of 13 (click on Photo Gallery: The Hunt for Bin Laden for others) was - "Natural Born Killers"...

US President Barack Obama and members of his national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden (left) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (second from right) watched the operation live in the White House situation room. (emphasis mine)

Art by Leon Kuhn - h/t Black Agenda Report

It doesn't matter how his faithful try to spin this one - let's just be clear - that megalomaniacal, little caramel drop amid all those white faces - sitting there, watching the carnage LIVE like it was a sequel to those "Saw" movies - is just like the rest of them.

UPDATE II:  Seems Obama & Co can't help but swirl down Disraeli's toilet of  'three kinds of lies':  "Lies, Damned lies and statistics."  I don't know whether to laugh at, or feel sorry for, Brennan (sacrificial lamb that he was) as he regurgitated this stupid shit:

Qualifying the narrative of the assault that he offered to reporters, Brennan explained that some of the information came from live video feeds of the raid. "I wasn't there," he said. (emphasis mine)

WTF??!!  Ask your damned bosses!!  Glued to the f*ckin' plasma as they were, it was surely as close to "being there" as being there could have possibly been!

Y'all really need to stop insulting "we the people's" intelligence because obviously - THEY certainly f*ckin' know!!

Ah-h-h-h-h, but our really "knowing" was never the intent of the Changeling's puppet masters was it?

My head's exploding, so lemme just leave you with this young brother's seasoned, through-an-across-the-pond, clarity:

If "they" killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad then "they" also bombed a large number of wedding parties in Afghanistan, "they" murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and "they" gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah. If "they" don't want to be associated with the atrocities then "they" need to find more to celebrate than an assassination. Vengeance is, in no small part, what got us here. It won't get us out.  (emphasis mine)

Amen.

UPDATE III (and final on this web of lies):  Somebody PLEASE tell my non-computer-wonk ass how they could be - Finding treasures in Bin Laden computers when, according to this:

"The compound had neither an Internet nor a telephone connection. According to the New York Times, the al-Qaida terrorists inside burned their rubbish themselves rather than putting it outside for collection." (emphasis mine)

Now, like I said - I'm no computer wonk - but I'm just finding it hard to believe that:

1.  U.S. Enemy #1, who eluded not only our military forces, but our "intelligence" analysts for damn-near 10 years, lugged "... five computers, 10 hard drives, and scores of removable media including USB sticks and DVDs" around with him all that time on the run - yet burned his trash!  But just for shits-n-grins, let's say he did.  How'd he use them?  Guess he had one of those super-duper-too-encrypted-to-track, wireless broadband Internet connection cards.  Or, as some media outlets are now reporting - fiber optics cable.
2. U.S. Enemy #1 would take the time to run and bury (they are buried aren't they?) some damned fiber optics cable and NOT dig a damned get-away tunnel for himself and his family!

Anybody wanna buy a bridge?

"Operation Odyssey Dawn" - a show of imperialism from Hypocritic Oafs

(Yeah, no - "hypocritic" isn't a word - but I know y'all get my meaning!)

Sorry - again - for the interruption of the Africa series (it was life-changing - of course there's more!), but really - if there was ever any doubt about the hypocrisy of the Changeling (Nobel-laureate for peace that he is), Miz SOS and their whole "Change You Can Believe In" administration - they should all be cleared up with the launching of "Operation Odyssey Dawn."  {smdh}

"The Laureate and Libya" - Nate Beeler

The launching brought to mind two observations in a piece I'd read over at Race-Talk regarding another culture and another subject (though still relevant here I think) by contributor, Mikhail Lyubanski:

The assumption is that it is possible to rank-order nations/cultures on some supposedly objective hierarchy of “civilization”...Who gets to decide what is considered “civilized?”

Anyway - a few links from some folks who've been paying attention (because one of MY rants would probably take forever!):

• U.S. Stays Mum as Iraqi Security Forces Kill, Detain and Abuse Protesters
• Libya army transport deal frozen after US approval 
• U.S. Considers Arming Libyan Rebels Months After Approving Major Arms Deal Sought by Qaddafi
• The Invasion of Bahrain
• Yemeni forces massacre dozens of protesters
  UPDATE: The American Dilemma in Libya: To Bomb, Invade, Partition, Or All of the Above
• Military Action Against Libya Is Not Illegal, Not About Democracy and Very Limited
• Libya, Hypocrisy and Betrayal by the United Nations: Death and Destruction. US-NATO's New War in North Africa
• Nations Prepare for Libya No-Fly Zone
• Taking on Gadhafi:  Obama Finally Has His Own War

And how appropriate?!  He announces this foolishness IN BRAZIL - one of the five countries sensibly abstaining from this savior-cum-imperialist piece of work.  I looked at this today...

The Changeling and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff

 
...and I was HOPING she was thinking this!:

P.S.  If you believe the United States is in financial trouble, know that the powers that be (including their figurehead African-American puppet, joining in on an assault on an African country) believe there's nothing better for a recession than a war.

Sorry, another slight detour...

Fast forward to today:

"We’ll have to bring down health care costs further, including in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficits. I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future generations, and I think we can do that without slashing benefits or putting current retirees at risk. ...blah, blah, blah."

the Changeling - 2/15/11

Methinks they better find a way to do that without slashing benefits! You see, FICA,OASDI and I have had a very long and automatically withdrawn relationship from which, the Changeling and his string-pullers need to step the hell away (Egypt, Tunisia - anyone??).

But given the crooks and liars we keep sending to Congress, and in light of Flemming v. Nestor, the whole idea - of putting in a bi-weekly amount, the government not dipping into it and leaving IOU's, then I get my money back (which will be taxed a-damn-gain) at age 62 or 65 - seems more and more like a pipe dream, particularly for my children. {smdh}  

I don't know why I watched him on TV today.  I normally try to avoid it whenever I can.  This press conference on "his" budget (can puppets have their own budgets??) - which I painfully watched, ears bleeding from the bullshit - confirmed that I need to keep right on not watching his ass!

Then, to make matters worse - here came Miss SOS with her blathering hypocrisy!  Aargh!

Hill?  You can wipe that little bit of bullshit from around your mouth as well - you and your, "Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of it people.  The internet has become...blah, blah, blah" (here's a snippet - since I can't seem to find a video of the whole speech with this line included.  Correction:  Here's the whole thing).

(You live and you learn don't you?!  I can't believe I thought this other megalomaniac was worth my vote!)

Our government, though it's not blocked the internet completely - is no different from these other governments you so readily accuse of "internet repression" - we're just dressed up in our faux, American exceptionalist, Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes as we do it on the down-low.

You should be ashamed to stand up there and rationalize the U.S. pursuit of Assange (to include blocking Wikileaks wherever and whenever you can).  Such pure and shameless tripe!  Given he outed you, I'd venture a guess your vendetta is a little personal - just sayin'.  But hold up - let's have Glenn Greenwald  elucidate that point since he's way better at it than I am.  And while you're spewing, care to expound on net neutrality (or the lack thereof) there, Hill?  Bruce Dixon and Jared Ball at Black Agenda Report don't mind telling some truths - how 'bout you?

I'm so sick of both of you!

UPDATE:  Truthdigger of the Week: Ray McGovern - Please watch the video.

From cannon fodder to forever vegetables - courtesy of the good ole U.S. of A.

Congress to Investigate Pentagon Decision to Deny Coverage for Brain Injured Troops.  They need an investigation?  What the hell for?  So they can continue to cherry-pick the results?  And how long will this investigation take?  Until those returning - damaged within or without - die?  Until their families are destitute?  Or both?  Given what it's costing, and has cost, these returning injured and their families - does it matter what it costs the damned government, or Tricare?

A key congressional oversight committee announced today that it was opening an investigation into the basis of a decision by the Pentagon's health plan to deny a type of medical treatment to troops with brain injuries.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the chairman of the subcommittee on contracting oversight, said she wanted to examine a contract issued by Tricare, an insurance-style program used by soldiers and many veterans, to a private company to study cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury. Such injuries are considered among the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The study, by Pennsylvania-based ECRI Institute, found insufficient or weak evidence to support the therapy. Often lengthy and expensive, cognitive rehabilitation programs are designed to rewire soldiers' brains to conduct basic life tasks, such as reading books, remembering information and following instructions. ECRI's findings ran counter to several other studies, including ones sponsored by the Pentagon and the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that cognitive rehabilitation was beneficial.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, McCaskill cited an investigation by ProPublica and NPR in December, which found that top scientific experts had questioned the Tricare-funded study in confidential reviews, calling it "deeply flawed" and "unacceptable."

"If true, these reports raise significant questions regarding the Department's award and management of the contract with ECRI Institute, and may have profound implications for hundreds of thousands of injured service members and their families," McCaskill wrote. "We owe it to our brave service members to find the truth." (emphasis mine)

Ya think Claire??

Now, since I haven't read the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as all of you in Congress commencing this investigation surely have [insert eyeroll here], could somebody explain to me where exactly does traumatic brain injury fit into these pre-existing condition eligibility requirements?  Now it could just be me, but it seems that the active-duty, military person with a traumatic brain injury, now insured by Tricare - is stuck between a rock and a hard place in this master plan.

While the swooners continue to champion the Changeling's health INSURANCE reform bill (which only fattens the pockets of the health insurance industry by giving them a guaranteed pool of people to milk insure through his mandate), the number of  those needing real health "CARE" reform continues to mount.  Guess they'd rather spend up to $50,000/each for domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement, than $50,000 per patient on cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury for their wounded "warriors." {smdh}

UPDATE:  Per this Politico piece, "White House beefs up support for military families."

Along with career counseling for retiring service members and broader availability of services for spouses and dependants, the initiative includes enhanced mental health programs along with safeguards to protect military families from predatory lenders and financial scams, he said. (emphasis mine)

So why the "investigation" again?"

UPDATE II:  In Houston, Rep. Giffords Could Receive Brain Injury Treatment Thousands of Troops Do Not

"You can get with this, or you can get with that" - some choice...

Unlike the little rodents in the video, allegedly offering a better quality product than what's already out on the streets - the little Democrat rodents in DC have just shown that they were merely shining up the same old shit and calling it gold with Reid's Don't Ask Don't Tell/Dream Act amendment.

I'm no fan of McConnell or the Republicans, - but I definitely co-sign this observation:

“They want to use this week for a political exercise. They want to weigh this bill down with controversy in a transparent attempt to show their special interest groups that they haven’t forgotten about them ahead of the election.”

“This is not a serious exercise. It’s a show,” he added. “And it’s because of shows like this that our [Democratic] friends have lost credibility with the public.” (emphasis mine)

No font of credibility his damned self, he does, however, make a couple of salient points to which the Obama faithful might want to pay close attention:

1. You gave your support, your money and your votes on a wing and a damned prayer - to a consummate con man and his handlers who've been lying about what they're going to do for you since day one;
2. In return, they shit in your hand - AND! - expect you to say thank you in November and beyond (and sadly, like many who resigned themselves to a Shrub second-term after he'd gotten the country knee-deep in his "Mission Accomplished" bullshit - you probably will).

When I read this back in May, I was cautiously optimistic - even though there was evidence of some Ickey Shuffling going on:

The push to end the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military cleared two major hurdles Thursday, with the House backing repeal by a 234-194 vote, while the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of that body’s version of the change.

Both repeals, offered as amendments to a defense spending bill, would remove the policy only after the Pentagon completes a study due in December on the impact of the change on the military. (emphasis mine

That, "remove the policy only after the Pentagon completes a study due in December" part, seemed to me a set-up, and an awfully precarious row to hoe for actively serving, LGBT service members (do read the study questions!). But, since they'd tacked it onto the defense authorization bill and, since -

The White House and the Pentagon both approved the compromise in the amendments that allows Congress to act while granting the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they are satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by it. (emphasis mine)

- I figured it had at least a snowball's chance. But once I reached this now, pretty-much-accepted-as-real-progress-in-matters-of-equality sentence uttered by Sen. Carl Levin -

"Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy.” (emphasis mine)

- cautiously optimistic was immediately replaced with the increasingly nagging suspicion that there were plenty of those "Games Mother Never Taught You" being played by people for whom no "urgency of now" exists. Then came Maj. Margaret Witt, LT. Dan Choi (I really like what I see of this guy!), Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach and so many others - bringing with them the memory of my grandmother's tried-and-true caution: "Always follow your first mind." She was right.

In this NPR piece published before the vote, R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans beat old Harry to the press-conference punch with this statement:

"The majority leader is setting himself up to simply say 'I tried' when Republicans vote against cloture on the defense bill today"... "If the(defense bill)fails to proceed this week because of cheap political stunts, it is the Senate majority leadership that is should be held accountable, not the unreasonably slighted minority."

Well, we can quibble about "unreasonably slighted minority" but, you gotta admit - this is too funny! I'll bet Harry had that exact speech all ready!

Really now - it's not like he didn't know that Republicans were planning to try and block his afterthought of an amendment!  It's not like - with their Congressional majority and the seat in the Big House on lock - they hadn't had enough time to do their usual backroom, wheelin' and dealin'! What - of any substance - can he possibly say??  Don't bother answering - I think Maxine's got that covered:

And speaking of that now, pretty-much-accepted-as-real-progress-in-matters-of-equality sentence, here it is again - in an emailed petition I got yesterday from Reform Immigration FOR America's, Marissa Graciosa:

"Our country and our children suffer under a broken immigration system.  Pass the defense reauthorization bill and the DREAM Act as a step toward comprehensive immigration reform." (emphasis mine)

No malice or disrespect intended Ms. Graciosa, but please - see numbers 1. and 2. above.

The Changeling's politically expedient, "Suing Arizona" stunt notwithstanding, just ask yourself this question - Why in the world would the people, who definitely did numbers 1. and 2. (not to mention sending 1,200 additional troops to the border to keep people who look like you out), and those who crowed about the passage of SB1070, be invested in the DREAM Act's passage, much less comprehensive immigration reform (aside from more cannon fodder for war, of course)??

Hell, in this piece, just a little over a month ago, Sen. Jon Kyl said:

“As we’ve said many times, until the border is substantially more secure than it is today, there’s not going to be a consensus to move forward on immigration legislation.” (emphasis mine)

I could be wrong, but I just don't see any of 'em giving two shits unless there's something REALLY BIG in it for them. And seeing as the Changeling and his crew have already gotten their really big something from you guys (and us!) via his selection, they've more than shown that there'll be little or no bending over backwards to do what is right for the remainder of this Administration's term (but look out in the run-up to 2012!).

And the Republicans? Given their forever-pandering to the majority "white" voting bloc of "real Americans" in these United States, I doubt there'll ever be any backward-bending over on their part. As a matter of fact, as long as most society-identified "Others," held hostage by the trauma of White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy, remain in this weird, Stockholm Syndrome existence, celebrating the crumbs, while resisting true freedom - there's really no need for them to ever do anything.

The solution? Take a hint from my beautiful sister, Lauryn Hill  - and choose not to "get with this, or that":



UPDATE I:  Still scratching my head trying to figure out what's going on, but this is certainly interesting: Pro-Gay Groups Find New Allies in the GOP

UPDATE II:  Margaret Witt, Air Force Major Discharged Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Ordered Reinstated

Alleged - "Combat" Troop - withdrawal would have happened regardless!

I try to keep my posts about the Changeling to a minimum, since I REALLY dislike him - and respect him even less.  But given his little speech yesterday, the field Negro in me kept screaming, "Man!  That mofo is a real piece of work ain't he?!  He'll co-opt any-damned-body or any-damned-thing to make himself look good - even Shrub!  And what?  You ain't sayin' shit for posterity's record??!!

I always listen to the "field" in me, so - here I go, briefly.

After spending the entire time since his inauguration - blaming Shrub et. al - for any and everything he had no clue how to handle - NOW, mum's the word?  Well, he couldn't resist one last jab on this war - piling it on and then, making it look like HE righted the ship!:

"From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested."...

..."So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.  This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done." (emphasis mine) 

Makes his, "He-r-re, I come to save the day!" sound almost plausible - unti-l-l-l you realize he said, "A" plan, not "my" plan - without ever saying "whose" plan (too funny!) 

Anyway, right-leaning or not, this CNSNews.com piece has a big, damned point for that simple yet oft-avoided concept - truth.  Obama, in Announcing End of Combat in Iraq, Does Not Credit the Timetable Put in Place by the Bush Administration.  Of course, Kool-Aid drinkers far and wide, in an effort to continue padding this empty suit's "List of Achievements," are now crowing about how, "He did what he said he would do!" 

Please.  Don't they get that "Reading Is Fundamental?!"

In case they might, here is the entire, Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.

Maybe they'll recognize that the Changeling is only doing what he's always done - follow his handler's orders.

But, if that pesky thing is just too long, or involved, for some of "ye, of short attention spans" - maybe this Cliff's Notes version will be easier - July 13, 2009, Council on Foreigh Relations report, prepared for members and committees of Congress after the first, "combat forces" withdrawal deadline of June 30, 2009.  Here are a few important points:

The withdrawal agreement signed on November 17, 2008, is included by reference as part of the larger strategic agreement and although it is titled differently, it is commonly referred to as the SOFA. As indicated above, there are no formal requirements as to the content, detail or length of a SOFA, but many agreements share the same basic framework, and this one is no different. Rules and procedures related to such issues as carrying weapons, the wearing of uniforms, entry and exit into Iraq, taxes, customs, and claims, among other operational concerns, are addressed in the agreement. While there are many similarities between this and other SOFAs concluded by the United States, most do not have an expiration date, but this agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2011.

Withdrawal Timeline

SOFAs have been drafted in the past for specific exercises and/or events, but including a date for the withdrawal of all forces from a foreign territory appears unique to this agreement. The withdrawal is a two-phase process. The first requires the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than June 30, 2009; the second requires the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. The JMOCC, created to coordinate military operations, will establish the areas and facilities where U.S. forces will be stationed between June 30, 2009, and December 31, 2011.  Additionally, the agreement recognizes the sovereign right of Iraq to request the departure of U.S. forces at any time and also the right of the United States to withdraw its forces at any time.  In an April, 2009, interview, General Odierno, Commanding General of Multi-National Force Iraq, stated that U.S. forces may not meet the June 30, 2009, deadline to withdraw from Iraqi cities.  However, on June 30, 2009, General Odierno announced that U.S. combat forces had completed the withdrawal from Iraqi cities in accordance with the agreement. Even though the term of the agreement is three years, and either party may cancel the agreement with one-year notice, both countries retain the right to remove U.S. forces independent of the agreement. However, because the agreement requires the removal of all U.S. forces no later than December 31, 2011, if any U.S. forces were to remain in Iraq in support of security training, or other programs, the withdrawal agreement will need to be extended or replaced with a peacetime SOFA. (emphasis mine)

Don't get it twisted - I have even less respect for Shrub (crook and liar that he is).  But, after the Changeling's evoking of his name so often since his selection in order to cover his ass, I just thought it appropriate to put the credit where it belonged and let Obama & Co. get their own shit to crow about.

Obama's "War of Necessity"

As everyone waits to see what spews forth from the Changeling regarding Afghanistan later today, let's be clear people - THIS is the site of Obama's "Necessary War"...

When I got these pictures from the husband in April (I think you can click on them to enlarge), all I could do was shake my damn head. I couldn't even begin to write everything I was feeling, particularly since "Hearts and Minds" (like so many other issues, hotly debated and often not agreed-upon during this 29-years-last-Saturday union) had also become another one of those double-edged swords, slicing my emotions into two distinctly different, yet equally important parts between which I ultimately find my idea of "right."

I read Eric Margolis's, Chasing Mirages in Afghanistan, a little while before the U.S. presidential "selection" redux  Afghan elections.  It was an interesting take on the no-win, win for which Obama & Co. keep constantly aiming. He makes the very good point:

Ravaged Afghanistan needs genuine, honest elections, and patient national reconciliation, free of foreign manipulation. That's the only true road to peace and stability.

And I was right there with him, but then, he had to go and say this:

America has a great deal to teach Afghanistan about how to run clean elections and build the essential institutions of democracy.

and this...democracy and good government are what America should be exporting to the Muslim World, not dictators, B-1 bombers, and Predators.

and this...Running phony elections is unworthy of the United States and demeans its values and traditions.

Really now. You know, just as well as I do, that America's already taught/exported enough of "US" to Afghanistan to nearly choke the life out of an entire people - especially if we were to really unpack those good ole American "values and traditions."  But I do get where he was trying to go with the whole "makes a mockery of everything we preach around the globe" thing.  And so do they:

Starting at the 6:18 click, the men say, "We're hoping that Obama would be much better than Bush." Then they go on - wearily it seems - to the ending 7:08 click, explaining what should be painfully clear, even to the most empathetically-challenged of us.

I tell you, if watching just that little snippet (never mind the other parts - to include that brand, spanking new SuperMax-looking prison they just built on Afghan soil - among other things) does not convince you of the absolute wrongness of this thing that the Changeling, et al are doing in our names, I don't know what will.  And, either this is some serious Undercover Brother maneuvering, or these fellas need not hold out any hope of him being better:

And he had the nerve to say, "This will not be quick nor easy." Well, all I have to say to that is, what Queen Gorgo from the movie, "300" said to the crooked, rapist-politician Theron, after she rammed that sword deep into his belly in the council chamber:  Mr. President - "This will not go quickly, YOU will not enjoy it!" 

Based on his consistent-from-the-beginning rhetoric and continued hawkish behavior on Afghanistan, coupled with his general's conveniently leaked report and "Karzai's tattered victory," nobody should have any questions about whether or not he's "better than Bush."  But of course, that's wishful thinking.   

Scott Ritter illustrates some historically inconvenient truths about Afghanistan in his, McChrystal Doesn’t Get It—Does Obama? - truths Obama & Co. don't seem to even care to get as they continue their feeble march toward imperialist nation-building.  I'm sure Hill wouldn't have been overseas a couple of weeks ago (looking for some reason to me - eerily Nixonesque), telling Der Spiegel - 'Our Goal Is to Defeat Al-Qaida and Its Extremist Allies' - if they did care.  Now, nearly deafened by his administration's increasingly louder drumbeats for more war, I felt that "quiet riot" beginning to rumble.  And with her Oscar-worthy performance in the "Patriarchy Category" - parroting the lies, and posturing, just like the man who'd brushed her off his lapel Jay-Z style during the campaign - the words that had eluded me since April finally came.  But not for the warmongers.  The words are for the Afghan brothers and sisters suffering the same foot-on-neck behavior upon which this country was founded:

"My enemy's enemy is my man remember?  I ain't tryin' to be endin' up in this Man's dilemma...'til we get there, I am on your side."