A question we would like an answer to, as well.....

Kucinich: Who Told SEC to "Stand Down" on Stanford Probe? Chairman of Domestic Policy Subcommittee Opens Inquiry Rep. Dennis Kucinich Washington, Feb 20 - Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today sent a letter to Ms. Mary Schapiro, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requesting documents that could reveal which government agency told the SEC to "stand down" rather than take enforcement action against the Stanford Group in October 2006 as has been reported by the New York Times. Recent media reports have indicated that the SEC was aware of improprieties at Stanford Financial Group as early as October 2006, but withheld action at the request of another government agency. In a report published in the February 17th edition of the New York Times, an SEC official said that an inquiry had been opened on Stanford in October of 2006. According to the Times report, an associate regional director of enforcement said the SEC "stood down" on its investigation as a result of the intervention of another federal agency. Stanford is now the focus of an $8 billion fraud investigation and, presumably, an earlier inquiry would have spared many Stanford investors and triggered similar inquiries into other funds which lacked transparency. "The SEC's recent filing against Stanford stemmed from the 2006 SEC inquiry that had been apparently shelved at the request of the unnamed agency. If this is true, we must find out why the SEC delayed enforcement, and if there were other cases where other government agencies intervened to block enforcement,” Chairman Kucinich said. "If the SEC did indeed begin an inquiry in 2006 and was called off by another agency, our subcommittee will demand that the SEC reveal the name of that agency which told it not to enforce federal laws which protect investors," said Chairman Kucinich. The full text of the letter follows: February 20, 2009 Ms. Mary Schapiro Chair U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 Dear Ms. Schapiro: The Domestic Policy Subcommittee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is pleased that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has initiated an enforcement action against Robert Allen Stanford; however the Subcommittee remains concerned about the substantial delay in the Commission’s action. Recent published news reports assert that as early as 2006, the SEC suspended its investigation of Stanford Group under pressure from another unidentified federal agency.1 This assertion raises serious questions about the Commission’s dedication to its mission of protecting investors. The Subcommittee is interested in learning why the SEC suspended in 2006 its investigation of Mr. Stanford’s financial dealings, as well as any role that other federal agencies may have had in that decision. In order to assist the Subcommittee with its inquiry, I request the following: (1) All documents pertaining to “Robert Allen Stanford;” Stanford Financial Group and all subsidiaries; including all documents where abovementioned entities may have been referred to by alternate names or identifications; and (2) All documents received by the SEC from any other federal agency, as well as all documents sent by the SEC to any other federal agency, that pertain to any of the entities covered in (1), between 2006 and the present date. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is the principal oversight committee in the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X including over the Securities and Exchange Commission. An attachment to this letter provides information on how to respond to the Subcommittee’s request. We request that you provide these documents as soon as possible, but in no case later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday March 9, 2009. Sincerely, Dennis J. Kucinich Chairman Domestic Policy Subcommittee cc: Jim Jordan Ranking Minority Member 1 Krauss, C., Zweig, P., and Creswell, J. “Texas Firm Accused of $8 Billion Fraud.” New York Times. February 17, 2009.

Sympathy For the W?

In the end, a new portrait of Bush as tired, misunderstood, ruined

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, January 2, 2009

You have to go deep. You have to scrape and dig and plow, hunt and dive and sigh and even then it might take so long and cost so much invaluable energy and ultimately prove to be so damn near impossible, you will wonder if it's even worth it and why the hell I am even trying because, well, sweet Jesus knows he doesn't deserve it in the first place.

But if you're so inclined, if the temperature of your temperament is just so, if that fourth glass of $10 recession-defying wine is making you feel unusually generous, maybe, just maybe you can muster a bit of sympathy for George W. Bush.

Possible? Insane? Blasphemous? Damn straight.

It's already happening. I've read a number of pieces and a few strange, sepia-toned articles of late (like this one) that, while certainly not daring to paint Bush with any sort of gushing, rose-colored, wasn't-he-an-unrecognized-genius brush of overt kindness, still attempt to give him a far larger dose of humanity and pathos than which might sit well with your very soul.

It's certainly not uncommon, this soft-focus retrospective thing. Every president gets it right about now -- the benefit-of-the-doubt overview, the look back in wistful pondering before the battered chief steps away for good and history gets hold of the whole package and makes it into various flavors of reconstituted mincemeat.

Writers of such pieces invariably comment on how tired and old the president now looks, how exhausted and beaten down, how eight years in office under that kind of constant pressure absolutely destroys your health, your marriage, your skin, your hair color, and by the way what about that legacy?

But with Bush -- the worst-regarded, least popular, most ethically offensive president most of us will ever know -- things are just little bit different. His is that most peculiar and disquieting of exit portraits, a slumpy little guy initially thought to be a middling and relatively harmless puppet, suddenly thrust into history's limelight by the most dire of events, who then squandered every drop of global goodwill and violated most every international law and whored away the very soul of the nation with far more dazzling, efficient success than anyone could have ever imagined.

That's because that's what was intended from the beginning; he wanted to be a war preznit.

The upshot is as painful as it is undeniable: Dubya is, whether we like it or not, one of the most extraordinary and influential presidents of all time. Imagine.

So then, would you care for a more intimate sense of just what sort of man Bush was? What hidden or lesser-known facets we might have missed, how it's possible that Dubya might've been slightly more complicated and interesting than anyone ever really imagined because we only imagine him as a squinty smirky inarticulate destroyer of worlds?

Here is Bush as the good listener. Bush as the simple but spirited debater. Bush as the inviter of disagreement (wait, what?), Bush as the thoughtful and open-minded (please, no gagging) evaluator of opposing argument before choosing his position and closing his little fist around it and never letting go no matter what, because that would look weak and indecisive and we just can't have that.

One who is weak an indecisive will always portray to the world that he is just the opposite.

Bush as the family man. Bush as the master of friendly interpersonal relations. Bush as the dorky wise-crackin' fishing buddy. Bush as the war-weary, wizened, slightly deluded visionary whose vision just so happened to be horribly wrong in every possible way, but who nevertheless truly believed he was doing right by his confused and angry God, and probably still does, and doesn't that make him some sort of sad and tragic figure in our sad and tragic history?

Well, no, it doesn't. Pathetic? Yes. Pitiable? Maybe. But tragic? That implies honor gone wrong, integrity soured by unforeseen traumas, noble intent and spiritual purity ruined by dark forces beyond his control. Not a chance. Bush might not be the cleverest dolt in the playground, but he is far from ignorant of the dishonest, crony-laden, criminal slant of nearly every decision his administration has ever made.

To my mind, even the softest portrait of W merely raises the larger question, perhaps not to be fully answered for many years: How could such a mediocre and unimaginative human cause so much damage? How could this frat house daddy's-boy dullard so perfectly undermine America's fundamental identity and disfigure every major department of government and bring the nation to its knees? Indeed, unpacking that one may take awhile.

Other questions, though, are not so difficult. Questions like: Has it really been all that bad? Have we been too hard on the poor schlub? Does Bush really deserve such white-hot derision and international contempt? Or is he just lost and misunderstood, like a sad clown with a big shotgun and an unfortunate muscle spasm? I think we can all answer those without the slightest hesitation.

There is, after all, no escaping history. There is no escaping the hard reality of our gutted and mangled nation, how the past eight years are simply some of the most dismal and corrupt in our nation's history, a modern take on the Dark Ages. And there is also no escaping the sense that we barely got out of it alive.

But you know what? Maybe there will eventually be a tiny bit of room for empathy for George W. Bush, for feeling a tiny bit sorry for the guy for being so inept and so deeply loathed and for never really understanding the scope of the damage he was doing, or who was really pulling the strings.

They say forgiveness, after all, is one of the highest virtues of man. Particularly forgiveness of those who have wronged us, harmed us, wreaked violence and idiocy and a homophobic war-loving fundamentalist Jesus upon us. The question then becomes, how do you begin? Where do you look inside yourself for a hint of mercy and absolution for this most banal and regrettable of evil overlords?

Maybe you don't look inside at all. Maybe, at least initially, it's more effective to do the exact opposite, to step back and take the long view, widen your lens until it encompasses the entire insane pageant of life, until you can't help but see Bush and all his concomitant demons for what they really are: a blip, a blink, a shrug of God, a speck of sad lint floating through the giant, never-ending cosmic circus.

Hey, it might not be forgiveness, but it's a start.

Not this time, Mark. There must be accountability!

---

Thoughts about this column? E-mail Mark.

Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SFGate.com. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing. To get on Mark's personal (i.e.; non-Chronicle) mailing list (appearances, books, readings, blogs, yoga and more), please click here and remove two more.

Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive page. He's also on Facebook.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/01/02/notes010209.DTL

© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc. |

Dick Cheney: Hang Him?

Though  we agree that Cheney is the most evil of the two, let us not forget that Bush openly stated that he wanted to be a "war preznit," and that he liked being "misundersestimated."

Most of us misunderstamated him and his whole damn family, not to mention the Neocons and their hidden agenda.

We should be ashamed! We have known about the Bushies evil tendencies since Prescott laundered money for ther Nazis.

Dick Cheney: Evil Loves a Vacuum

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00036.htm
sent by Fiore since 18 hours 45 minutes, published about 53 minutes

Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that Cheney “became vice president well before George Bush picked him." Cheney “was going to be able to convince this guy [Bush] to pick him,” Wilkerson said. Then, for all students of American and world history, he added words that should echo down through the ages: Cheney knew he would “be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush — personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum." 

The reason these vacuums existed, according to Wilkerson, is that “let’s face it… George Bush was a Sarah Palin-like president,” utterly lacking in foreign policy experience. The idea in 2000 was that Bush “was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," beginning with Cheney. 

There is another vacuum however, which Wilkerson does not mention, a vacuum that Cheney didn’t even try to fill, or have his willful puppet George fill. That’s the moral and leadership vacuum left when America, the ‘leader of the free world,’ was clearly seen to be vacuous and leaderless. The question to my mind is this: Can and will Barack Obama and his administration fill this vacuum? The answer, for a variety of reasons, is no.

If we don't have hope, in a time like this, we hae nothing. We may well have nothing, but I have to have hope in Obama or I simply cannot go on...............

WWJS

Rick Warren is full of shit, just like the rest of them:

During the three years of Jesus' ministry, He never once mentioned homosexuality....NOT ONCE... not in the official canon, nor in any of the scripture found since, like the Naghamadi scrolls, for example, the scriptures which were hidden from the people by the men attending the Bishops council at Nicaea, where it was decided which scrolls should be included in what would become the Bible and which ones would be destroyed and even reading those scrolls was called heresy. The Church hated the Gnostics, considered their writings heresy and many of these scriptures are of Gnostic origin, but not all of them.

Fortunately, someone had the good sense to hide the scriptures and a young Egyptian boy found them, not long before WWII. Of all of these gospels and other writing found, the Gospel of Thomas is probably the most shocking and it is easy to see why the Bishops would not want that Gospel in the Canon. If one reads and understand the Gospel of Thomas, one quickly comes to the conclusion that there is really no spiritual for the Christian Church, with its patriarchal hierarchy through whom one can rceive absolution from sin from Jesus. According to Jesus, he is everywhere; "pull apart a rotting piece of wood, and there I am." which sounds very much like Jesus' saying, in the official Canon, "I am always with you, even until the end of the world."


It could not be that Jesus had never heard of homosexuality. By the time of Jesus' incarnation in the Palestine of old, the Greeks had occupied the land, much as Rome did during Jesus' time, except I understand that the Empire of Alexander was kinder than that of the Roman Caesars.


Besides, homosexuality has existed throughout the animal kingdom for as long as animals have been around, and that includes mankind, as we are animals as well. The only difference? Humans get to feel guilty about it.


Should guilt and love ever be in the same sentence? I wonder.... Guilt and lust, maybe, but guilt and love? Doesn't seem right to me.........


I spoke with the second in command (so to speak) of a certain Episcopal diocese about this disturbing omission. He told me this: We are left with only this; either he said nothing, indicating that the subject wasn't all that important in his mind or he did say something, but whatever he said was so scandalous it was left out of scripture.


What we do know from canonical scripture is that Jesus had a very young man for a disciple. His name was John and he was known as "the beloved." There is also every indication that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a very close relationship.

We also know that Jesus was a bit of a "scoundrel" in his day, according to the authorities of his day which consisted of a cruel oppressive empire and a corrupt Temple. He certainly knew how to piss-off the authorities and I imagine he would do the same today. Rick Warren himself would probably suggest he be committed or jailed. Religious leaders don't like for The Christ (or any Prophet to show up), That's usually bad news for the religious authorities when that happens, as most religious authorities become as corrupt as the Temple in Jesus' day.

For example, take the endtimers, like the ones who wrote that series of books based on the Book of Revelation (which for some odd reason was considered Canonical material, though it was and is clearly gnostic). These guys have made a fortune. My jaw hit the floor when I read what Hagee is worth. What do they need all this money for, when there are so many people literally dying of hunger even here in the U.S., not to mention the people of Africa.

Dinner and a movie?

If time is ending, it seems like now would be a good time to actually do what Jesus said to do, sell allt

Could it be that Jesus' message was that God cares much more that we love than about whom we love? From a pronouncement by Jesus we got an insight into how he felt about love. He said that that is how his disciples would be recognized; that they would love one another.... as He had loved them. He also said that we should love our enemies and that we should resist not evil. I have, all my life, had difficulty with his teaching about not resisting evil. In the last 6 years I have come to undertand this amazing, if controversial teaching. It is the foundation of non-violent civil disobedience, even that which is in no way against the law, but would not make the authorities (authoritarian followers and leaders) who continue to lust for power and the greedy corporate types very happy at all.

I might also add, that in order to love one's enemy, it is helpful to know him/her/them. I mean really know them, not just believe all the demonizing of the "enemy" that is necessary for a nation to bomb the hell out of a people, invade and occupy their land when those people haven't done anything worth declaring war over and was clearly beaten down by the first Gulf War and the inhumane sanctions which followed, only managing to make life harder for the Iraqi people, not Saddam and his psychopathic sons.


(Was war actually declared this time, by Congress, whose job it is to make such serious declarations? I don't think so. There were a couple of resolutions but no declaraton, which could answer the ever popular question of what kind of fool cuts taxes on the very wealthy and runs a long expensive quagmire of a war, against an enemy that no one at the top seems to know a damn thing about, not even that which is obvious to many Americans, on a credit card. The issuers of Junior's crediot card: some of our favorite people, China, Saudi Arabia and other "friends.") No, Congress refused to do the job demanded of them by the Constitution. When was the last declaration war, WWII? How many "wars" have we been involved in since?

I never have gotten the argument that homosexuality, sanctified by law, will somehow ruin marriage.

Say what?

Gays have never been allowed to marry, at least not in recent history, yet somehow the 50% divorce rate created by heterosexuals, yet somehow, homosexual marriage is a threat to marriage?

Marriage is not the Federal or State government's business. Marriage is the business of the Churches. Forget marriage licenses!

The state should only issue the right to a civil union in the form of a license. Those who wish their union to be blessed by a marriage ceremony or simply a religious blessing of their civil union. There are Churches who will not only bless civil unions but actually perform marriage ceremonies for Gays and Lesbians. The government has no right to ever take an American's civil rights away. The Constitution expreses the Rights of Americans. No where and at no time ha it ever taken civil rights away r=rom any group

The only thing any government within the U.S. has to be concerned with is civil rights, which should always be equal.

(Wasn't it Rickey-boy Santorum who brought up the possibility of "Man on Dog" and that idiot Cornyn of Texas who suggested that "man on box turtle" would be even more interesting. I have known my fair share of gays and lesbians in my lifertime. Hell, I've known a few trangenders and quite a few drag queens and I have never run across any who are as sick as these two Rethugs. The ASPCA should open a couple of investigations on these two for cruelty to animals.)

It is not any of the government's business who unions with whom unless there is a threat to the public health. Isn't that how the government got involved in the first place; checking for STDs? I could be wrong about that, but if there is a public health issue it is the government's job to inform the people wishing a certificate fo a civil union.

Nevertheless, whether there is a wedding with 3,000 of one's closest personal friends and family as witnesses or 20 people invited to watch the happy couple hop over a broom stick or stomp wine glasses, as long as everyone is healthy and their civil rights are protected as a couple under the law, it's none of the government's damned business.

Anyone, so far into that altered-state known as love/lust combo, who wishes to invite attorneys, judges and other unsavory types into their relationship; well, they should be allowed to do so. Equal rights and misery as well as happiness. Hallelujah!

The far-right of the crusading-crackpot variety will go too far as usual. Actually, they already have if the gay and lesbian community would just wake the hell up and see their opportunity.

Action: No more marriage licenses?. Marriage in most mainline Christian churches is a sacrament. As I started to explain earlier in this diatribe, the government has no right, under our constitution to make anything sacred nor does any government, state or local, have any right to sanctify anything. That is the business of the Churches. The business of all state and local governments within the U.S. is to protect their state constitution until the state constitution runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution (Law) always wins out as it should, except under extreme circumstances, like treason by the highest of national elected or appointed officers in the land: High Crimes and Misdemeanors to say the very least!

The Second Amendment, which was included just after the First Amendment for a very good reason as the First Amendment included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition our government, freedom to gather in peaceful groups in order to petition the government and other freedoms without which Democracy isn't worth warm spit,

If patriots, who have been paying attention to what was happening around them for 6 years or more, usually know that once the First Amendment is trivialized, in any way, the need for the Second may well present itself soon. It's not a sure thing. I hope to the high heavens that it doesn't come to this, but better to be safe than sorry.

Thomas Jefferson once said that Americans should have a revolution about every 25 years. That makes sense when one stops and thinks about it. I think Jefferson saw Democracy clearly. He seemed to know, that left to our own devices, we would mechanically go about our daily life and soon lose interest in what our elected representatives and, of course, the ever-present lobbyist, not only from wealthy American corporations who desire only for Congress to pass laws making life harder for their competition and easier for them, with no bid contracts and the like (isn't that manipulating that market?). Then there are the lobbyist from other nations? WTF is that all about? Why do we have foreign lobbyists? Because we are the modern day oppressive Empire, maybe?

Remember this I.U.ers:

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Violence begets only more violence.

Worshiping the golden calf can have some dire consequences.

Take a quick trip down memory lane with this old American. From the so-called American Revolution til this day, we have rarely not been killing someone somewhere.

As RAW once wrote, When the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, which he atrributes more to Gorby Acid than to anything Reagan did or didn't do, we suddenly had a peace dividend, but it came with a huge cost to the military-industrial-complex and their stock holders, plus the security industry, since 9/11/01. We can't seem to find a way to make money off peace.

I believe the fall of the Soviet Union had to do with:

Massive protests at home and around Europe. Contrary to what the cynical, non-believers say, massive protest are seen and heard by the president and other world leaders, unless they are all is just retarded. (The key is, Activists, don't get youself killed or maimed. You will be needed later, for something far more important.)

{There are other forms of protest these days.

These protests do not involve getting you brains beaten out, your spine hurting like hell for life, living without a Kidney, pancreas, ear drums (yep, that would make you deaf as a post) or not living with freedom or not living at all. This form of protest requires no signing up and one who agrees to participate in the action may choose to participate in varying degrees. No need to inform us or any other site which supports World-wide Action For Peace and Human Dignity.

It is entirely up to you.

We ask for no fees. We are not the country club and we won't feed you an over-priced meal just so you only have to look in the mirror all night long.

HOWEVER:

Who knows, we may throw the biggest, most remarkable feast ever, since the beginning of time. Perhaps devoted disciples of the Prince of Peace, those who truly believe that Islam is a religion of Peace and Jewish people who understand why the city they continue to use as, at least, one excuse to keep peace from coming to the middle east, is J_E_R_U_ S_A_L_E_M, translated it means, City of Peace.; those belonging in some way to the tribes of Abraham, though it is beyond me how Western Christianity (or Paulism) has a dog in this hunt, religiously, but apparently others think differently.

Anyhow, back to the feast: Let's gather at Miggido; people who are drawn there; Hippies, Rainbow people and other peace people, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, People who think of themselves as agnostic or atheist, Buddhists, Hindus and, oh yes, Muslims of every flavor; let there be Shia, Sunni and Sufi as well as those of the Jewish faith, all flavors.

There is only one main requirement: That attendees honor and celebrate all life and that you respect the beliefs and cultural traditions of others, as long as such a belief does not involve the taking of liberty or life of another human being, the intentional humiliation of another being, intentional fear-mongering by means of deception or just simply committing the deadly sin of deception or fear-mongering. This means, obviously, no terrorists of any flavor.

( More on the feast later... and back to why Reagan chaged his mind about Nuclear war and the Evil Empire.)

Reagan previewing the film, The Day After, because he apparently was really clueless about what Nuclear launches by the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. would be like. (As My mother used to say, if the Russians are going to drop nuclear weapon on us I hope they drop it right on my head, because I don't want to live through it and have to deal with the horrible aftermath. My mother was a wise woman. I feel the same way, no matter who is dropping the bomb.

He had Gorby as a partner in peace. Had the Soviets put forth anyone else, the cold war would still be going on or we would all be crispy-critters by now. Reagan didn't win the cold war. In the first place it was never really over. The Soviet Union v the United States (interpretation : Fascism v. Communism, imperial dreams v. globalization with a heart. The Russians got rid of the dead weight, cut satellite states loose and worked on getting their economy going again. The Old Russian bear simply went into hibernation for a time, giving everyone the idea that the cold war was over and that Reagan had somehow won the cold war. How does one know when they have won a cold war? Beats me.

Like the CIA tried to tell Bush/Reagan in 1980, the Soviet Union was going bankrupt and fast, mainly because of their involvement in Afghanistan, a war of aggression, not unnlike our quagmire in Iraq. Don't know how they managed to keep the Soviet Union afloat as long as they did. The big, bad Soviet block could not have been allowed to go down overnight, as it supposedly happened in Berlin folklore or American folklore, whatever. One might say they were too big too fail, right away, anyhow. Portfolios had to be managed, over a period of time. The military-industrial-complex, about whom Eisenhower gave us dire warning, was going to take a hit if peace suddenly broke out.

As RAW wrote, "Who could have guessed that GHWB would blow hell out of the peace dividend along with the middle east, the Gulf War?" Well, actually quite few of us could have predicted that one. I wasn't one of them, until Iran/Contra broke. After those Congressional Hearings, things began to make sense and it wasn't pretty.

Of course, there is always the chance that enough of the American people will become fully awake, even if for as long as a moment and, hopefully, this awakening will happen with the populations of other nations. It could happen. More Amazing things have happened, at least on a micro level.

Just a little jujitsu politics is needed.

Dinner and a Movie, Again

Does anyone else remember the women and men who signed up to work for the World Food Project and who were caught in Afghanistan just as the war was beginning, not for handing out food as was their job, but handing out food along with a Jesus Movie.

Of course, this went over like a Lead balloon with the Taliban, so they all were arrested and later released, unharmed. Their hidden agenda almost sunk the World Food Project, at least in Afghanistan.

They were working for the WFP and should not have had any agendas, other than feeding the poor and starving Afghans. But these young women were "Stealth Christians."

I remember their round of the talk show circuit and thinking, what in God's name is wrong with these people?

Anyhoo, ever since then, the new missionaries' agenda has been known by us as "dinner and a movie."

What a bunch of know-nothing idiots!

Not more than a month after the Afghanistan came to an end, I saw to Christian missionaries on television announcing that Christians going overseas were being encourgaed to deceive others as to who they are and what their agendas are. Deception is quite alright for the furtherance of the message of Christ.

Never in my life have I heard such evil as this!

I would think that most people are familiar with the 7 cardinal or deadliy sins; 1) False pride (wrath) 2) Vainglory 3) skip for now 4) Envy 5) Greed 6) skip for now 7) Gluttony 8) Lust 9) Sloth.

So you see, there are really 9 cardinal or deadly sins: The missing two are 3) Deception and 6) Fear.

So how can fear be a sin? For one thing fear is the absence of faith 9in what? Basically in one's own mind. Also, where there is long-tem fear, it inevitably leads to fear-mongering, which is probably one of the worst things one person can do to another but fear, like misery, loves company.

I don't imagine that I have to explain why deception is a cardinal sin. That shoud be obvious to anyone who has made a major life decision based on being deceived; like buying a car, for example.

Max Blumenthal on “Rick Warren’s Double Life”

"Prior to this controversy, Rick Warren was ... proffered by the media as the voice of the new evangelical movement, which embraces environmentalism and fights poverty and is going to move beyond the old hobgoblins of the Christian right and the old, you know, draconian figures of the Christian right, like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. ...


So, the real Rick Warren is someone who fights the culture war with a velvet glove....he freely admitted to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal that the principal difference, the only difference, between him and James Dobson is a matter of tone. ... .... He recently was interviewed by Sean Hannity, and Sean Hannity asked him, “Should we attack Iran?” And Rick Warren said, “Well, it’s our God-given obligation to take out evildoers.” ... Beyond that, you know, Rick Warren says he’s for the environment. Rick Warren says that he’s for fighting poverty, which is great. But what has he actually done?

Where does it say that, that we, the people of the U.S. are responsible for ridding the world of evil? Anywhere? The Constitution, The Bible, (which has nothing to do with national priorities), various treaties? Where exactly does it say that it is our duty to rid the world of evil?

If it is written, somewhere, we certainly have our work cut out for us and perhaps we should start right here at home, with domestic violence, the death penalty, war on trumped up charges (or just war, period, unless we are attacked and our military effeorts are defensive, which they were not in Iraq), Rape, child molestation, etc.

You know, I’ve spent hours scouring the internet, calling around, trying to find some results that Rick Warren has produced in Africa against AIDS, results he’s produced against poverty. And all I can find is that his peace programs, which he calls them, are sort of recruitment vehicles for the churches that he’s planning in Africa and that he is using these programs actually to evangelize, and there’s no real way of measuring his results. "

Ah, dinner and a movie!

Fear of Socialism

by Jim Miles
December 23, 2008

Two recent events have prompted the ideas behind this article – in truth, the whole history of recent events have prompted the following comments, but it is two in particular that gave the push to write them down.

The first event, unknown to most of the world, was a tempest in a teapot when the opposition parties in Canada made a legal political manoeuvre under our representational parliamentary system to take over the administration of the government. Stephen Harper, Canada’s answer to George Bush, has made several critical mistakes recently, the first was an election call before his own mandated four year date, an election during which he argued that the economy was fine and they would not run a deficit budget, and then having received a minority government, proceeded to act as if he had a majority (when in reality he only had 38 per cent of the popular vote) and introduced a budget outline that was at best lousy. That budget paper incurred the wrath of the opposition parties and brought about the announcement of a coalition to defeat the government. Harper’s immature rant in response included the good old U.S. fear factor of socialism, with Harper and cronies warning everyone about the socialist hordes in the opposition (who combined held - obviously - the majority of the votes).

My immediate response to those in our government who fear socialism is to ask them to renounce their inclusion in their very generous pension plans (voted on by themselves of course, no conflict of interest there), their participation in the universal health care that Canada provides, the safety net of Canada pension, old age security and social assistance that assist other members of their families who are not intelligent enough to get in on the government dole. Those are the two big items, pensions and health care, that you will not likely see these devout right-wingers give up easily, even if they were given the opportunity to opt out.

The Canadian “fear of socialism” as with most things under the Harper government, is one of the few legitimate trickle down effects of living with the U.S. as our one and only immediate neighbour. One is also left wondering how many Republican campaigners were assisting Harper’s “war room” during the recent election as most of his sloganeering seemed to parallel the U.S. manner of campaigning, Republican in particular. But that is in conjectural territory and I only submit it as a teaser. The real hangover from the U.S. is its seemingly deep-seated fear of socialism.

Let's face it, Neighbor to the North, we have socialized medicine already. Whole groups of our population are uninsured. What do you think happens when an "invincible" 20 year old wipes out on his motorcycle and is in hospital for weeks on end. What about our typically uninsured, who use the E.R. like a primary physician? Who pays for that? Those of us who do have insurance, that's who!

Are fascists down here helping fascists up there? Well, what do you think. These people see no boundaries, except those drawn on the oil company map in Cheney's office, carving up Iraq like a Christmas Turkey.

Now we have the government buying up preferred stock in banks....perhaps .....is anyone really sure? Does anyone really know? Congress-critters? Anyone?

Fear of socialism is really all about fear that it will get in the way of full-blown fascism, which it will.

Or as Alaska's Gov., would say, "You betcha," wink, wink.

U.S. progressives

I’ll return to that deep-seated fear in a moment, after introducing the second item that prompted this, an article by Rob Kall of OpEd News asking, “Which of these progressive positions is extreme left?”[1] Kall leads the reader through a series of questions asking about the “progressive” position, all questions asking if the positions given are positions of the extreme left. Many ideas are introduced, ideas that to most minds would simply seem to be common sense: health care, racial equality, cleaner environment, fair workers rights, a safe food supply, and on. Most of these items would, one would hope, fall under the rubric of “common sense” before any other political label could be applied to them.

Not our Goopers! Did you know that protecting our food supply, toys for the kids and machinery of all kinds is a socialist program? Bet you didn't know that. One would think that, after being alerted that bioweapons could be used along our Eastern Seaboard, Universal Health care would have shot to the top of the To Do List, with such a threat to American health now being a national security threat. Nope. Not even Hillary Clinton took the opportunity.

Rob Kall has applied the word “progressive”, and only uses the word “socialist” in one phrase,

“There are greens and others further left, even socialists (like Senator Bernie Sanders) and communists who deserve at least an occasional voice on mainstream media.”

Yet most of his ideas, most of these progressive ideas readily fall under the rubric of socialism. So even Rob Kall, a very progressive proponent of very common sense causes, avoids the word socialism as if it denotes some radical left wing position. I would have to guess that growing up in a country that fully and violently opposed socialism of any degree, and that has denounced it with the support of the media throughout his lifetime, that the word socialism still represents something a bit risky and shady.

U.S. fear of socialists

What is the U.S. fear of socialism? What is it based on? It is based on the corporate desire to control the economy and politics of the masses without having those unruly masses having any say, other than a somewhat meaningless vote every four years, in how the wealth of the country is to be distributed.

This can be seen with the Federalist Papers that argued against “factions” that might oppose the ideas of the propertied leaders of the country at the time. It can be seen in the many violent actions taken by political leaders and corporate leaders (generally one and the same, as today) when they called in the armed Pinkerton squads, local militias, up to the military, to squash any workers' demonstrations for better working conditions, for better wages, essentially for a better life. It was seen in the hysteria of the McCarthy era, and its fear of communist infiltrators hiding everywhere, a projection of fear that supported the excesses of the corporate, political and military leaders of the day. It can be seen in the many governments that opposed U.S. interests in one way or another, thus incurring the wrathful label of socialists or communists, the enabling rhetoric of fear that then excused the violent invasion, infiltration, and overthrow of many truly democratic governments that had the legitimate support of the people of that country[2].

These artificially concocted fears of socialism (without addressing the unrealistic fears of communism during the Cold War, nor how the definitions of communism or capitalism ever accurately reflect what they both really are) are inculcated into the U.S. mindset throughout all facets of life from the educational system, through the media, and through the political system (the latter not much different from the media system). The underlying fear is from the corporate owners and their political supporters fearing that the unruly masses of people might not like what they are doing and try to put halters on their corporate activities.

The images and rhetoric of U.S./Canadian freedom and democracy are all very nice until they come up against the reality of invaded and occupied countries, an environment heading towards global changes that could affect our very survival, and finally, the current economic collapse that endangers many livelihoods, all based on the consumption of materials and the massive debt loads of an artificial finance capitalism that serves the underlying purpose of enriching the wealth and power of those already in control. With these three (occupations/war, environmental decline, financial collapse) all looming at the same time, the government’s response (U.S. and their Canadian imitators) has been to support the corporations without any apparent concerns about transparency and openness that is required for other nations negotiating within the Washington consensus guidelines. It is obviously not free market capitalism as the markets are being avoided and/or controlled; nor is it socialism, as socialism, under its purest definition is that “the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” a concept the current bail-outs are loath to approach even though it is the taxpayers money that is being used. Your choice becomes some other “-ism” but not capitalism or socialism.

Back to being progressive.

Hmm, who would have thought, “the community as a whole….” Sounds quite progressive to me, with a lot of common sense, that the community should want universal health care, worker protections of various sorts, retirement benefits universally guaranteed and applied, an egalitarian distribution of educational and medical services, equal rights for all (indeed, as well as in law), international laws that are upheld as well.

The problem of course is not the ideas, as they are – or should be – a matter of common sense for anyone with a touch of true humanitarian interests, but with the label. Rob Kall lives in a country so imbued with “fear of socialism” that he is wise to avoid its use and thus keep his arguments open for acceptance to a wider audience. As I have no fear of socialism, and advocate it quite strongly, I have been labeled as being part of the extreme left. So be it. But all the positions taken by Kall are ones that I support, as would anyone with a gram of humanitarian compassion towards others in society.

There are many other nuances to the arguments of what comprises socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, with at times overlapping features. But in support of U.S. initiatives as represented in Rob Kall’s article, the word “progressive” fits well, as does the phrase “common sense.”

Community of the whole

For all the talk of globalization, there is little talk of community, the “global village” of the sixties having been swept aside by the rise (and now fall…?) of corporate interests seeking to gather wealth from abroad through financial empires supported by the hidden fist of the military empire.

A true era of globalization would be a “progressive” era, one in which all the people of the world had access to what is described above as being progressive interests. It would deny U.S. military occupation of countries or bases through which the material gains of the corporate sector could be enriched. It would deny the ability to harvest and capture the wealth of another country. It would enable the freedoms of other people as is so often not the case today. It would enable a world where globalization meant equality for all, fair trade for all, environmental protection, health care, education, workers equality, womens' equality – all beyond the rhetoric and spin of any label and be an actuality based on progressive actions throughout the world.

[1] OpEd News, December 20, 2008. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Which-of-These-Progressive-by-Rob-Kall-081220-249.html

[2] I refer readers to the many sources that support these positions at www.jim.secretcove.ca/index.Publications.html and www.palestinechronicle.com.

---
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

Why Al Franken should NOT be riding private planes

Given how many Democrats have gone down in planes (I remember as far back as Ted Kennedy), COMMON SENSE, maybe.....how about the human tendency toward self-preservation?

by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
December 23, 2008

The tragic and suspicious death of Karl Rove's election thief-in-chief should send a clear message to Al Franken and other key liberals: don't be riding in any small private planes.

Death by air crash now seems to be the favored means of ridding the Rovian right of troublesome characters.

The most recent is Michael Connell, who died Friday night when his private plane crashed near his northern Ohio home. Connell was the information technology whiz kid who helped Rove steal the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, along with a few in between---possibly including the 2002 senatorial campaign in Minnesota that followed the death of Paul Wellstone (as well as the Chambliss "victory" over Cleland in 2002.)

Connell was an expert pilot whose plane crashed in clear weather. He held virtually all the secrets to how George W. Bush was illegally foisted on the American people---and the world---for eight horrifying years. By manipulating computerized results in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 Connell made history. By some accounts, he was about to tell the attorneys in the on-going King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal civil rights lawsuit how he did it. He also approached expressed a willingness to appear under oath before Congress. But now he is dead.

Funny business, again.....

Current cover stories include the possibility that his plane ran out of fuel. But its crash was accompanied by a very large fireball explosion that burned for more than ten minutes. A trooper on the scene immediately identified Connell, but newspaper accounts say his body was charred beyond recognition.

Connell told various sources that he was being threatened by Rove. He canceled at least two previous flights due to mechanical failure. A father of four, his decision to fly from a highly restricted airport in Maryland remains a mystery. Connell reportedly did contract work for security-industrial agencies, like the CIA. Connell also openly acknowledged that he was the first IT contractor to move his servers behind the firewall of the US House of Representatves where he oversaw the websites of the House Judiciary Committee, Intelligence Committee, Ways and Means Committee, and Administrative Committee, arguably the four most powerful committees in the House.

He now joins such critical players as Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, Ron Brown, Mickey Leland, John Tower, John F. Kennedy, Jr., and many more critical public figures who have died in small plane crashes at questionable moments.

In all cases there are non-nefarious potential explanations for their deaths. Conspiracy theories can, indeed, be frivolous.

But so can their out-of-hand dismissal by coincidence theorists. Both Wellstone and Carnahan died two weeks before critical Senatorial elections they were favored to win in a divided Senate. In 2000, Carnahan's Missouri seat was taken by his wife, who subsequently lost it.

...and the dead Democrat still beat John Ashcroft, the Republican incumbent, who was then rescued from political obscurity by, guess who.......Why, Karl Rove of course.

Wellstone, the leading liberal light in the US Senate, had been personally threatened by Dick Cheney for opposing the Iraq war. Wellstone's plane crashed under dubious circumstances, carrying himself, his wife and daughter. In an extremely questionable outcome, Norm Coleman got his seat.

Coleman was hand-picked by Karl Rove to run against Wellstone. His ensuing victory over stand-in candidate Walter Mondale was the highly unlikely outcome of a messy, manipulated election that coincided with equally dubious senatorial vote counts in Georgia and Colorado.

Al Franken may now be poised to take back the Wellstone seat for the Democratic Party. As an Air America talk host, he repeatedly mocked those who were investigating the theft of the 2004 election.

Franken probably didn't want to seen anymore fringe than he already was, especially if a run for the senate was even in the deepest recesses of his mind, but I must admit that this is one for the Ironicles. Funny, is it not, that the government can come up with the most outlandish stories imaginable and they are called the official story of what happened? Nevertheless, no matter how much evidence there is that the official story is absolute bullshit, anyone getting caught questioning the official story is called a conspiracy nut and can forget running for dog-catcher of the smallest town in the U.S.

Perhaps that is why Bobby Kennedy Jr. let it be known early on that he had no desire for his father's old senate seat. He got involved in the 2004 Ohio debacle as soon as he saw enough evidence to convince him that the "voting irregularities" in Ohio on election night 2004 weren't just irregularities, but out-right theft of democracy. Bobby Jr. isn't running for anything in 2010, therefore, he can continue to say what he thinks. I would be willing to bet that he can do much more in the coming years from outside of government than from within.

But he now owes the possibility of being elected to the diligent work of election protection activists who have fought all these years for fair, open and reliable vote counts. Had former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell been in charge of this year's Minnesota election, Franken would not even be in the running.

Ironically, a brutal right-wing hate campaign is now being waged against Franken, charging him with election theft. Among other things, it claims he "went to Hollywood" for money to steal his way into the Senate.

Were it not for the deaths of so many others before him, such talk could be dismissed out of hand.

But under the circumstances, we would strongly urge Al Franken not to be flying in any small planes.

Please allow us to add our concerns as well.

--
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on election protection, including HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION..., and AS GOES OHIO, available at www.freepress.org, where this article was first published. They are attorney and plaintiff in the King-Lincoln civil rights lawsuit pursuing Michael Connell. This article originally appeared at http://freepress.org.