NSA—DO NOT KEEP YOUR LISTENING EARS ON!

Judge Judy is clearly irascible, frequently wrong on the law while ignoring facts, and far too often seems to have as her sole purpose not to fairly judge a case but to simply humiliate the litigants and piss them off. One of her favorite expressions, invoked when she’s expressed her view of the case but a party seems to have missed the point is “Put your listening ears on.”

Well recent revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA), the spies whose secretive ways make the CIA look like neighborhood gossips by comparison, demonstrate that they have absolutely no compunctions about  putting their listening ears on. In fact, they appear to never have them off.

Now the NSA’s performance during the Obama administration reveals that its actions have increasingly been more intrusive, tracking emails and other computer correspondence as well as building a metadata base of phone calls made by EVERYONE. All this without warrants or even a healthy suspicion of illegal activity by their targets. Of course their targets include you and me. I don’t know about you, but I believe the last plot I was involved in was throwing a surprise birthday party for my then wife in 1985.

But, no mind, the NSA has brought us closer and closer to Big Brother. I find fault with Obama for permitting this broadening of unwarranted and warrantless surveillance but in reality, the NSA has been conducting such activities since before Obama took office and the main difference might be the simple notion that technology keeps advancing at an alarming rate, thus increasing the possibility of more and more intrusiveness.

Then again, what we have learned by observing our spy complex over the years is that though the President…any President…is nominally in charge, these agencies have few reservations about going rogue and acting with no or at least dubious authorization.

Throw in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which dates back decades, its later revisions, and the Patriot Act in response to 9/11, and instead of fear and loathing in Las Vegas we have fear and intelligence gathering in our homes. Of course it behooves the spy-industrial-security complex to keep us scared shitless. Those in the government gain ever more power and those in the private sector bleed the public fisc while advising the government that terrorists lurk in every corner.

So the private guys build sales and profits by supplying the very goods and services that the private guys, in separate contracts, have recommended that the government utilize. All those “independent” security consultants are nothing but shills.

Now we have the case in which a federal judge attempts to put the brakes on the runaway train that the NSA has morphed into.

Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled today that the NSA is probably trampling the Constitution with its metadata base.

Emily Bazelon incisively explained this decision in Slate.

Let’s start with what the government is doing.At issue is the part of the Patriot Act, building on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that allows the government to collect an enormous trove of phone call metadata, and then query it based on an “identifier” phone number called a “seed.” A seed is a number associated with terrorist activity, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Sounds OK so far. But wait: Once you’re an NSA agent with a seed, you can analyze all the numbers within three hops from that seed—meaning the numbers the seed called and received calls from, and the numbers connected to those numbers. Judge Leon points out that if one seed calls just 100 numbers in five years, and each of the numbers in the next two hops also connects with 100 numbers, the NSA can trawl through the metadata for 1 million phone numbers. And that’s got to be a low-ball estimate, since it doesn’t take into account the possibility that someone used one of those phone numbers to order from, say, Domino’s Pizza, allowing the NSA to vacuum up zillions of other callers.  http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/judge_richard_leon_rules_the_nsa_s_phone_record_collection_program_probably.html

Unfortunately Judge Leon strikes me as a lone wolf fighting against the tide of technical progress combined with fear-mongering about terrorism. Relatively few objections come from our citizens upon hearing these revelations. While it is easy to blame the President or Presidents under whom these offenses have occurred, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “the fault, dear Americans, lies not in our Presidents but within ourselves.”

I have noticed a tendency in our Commanders in Chief to exercise that power even if ill-advised. (https://umoc193.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=544&action=edit) Such power in practicality extends to matters that are not pure military in nature such as any matters of security.

If you object to the NSA  actions have you also objected to the Bush wars? Have you also objected to the drone strikes killing “terrorists”? Have you objected to the establishment of and maintenance of the obscenity known as Guantanamo? Have you objected to the profiling of Muslims? Have you objected to any hint of further military action in the Middle East and North Africa? Have you objected to the uncovering of terrorist plots that really were fomented by undercover government agents? Have you objected to the needless and costly measures taken in the name of security that provide anything but?

If you cannot answer “yes” to each and every one of those questions please spare me the drama of your objections to bad NSA behavior. I may listen but those are crocodile tears I am shedding in sympathy.

THROUGH THE PRISM DARKLY

Given all the scandals plaguing the Obama administration lately it would not surprise me if some of my regular readers had not pondered my silence on possibly the biggest and most serious one, the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance of phone records and internet traffic.

I suppose a few of my critics may surmise this is due to my “Messiah”…Obama….having it occur on his watch, maybe literally.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

• Drone attacks on suspected terrorists off the battleground
• Drug sniffing dogs at ostensibly routine traffic stops
• New York City’s “stop and frisk” campaign that is racist and a highly ineffective police tactic.
• Police departments morphing into paramilitary organizations
• The Patriot Act
• The War On Terror
• The wanding of patrons entering PNC Park for baseball games
• Guantanamo Bay
• The Supreme Court broadening the powers of police to search and seize sans warrants
• The Pittsburgh Marathon’s undue security concerns in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.
• The question as to whether to interrogate Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without providing the requisite Miranda warning.
• The war in Iraq
• The war in Afghanistan

Folks, these are all related to each other and to the NSA surveillance activities. How are they related? Because each of them tests Americans’ willingness to have its Constitution twisted to achieve the illusion …more a mirage actually…of greater security in the wake of 9/11.

Yet, there is no consensus among politicians, professional pundits nor the American public that all of these are bad. Review the comments on these pages anent drone strikes or the Miranda issue. Some of my readers who generally share my point of view were adamantly opposed to my positions on those topics.

Even the NSA surveillance has drawn mixed reviews with some polls showing that the majority of Americans are not troubled by these actions and even such natural political enemies of Obama like Lindsey Graham figuratively shrugging them off.

Importantly most of these measures did not sudenly pop up under Obama save for any issues that have arisen due to specific events during his Presidency.

PRISM is the system that the NSA uses to access information from nine internet services. It is now probably the cause of the greatest upset. Why who knew that stuff we put on the internet could be seen by others?

In fact PRISM has existed since the waning days of the Bush administration and the access NSA has is

…governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 2008. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tacitly admitted PRISM’s existence in a blog post last Thursday. A classified PowerPoint presentation leaked by Edward Snowden states that PRISM enables “collection directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/

That article also relates the tale of YAHOO’s failed anti-PRISM lawsuit in a secret case from 2008.

Objections to these policies and actions are frequently dependent upon who holds title to the ox and/or the political identity of its gorer.

Case in point. The brilliant and visionary Sean Hannity saw the value in the NSA surveillance in a land and time far far away from the one we inhabit at this moment. But, given the change in the powers that be in the interim this surveillance now is destined to destroy life as we know it. Just view the video found in this link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/sean-hannity-nsa_n_3431346.html

Nonetheless when we have reason to believe the targets of these extra security measures are members of a suspect group our hackles are in complete retreat.

Thus you see support for needless and unjustified wars, for unlawful inprisonment of persons suspected of but not charged with terrorism, for intrusions upon our personal space when in public, and all the other offenses committed in the name of our protection.

Yeah, the Boston Marathon bombing was a horrible thing but the two incompetent misfits managed to kill two people with their bomb. In the past week or so we have witnessed two instances of a lone nut killing at least four people in Santa Monica and St.Louis without generating any belief we should cower under our school desks or head for the air raid shelter in the basement..

Walter Pincus has a piece in the Washington Post in which he briefly explores  the history of surveillance in the U.S.

I have never forgotten one thought in a lecture I heard at Yale University back in the early 1950s when Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, R-Wis., was carrying on his anti-communist witch hunt. Professor Harry R. Rudin declared that the two peoples most willing to trade civil liberties for personal security were the Germans and the Americans. Sixty-plus years later, I think the reaction to 9/11 that we still see proves again that Mr. Rudin was right.

 http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/a-surveillance-history-lesson-americans-are-ok-with-it-691835/#ixzz2WN6edWtT

Professor Rudin was a wise man.

UNRIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

All of us tend to get a little peeved when seeing a news item or observing an event that doesn’t sit right with our sensibilities. Fair enough. And our sensabilities may clash with those of our neighbors. Again fair enough. On occasion our perception is sufficient to raise our level of upset to that of righteous indignation.

Then there are those people who go out of their way to find offense. Send a humorous birthday card instead of one proclaiming the celebrant the most wonderful person on Earth? You’ve just made their shit list. Women wearing the same dress to a big gala? Double shit list.

Finally there are those people who find offense not simply to find offense but because they have an agenda. What offends them pales in comparison to true affronts that they ignore. Anything, no matter how petty, innocuous and even well-intentioned, if the action or statement can be construed in a totally negative way these people will be twittering, blogging, or punditing like crazy, intending to raise the ire of their like-minded puppets.

This behavior has been on display by our right wingnuts ever since noon on January 20, 2009. Coincidentally that is the moment when Barack Obama was sworn into office as President. Or maybe not so coincidentally.

There have been the complaints from Fox News and other conservative outlets about Obama’s supposed excess vacations combined with his golf outings detracting from the attention due his high office responsibilities. The problem is, giving credit for accuracy to the numbers they cited, he had taken 115 days off during his first four years. On the other hand, verifiable information on George W. Bush reveals he AVERAGED 120 days of vacation per YEAR.

Yes Obama was presiding over a fitful recovery from recession and some crises in Egypt and Libya and Syria, not to mention his NCAA basketball bracket. But Bush presided over the recession that led to the fitful recovery as well as two wars. Of course his surrogate, Dickie Cheney, was really the one in charge so George’s absences were of no import. But hey, Cheney did find time to shoot a friend in the face.

We are now dealing with Umbrellagate. (While there is cause to object to the suffix of “gate” being used for every scandal, large or small, umbrellas are designed to deflect water.) Yes, the President had the temerity to have a marine hold an umbrella to protect him as he gave a speech. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/obama-breaches-marine-umbrella-protocol/

By the way, The Daily Caller is particularly notable for forensic examioations of non-existent crimes of this nature.

Evidently male marines are forbidden to use umbrellas while on duty.

Yes, the Marines are often forced to get wet while standing outside the White House because they cannot hold an umbrella. Yes, the Marine Corps uniform regulations state a Marine cannot hold an umbrella. But Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan explained to the Washington Post that, according to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Marines must “perform such other duties as the President may direct.”

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/presidents-umbrella-scandal-folded-it-could-take/65372/

Now those seeking to ensure our national holidays are properly observed…never mind big bellied shirtless males swigging beer while charring hot dogs and chicken breasts…a young lady finds herself needing to perform that horrible and degrading human function of urination (but, hey, wouldn’t ur-i-nation be very apt for the Fourth of July?). Yes, she tweets about it…somehow no triviality of human conduct eludes the twittersphere…but she’s criticized for degradation of our holiday honoring fallen soldiers.

But in this case the peeing young lady is one Lena Dunham who has recently garnered some measure of fame due to a cable TV series.  http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/28/lena_dunham_tweets_about_peeing_on_memorial_day_and_conservatives_explode.html

More importantly to offended eyes she also had the gall to produce campaign ads for Obama. That fact alone makes her patriotism suspect to the wingnuts.

So the next time you read of Obama’s “apology tour” remember it never took place, it never left port. He was booked on Carnival after all.

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF NONSENSE

Okay, I’ll narrow the field for you since there is so much nonsense afoot at any particular time.

We have learned that the IRS targeted right wing groups regarding their tax-exempt status or efforts to secure that status. I’ve already addressed this issue and I can safely maintain that I’m agin’ it! https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/no-country-for-old-tax-exempts/

We have also learned that the Department of Justice obtained at least two months of phone records of Associated Press (AP) journalists in an attempt to determine the source of leaks in conjunction with anti-terrorist activities.

There is no doubt these actions by our government are extremely troubling and the Obama Administration is deservedly taking heat.

Piggy-backing on top of the renewed Benghazi investigation Republicans in Congress are undoubtedly feeling their oats. Especially joyful at these revelations are those on the right who are constantly preaching of the evils of the federal government and warning of complete government suppression.

Infortuitously for Obama and his minions, it will be easy to exploit these missteps to make political hay that even, conceivably, could carry over into the 2016 Presidential campaign.

However much one is offended by these actions, and I am sorely offended, I really cannot say that they signal a seachange in government misdeeds that threaten our very Republic.

Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid offered his two cents that the IRS focus on Tea Party groups is no different than when the agency picked on Greenpeace and the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California during the Cheney…er…Bush Administration without a peep of protest from Republicans. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/reid_republicans_hypocritical_for_benghazi_irs_outrage/

In the former instance Greenpeace was subject to an extensive IRS audit due to allegations its advocacy passed lines of permissibility for a tax-exempt. It seems that a supposed watchdog group, heavily financed by Exxon, instigated this audit. Exxon, of course, is the natural enemy of Greenpeace. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-10.htm

The Church got into trouble when its former Rector, Rev. George F. Regas, gave a guest sermon chastising Bush for the Iraq war. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7

Neither did spying on journalists originate with the Obama DOJ.

But obtaining phone records of journalists is an extreme course of action that has serious ramifications. There are special rules in place in the United States that authorities are supposed to adhere to when obtaining journalists’ communication records, and they’re intended to protect press freedom and stop prosecutors from compromising journalists’ constitutionally protected newsgathering role. Federal regulations instruct investigators that they can obtain journalists’ phone records only as a last resort, and the decision to seek the records should receive the “express authorization of the Attorney General.” The authorization should be given on the basis that “effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice” is deemed, in the specific circumstances, to outweigh “the public’s interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information.”

In recent years, however, the FBI has flagrantly disregarded these rules on multiple occasions. A scathing 2010 review by the DoJ’s inspector general criticized how the feds had spied on Washington Post and New York Times reporters in a leaks investigation carried out in 2004. The feds obtained 22 months of reporters’ phone records “without any legal process or Attorney General approval,” the inspector found, which illustrated “the absence of internal controls” and was judged to be “negligent in various respects.” The same report detailed two other cases of the FBI obtaining reporters’ phone records without following the proper procedures. One of these cases was described as “deficient and troubling” and the other a “clear abuse of authority” that violated the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, federal regulation, and DoJ policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/14/ap_reporters_allegedly_spied_on_by_the_justice_department_aren_t_alone.html

Also in the past American journalists have allowed themselves to be used by the CIA for intelligence gathering, i.e. spying, mostly furing the Cold War. Carl Bernstein gave a lengthy review of this practice in this essay. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

So the great concept of Freedom of the Press has often been compromised in the past and, on occasion, it is the Press doing the dirty deeds.

Our level of disgust when we are informed of these abuses usually depends on whose ox is getting gored. That is, if the party in power is one you are antipathetic towards, your umbrage will reach record highs.

It often develops that the offenses are dreamed up at the lower levels of bureaucracy, whether out of a misgiuded sense of loyalty to the administration then in power or from an inner need to feel self-important by wielding power not actually granted to you.

But these offenses and abuses are most egregious when they are the product of the high political appointees to office who are most likely striving to consolidate and enhance their designated powers.

However outraged we are over the AP spying, we seem to be less so when faced with the erosion of 1st and 4th Amendment rights when it comes to fighting terrorism. In Salon, Natasha Leonard enumerates the steps taken, laws enacted, etc, that seem to have us going quickly down the slippery slope. Again, though not new with Obama or even George W. Bush, since 9/11 the government has sought and been granted greater access to our personal lives, all in the name of “anti-terrorism.” http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/whats_so_special_about_journalists/

Reg Henry of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette opines that these current scandals are simply more of Obama’s opponents crying wolf. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/

I take a more wait and see attitude before judging the impact of these matters. I’ve already clearly stated that the IRS actions merit full investigation.

I do have a suspicion that there will be no sustained effect on the Obama Presidency. I’ve had my own bones to pick with him but to date these latest “sins” don’t appear to be anywhere near as serious as what I’ve been railing about.

In the end, history will tell us which it is. We do not, however, need to wait thirty years or so in order for that history to be written. These scandals often have a way of working themselves out so that in a few years down the road we will need stark reminders to recall they ever occurred.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD TAX EXEMPTS

There is more and more light being shed on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents who targeted right-leaning political non-profit groups for heightened scrutiny during the 2012 election campaign. Although the IRS has apologized for this, questions remain as to who knew what when. That’s a variation on the Watergate meme of “what did Richard Nixon know and when did he know it?”

It does appear that this scrutiny dates back as far as at least mid-2011.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” `’Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party_n_3260286.html

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee, maintains that this problem is entirely a concoction of lower level IRS employees. That may prove to be the case but Shulman’s word should not be the last one.

Nor, right now, are there any credible allegations that anyone in the White House conceived this plan or had any knowledge of it. But the results of any investigation must assure us that this is true. For if someone in the White House is involved, it be will be damned difficult for President Obama not to be implicated.

Recall that misusing the IRS for political reasons was one of the impeachment counts lodged against Richard Nixon. Had he not resigned ample evidence existed that may have led to his conviction on that count.

Americans of all stripes have a natural distrust about the IRS. While many are worried their misdeeds will be detected, probably most of us honestly believe we are at least trying not to cheat but still get nervous stomach any time we have contact with the IRS other than to obtain our filing forms or receive our refund checks.

For the most part in our history any paranoia has been unfounded. But it is occasions such as this that can generate enormous hate against the agency that impedes its normal functions and creates an atmosphere in which any government entity is looked on with suspicion.

Tax exempts are a special category that does deserve scrutiny. However, the potential for misdirected scrutiny can be high for any organization that is both tax exempt and operates in a manner that brings controversy.

One generally is not going to find IRS shenanigans concerning your average food pantry, or cancer fighting fund-raising group or your church on the corner that concentrates on serving its congregation instead of involving itself in social and political causes.

Last year Stephen Colbert, on his eponymous Comedy Central TV show, played with creating a Superpac to demonstrate how IRS regulations pertinent to such an organization’s money trail could be exploited easily and legally so the public never learns what happens with the money.

It is perfectly understandable why the government encourages the formation of tax-exempt groups with charitable or socially beneficial purposes. But there is opportunity within these organizations for abuse, not merely from corrupt individuals running them, but due to their very nature.

It may be the time to revisit this issue to explore whether the purposes of these organizations should be narrowly defined in order to qualify them for tax-exempt status and then regulated suffciently to ensure these purposes are met. That way we may avoid the pitfalls of permitting groups that have their own survival as their goal more than any public good to take advantage of this status.

In addition there would then also be far less incentive to manipulate the IRS to annoy, harrass, or otherwise mistreat them.

Look. It is pretty obvious that I have no love for the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or any other group that makes ludicrous assertations about Obama and liberals that have little or no basis in fact. But if these groups qualify for tax-exempt status under present law I vehemently object to this unwarranted IRS scrutiny solely on the basis of their ideas and beliefs.

It is plain wrong and probably illegal. So investigate fully and identify whomever was responsible for these actions, countenanced them in their positions of oversight, or had the power to instigate them by exceutive fiat de facto or by inferred derivative power. And I do mean whomever.

Then let the punishment fit the crime.

 

Correction/Clarification

Reference to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was proper and he was a Bush appointee. However he resigned in November and no new IRS Commissioner is in place. Thus the call by Marco Rubio for his resignation now won’t quite work.

Update at 1:20 a.m. 5-14-13

FRIDAY AFTERNOON THOUGHTS

Unchain My Heart—er, my CPI (With apologies to Ray Charles.)

Word comes today that President Obama will propose a “grand bargain” budget next week. It will contain a mixture of revenue increases and cuts to some programs all with an eye towards achieving a reduction in deficits of $1.8 trillion over the next ten years.

Among the scheduled cuts or reforms are a proposal to have a means test for certain Medicare benefits, slashing farm subsidies, and reductions in federal employee retirement benefits. The most glaring proposal to me…as it does affect me personally…is establishing a so-called “chained CPI” (Consumer Price Index) which will limit increases in monthly Social Security benefits in the future.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/obama-budget_n_3019281.html

It does not have any impact on current payouts. But, as I have noted here and in other forums the current formula for Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) for SS beneficiaries is already woefully inadequate. It is also different in composition from other COLA formulas applicable to other government functions and programs.

Thus, for the years 2010-2013 my monthly benefit has grown by roughly 6%…not per year but in total. Two years (2010-2011) saw no increse at all. During those same years the COLA which sets Congressional pay has led to approvals for a raise each and every year. To its credit Congress has voted to reject the raise each time.

Now whatever the reported rate of inflation over that period, I have no doubt you will all agree that certain goods and services have grown more costly by far more than 6%, especially food. My hike in 2011 of $36 per month was negated by a corresponding increase in my fixed costs of living, let alone the creeping advance of higher food costs.

I don’t expect sympathy on this matter just for my situation. Indeed many SS recipients have other sources of retirement income that makes the effect of a chained CPI on them negligible. But millions, like me, rely on SS for their entire or the great majority of their income.

Because Obama’s proposals have tax hikes included, there is certain to be vigorous opposition from Republican members of Congress, so this “grand bargain” may not become reality. But the mere fact Obama is offering us up for human sacrifice is enormously disappointing.

I’m Not Scared Of Dying

Popular film critic Roger Ebert died yesterday. He had been fighting health issues for quite some time and so he had ample opportunity to contemplate his mortality and express his concerns. This he did in his book, Life Itself: A Memoir.

What he wrote in dismissing his fear of death is remarkable in its simple, understandable wisdom. In this excerpt from his book appearing in Salon, Ebert begins:

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

He continues by noting that though he was raised Roman Catholic and internalized its social tenets but no longer adheres to its theology. He rejects the claim by some that it is tragic and dreary to approach death without faith.

His take on the purpose of our lives is no less uncomplicated.

“Kindness” covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.

Roger Ebert was truly a man at peace with himself and his is a path I hope to emulate.

PAUL RYAN IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE

There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

So began each week’s episode of Rod Serling’s classic televison anthology series. I submit to you the theory that this is where Congressman Paul Ryan (R. Wisc.) resides. Perhaps not him corporeally but his fame and recognition for his budgetary acumen is beyond human comprehension

 

He is considered to be somewhat of a guru regarding the federal budget and the goal of deficit reduction if not elimination. He even draws praise for this alleged acumen from liberal pundits and other who should know better.

 

But anything more than a cursory examination of the budget proposals he has submitted, at least since Barack Obama assumed office (and the Republicans were all of a sudden against the very deficit spending and accumulation of national debt that had marked the George W. Bush years), will reveal that his plans are unrealistic, unaccomplishable, and ultimately fatuous and beyond any reasonable approach.

 

I first pointed out the fraudulent nature of his positions about two years  ago https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/paul-ryan-is-a-fraud/, and I am not alone in my contempt for his budget nonsense. Yet he keeps gaining a forum to give air to his proposals while I keep sensing deja vu all over again as we once again return to that fifth dimension of the imagination.

 

Imagination is fine when it leads to practical creativity—in fact such imagination is commendable in those circumstances. But Ryan in no way qualifies for commendation, only condemnation.

 

His main idea, presented in various garb, with the same sagging body underneath, is to lower taxes, ostensibly for everyone but in reality just putting more cash in the pockets of the already rich. At the same time he wants to slash spending and virtually discard Medicare and Medicaid though that goal is disguised by the use of subterfuges like block grants and vouchers.

 

But amidst all this slashed spending he wants to increase the allotment to our national defense even as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan  come to a close while our bloated defense budget is already the largest on Earth and approximately 40% of the total amount devoted to the military on this planet.

 

For an example of what I speak of regarding taxes, here’s an overview of exactly what Ryan’s proposed new tax rates would mean for Americans. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/15/tax_policy_center_on_ryan_tax_plan.html

 

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman in essence agrees with my evaluation of Ryan, havingh deemed him a “flim flam man” back in 2010. He does seem to believe that the enhancing patina on Ryan is now wearing thin in some quarters. Here he discusses alternate budget proposals which are still not cure-alls, or even adoptable, but which do offer a better vison of how to move forward without doing so on the backs of the folks who can least afford it.  http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/paul-krugman-after-the-flimflam-679523/

 

What should be emphasized is that, despite the noise, the worst aspect of Ryan’s budgets is that they do not end deficit spending, at least right away. Previous versions brought the budget into balance only after another thirty years or more of deficits. And remember, in the simplest terms, our national debt that Republicans attack as so horrific, is the mere accumulation of deficits, so that debt will continue to grow for that same period.

 

Now Ryan reconfigures his plans to reduce that period to perhaps ten years, but he does so based on dubious assumptions and without specifying which reforms in our tax laws, not the rates themselves, will be implemented to achieve his goals.

 

Considering the potential destructiveness if Ryan’s budget would be enacted, I would think he may have been watching too many repeats of that classic Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man”.

 

I’m just not in the mood to be his Happy Meal.

DRONE ALERT!

No, not incoming, so you don’t have to duck or seek shelter. But another post on the topic.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald is one of the few of his profession who has been writing about these drone attacks, first for Salon.com and now for The Guardian.

Here is his latest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

In this part of that article he gets to the essence of what this program is all about…the wanton execution of people declared to be terrorists by the Obama Administration’s definition without a scintilla of evidence being proffered, just the naked assertion that it is true.

But of course, when this memo refers to “a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida”, what it actually means is this: someone whom the President – in total secrecy and with no due process – has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when “an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US”.

This is the crucial point: the memo isn’t justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo – and those who defend Obama’s assassination power – willfully ignore it.

Whether intentionally or not this exposition also lays bare the hypocrisy that so many of the President’s critics demonstrate when, on myriad other issues, and even non-issues, they claim he has not told the truth or the whole truth and has underlying objectives and secret plans. Yet somehow these same critics exhibit no skepticism about these assertions whatsoever.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, no fan of Barack Obama by any stretch of the imagination, goes against form here.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama’s use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.  http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/lindsey_grahams_salute_to_the_targeted_killing_of_american_citizens/

Lindsey Graham is out of his gourd.

But of course I’ve been saying this all along. Those on the right believe killing Muslims is their god-given duty and those on the left who have failed to object…nay even have praised these brazen acts…may as well all be named Manti Te’O. They have all swallowed this fraud hook line and sinker.

Catfish for dinner anyone?

YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT—-DAMMIT!

I seem to be, if not a lone wolf, a pretty damned lonely wolf in my protestations about American drone strikes murdering alleged terrorists. To me there is a fundamental flaw in just about all the arguments currently being presented, even those joining me in objecting to them.

What is this flaw? Well it is the mistaken notion that somehow terrorist acts…which are nothing more than regular criminal acts of a more specialized nature…have been relegated to a category of misconduct that seemingly permits all manner of counter-behavior that would most definitely be deemed unconstitutional if utilized against…say…serial killers or, in a better analogy, against potential mass slaughterers on the order of the late unlamented Adam Lanza.

Note this passage from a story today about some blowback regarding the release of memos outlining the administration’s position.

Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens believed to be affiliated with al-Qaida — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/05/16855539-judge-jury-and-executioner-legal-experts-fear-implications-of-white-house-drone-memo?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

That is if these “terrorists” residing in foreign countries are merely assumed to be entertaining notions of plots to use “terror” to kill Americans anywhere, the President, in effect, can sign their death warrant and order a drone strike to take them out.

That is the equivalent to the government learning or suspecting that Adam Lanza had a desire to carry out a suicide attack against first graders so while walking down the street in Newtown, Connecticut..unarmed and nowhere near Sandy Hook Elementary School…a drone is sent to assassinate him before he can act.

No charges, no arrest, no indictment, no trial, no verdict, no sentence

JUST A COLD-BLOODED MURDER!

I get tired of saying this but the 9/11 attacks differed from the WTC bombing, Weatherman bombings, the Unabomber, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Puerto Rican Nationalist shootings in Congress, the SLA, ad infinitum only in method and number of victims.

THEY WERE CRIMINAL ACTS! All their predecessors were treated as criminals in our justice system and, if captured alive, were afforded all the rights of any criminal charged with any crime be it murder or grand larceny.

I cannot argue with those who maintain the impracticality of arresting these criminals in foreign lands and returning them to the U.S. for criminal proceedings. But that happens frequently with run-of-the-mill murderers and..to my knowledge…no one has ever suggested (seriously) that we just find a way to execute them in their place of exile.

No point of discussion on drone attacks should be contemplated until this fundamental flaw is addressed.

THE FRUITCAKE EDITION OF TODAY’S LINKS—12-18-12

I guess the unfortunate if not reprehensible practice of giving fruitcakes during the Christmas Holiday season is still alive and well. I myself have not received one of these doorstops in a number of years. Instead, my taste of (not)forbidden fruit is confined to the news items I run across.

The recent Presidential campaign saw a veritable hailstorm of such gifts pelting us severely and sending us to the piggy bank to withdraw sufficient funds to cover our insurance deductibles to repair the damage to our psyches.

But our latest batch of gifts seems almost a corroborative effort by the irritants that are remarkably resistant to applications of Gold Bond Medicated Powder—our never-say-die wingnuts.

Look what I had delivered to me by just one edition of Salon.com.

Just in time for our year end tax considerations we unwrap this gem wherein we learn that…among other things…our President aims to sell off the nation’s natural resources to secure himself a third, possibly a fourth term, by buying supporters (and presumably buying off opponents)   http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/how_to_spot_an_anarcho_capitalist/

I  must say that I highly prefer this method to the blood-letting currently taking place in Syria. After all, our streets must retain the capacity to have blood running down them from our regular well-armed nutso rampages to be distinguishable from that produced by violent revolution.. We cannot build appropriate memorials otherwise.

But read that tale and you will see that its notions, warped as they are, are emanating in large part from folks whose idea of professional finacial advice is to lie their asses off in utter disdain of the SEC (no, not the football conference, the Securities Exchange Commission—watchdog for sound and honest investment practices. It is an old watchdog, though, with somewhat failing eyesight.)

But the anti-SEC rants are only a corollary to their overall notion that our entire government is illegal. Something about the entire Constitution being unconstitutional.

(Question…if the entire Constitution is invalid, how is it so repulsive for Obama to “violate” it to gain additional terms?)

I was a political science major and somehow this never came up in any of the sixty hours of courses I took. Damned WVU!

Our next brightly wrapped chunk of heavy indigestible matter comes discourtesy of the State of Arizona. Proud of its bright days, not so bright sheriffs, home of the hapless Cardinals of NFL infamy and Gila Bend, the site of the most miserable night of my brief but adventurous hitchhiking history, this land of Grand Canyons and not so grand politicians is where the powers that be must have suffered a collective sunstroke so harsh that their brains have become permanently fried.

Symptoms, please, Dr. UMOC? Well the latest one is evinced by the state’s Presidential electors and GOP chairman. Though Mitt Romney carried the state and is entitled to its 11 electoral votes, for some reasons these fine folks are STILL questioning Barack Obama’s birth certificate.  http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/arizona_electors_gop_chair_still_have_birther_concerns/

This idea is so batshit crazy that Governor Jan Brewer, taking a break from her strait jacket in her own special rubber room in the Statehouse, diagreed with them.

I tore the decorative paper from this last gift and saw the word “conscience” on the box. At the same time the “from” card read Todd Akin, he of “legitimate rape” fame so I knew the box was a joke and would contain anything but “conscience”.

Lo and behold we were both right, the fruitcake inside having nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. On the other hand Mr. Akin’s vision of “conscience” is to sidestep the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) by amending the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) to institute a religious exception of “conscience” to permit discrimination against gay military members.   http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/todd_akins_last_hurrah_a_way_around_the_dadt_repeal/

Never mind that no major problems with the open policy have been reported. Never mind that other matters of conscience are not allowed to be individually expressed in the military due to the desire to maintain good order. Never mind that Todd Akin is still in the running for the coveted cover spot on the annual Time Magazine Asshole of The Year Edition.

This son of a bitch was soundly defeated in his campaign for the Senate and will be soon exiting Congress. Is this a legacy we should allow anyone to leave?

Do these stories all feel like giant lumps of coal to you, too?