||buy autodesk revit structure 2015 online
buy filemaker pro 10 online
purchase excel product key
buy windows 7 key
windows 7 discount for college students
best price cs4 master
cheap final cut pro 3
purchase access 2003 developer extensions
cheap windows 7 ultimate download
cheapest adobe cs4 master collection
purchase publisher 2010
cheap photoshop software
cheap windows 7 oem software
discount photoshop elements 6
adobe cs4 mac cheap buy fireworks adobe
purchase office 2013 home and student
price of final cut pro
military discount microsoft windows 7
buy acdsee 7.0
buy symantec winfax pro
purchase windows xp media center edition 2005
best price photoimpact pro
buy 2010 outlook business contact manager
price of after effects
buy microsoft expression studio 3.0
buy microsoft office 2003 product key
buy works 8
buying aperture 3 upgrade
cheap corel designer
When you come down on the same side of an argument as the Nazis and other Germans guilty of crimes against humanity, you’re doing something wrong.
Not long after he took office, President Obama invoked the Nuremberg defense on behalf of the folks who tortured folks. That’s the one where the Germans who committed what are now known as crimes against humanity said they had the right to assume that superior orders are lawful. A few days ago, he described anyone wanting torturers held to account as sanctimonious because we were all afraid after 9/11.
Continue reading Folks torturing folks, redux: Obama plants his flag on the wrong side of Nuremberg
President Obama should probably retire “folks” from his active vocabulary. “We tortured some folks.” And then we had some folks over for barbecue, or we barbecued them. Something like that. Folks don’t let folks torture folks, folks, or let them get away with torturing folks, except when “a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.” As were, no doubt, from certain frames of reference, the people they were torturing.
Because his CIA director creeped the Senate’s computers, and then lied about it (and threatened to get Senate staff prosecuted, imprisoned and ruined), and then got caught, the President is under a great deal of pressure to expedite the release of a report that will evidently display the CIA as home to some very ugly people doing very ugly things. He’s prepping us for it, and he’s trying to shift the responsibility for shielding the torturers from him to us. We were all scared and angry. We shouldn’t be sanctimonious. This is what happened, and now you know what I know and since you’re not going to do shit about it or me, it’s now your responsibility too.
Continue reading “We tortured some folks.”
Libya is on fire (literally). This is because President Obama and his colleagues in France and the UK blew it up with their 2011 assault on the country.
I say President Obama blew it up, rather than the US blew it up, because the US joined in the festivities entirely on his say-so. The President said that the US role was not something that required either consent or oversight from Congress because American lives were not at risk. By this he meant that the US could attack Gaddafi’s forces from the air and sea with impunity forever (it turned out to be seven months, officially). Only, absent congressional approval, it wasn’t the US attacking Libya but the President.
Continue reading Libya: another “good” war gone bad
Updated 10:53 6.19.2014
Further updated 7:14 6.20.2014
Every now and then, WTF just doesn’t do it, and you have to holler out, WHAT THE FUCK??????
Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.
That’s right: the Obama administration, according to the New York Times and other sources, are apparently considering a renewal of US support for Ahmad Chalabi, the prepackaged Bush administration choice to parachute in and make Iraq safe for looting by US oil and arms trade interests, who coincidentally provided much of the fabricated “evidence” used by the Bushies to justify the invasion.
Continue reading The past is prologue, those who don’t learn are doomed, blah blah blah: but Ahmad Fucking Chalabi?
Yes, Ralph Nader is at it again. Almost 14 years after his run cost Al Gore a victory in Florida, hence nationally, the Lebanon Loon has cost Democrats another election in the Sunshine State. And it isn’t even November!
Oh wait, my bad: it’s the Democrats shooting themselves in the face again. Ed Jany, a Republican recently re-minted as a Democrat and the party’s handpicked candidate in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, has dropped out of the race and left the Republican incumbent unopposed. Jany, who has not been a registered Democrat long enough to run as a Democrat under Florida election law, had entered the race as an independent candidate backed by both the state and national Democratic parties. Barring death or a terminal scandal, David Jolly, the Republican victor in a special election to replace deceased Republican representative Bill Young a few months ago, now has an additional 30 months as a Congressman in which to consolidate his position in the district.
Continue reading Damn you, Ralph Nader!
Just my periodic reminder that the only possible way mystery meat presidential candidate Rand Paul could get the Democratic votes he would require to win a presidential election, assuming he somehow survived the GOP primaries, is for Democrats to cede in his favor multiple issues that would be attractive to the Democratic constituencies.
I used to think this was impossible, but so many Democrats seem to be scared of him that I begin to think it isn’t. Just this morning, a prominent Democratic polemicist called Paul’s foreign policy positions “incoherent,” and said that “incoherent foreign policy is frightening.” I suppose this is true, but is it any more frightening than some of our recent, allegedly coherent and undeniably violent, foreign policies? And will Democratic voters perceive it to be?
Continue reading Rand Paul is no threat to Democrats unless they make him one
“Imagine my surprise, nay, my consternation, when without moving from his privacy, Bartleby, in a singular mild, firm voice, replied, “I would prefer not to.”
— Herman Melville, Bartleby, the Scrivener
Bartleby, the Scrivener is the story of a man who one day decides he would prefer not to — first work and, eventually, live. We needn’t worry about that with Bartleby, the President. He has too high a degree of self-regard to starve himself from indolence or despair, as should we all, and insufficient attachment to principle to risk his life on a hunger strike.
As you must know, the passions of various Senators on the Senate intelligence committee are inflamed by agents of the CIA having illegally surveilled them and illegally executed covert operations against them. We say illegally because the CIA is proscribed from practicing its arts domestically on anyone, even Senators and their staffs, who probably bear watching more than most of us, even when the CIA believe themselves to have good reason; especially so, in fact, because that’s when the risk is highest. The CIA think they have good reason now because the Senate intelligence committee has been preparing a report that will document the agency’s crimes against humanity, including torturing people and disappearing them.
The surveilling and operating was evidently done with the knowledge and approval of the CIA director, one John Brennan. It is particularly fraught because the CIA is an executive branch agency, and the executive branch is not meant to spy upon or coerce other branches of government. This is in part why the great Richard Nixon lost his job. What we have here is the very definition of a constitutional crisis, a plain breach of the separation of powers.
Continue reading Bartleby, the President
Paul Krugman suggests in his New York Times column today that continuing the expansion of Medicaid is the answer to the outlandish cost of health care in the United States. He’s wrong. Medicaid is a lifeline for the impoverished, but the program would have to be reformed to the point that it would no longer be recognizable as Medicaid to be satisfactory for most Americans.
The reason Krugman likes Medicaid is the program’s success at controlling costs. He says that of all the health care delivery systems in the country, Medicaid is the one most like those in Europe, which have much lower costs than ours. If that’s true, it’s only because most of the rest of our fragmented system is completely fucked up.
Among the primary aims of European systems is health care equity — providing everybody with the same access to high-quality health care regardless of income or station. Medicaid does not come close to doing that. Krugman says that care from Medicaid providers is good and that lack of access is greatly exaggerated. In my experience the former is sometimes true and the latter, never.
Continue reading Paul Krugman is wrong about Medicaid
I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage — they like their plan and, most importantly, they value their relationship with their doctor. They trust you. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. (Applause.) If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. (Applause.) No one will take it away, no matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”
— Barack Obama
I’ve seen a number of Obamacare supporters arguing that the President’s promises about keeping plans and doctors carried a silent qualifier to the effect of “if they’re compliant with the new regimen.” Somewhat less frequent but still common are remarks to the effect that people whose plans have been cancelled should have known better, or that they’re stupid to want to keep their crappy plans. Probably they should have known (although Obama supporters who are ordinarily incensed with people who don’t take the President at his word are now incensed with people who did). Maybe they are stupid. Regardless, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the President hadn’t lied — and it was a lie — repeatedly. Supporters of the legislation thought that the illusion of choice was critical to the success of the effort. The promises were an epic bait-and-switch, rivalled only by the disappearance of the vaunted “public option.”
In the excerpt from Obama’s 2009 address to the American Medical Association, the line about keeping one’s health care plan, period, is, I suppose naturally, subordinate to the line about keeping one’s doctor, period. Can you spot the silent qualifier in that clause? Yeah, me neither. And with the furor over the cancelled plans on temporary hiatus, awaiting the verdict on the state of the federal exchange in nine days and the verdict of insurers and regulators on extending the plans, the problem of losing one’s doctor is about to take center stage.
Continue reading I drink because I’m worried, people; I don’t drink because I’m dry