Excuse me, but ...

... why should one be "a very loyal Democrat."

Some of the Obama policy stances I disagree with—Afghanistan, Wall Street enabling, torture obfuscation—but on the whole I remain very supportive of President Obama. There is real tension and conflict in deciding how critical and in what style to be, readers may not know it but I am a very loyal Democrat, and there has to be a point where one is too critical, I have no idea where that tipping point is but it’s there. I never mindlessly criticize major Obama initiatives, and there is a real duty to support the Party and President. I do my part—bitching all the way, perhaps—but I do it.

I can see why a politician might think they should at least appear to be a loyal party member (Lieberman excepted). But why should a citizen be a loyal party member?

----------------
And why is it that
1) Republicans keep stepping over the line, then
2) Citizens put more Democrats in office, and then
3) The Democrats go further than the Republicans in turning our country into a renegade and lawless country with serial Kings.

And now we're supposed to accept (believe?) that wanna-be king Bush's successor is only taking on the wanna-be king mantle so he can keep the CIA loyal and working for the US? That would mean the CIA are a bunch of traitors ...

If this is the case then the CIA is threatening the President (and thereby threatening the country and the constitution) directly or indirectly. Add to that the very direct threats from the financial industry traitors to destroy the country if they don't get their way. Apparently President Obama is going to give up on the Constitution in order to keep as much peace with these threats to our democracy as he can. In other words the Democrat who was elected to stop the Republican giveaway of our country is going to continue on course like a good little bought and paid-for politician.

Again, why would a citizen be a loyal party member? Shouldn't that loyalty be going in the other direction?

The US propaganda machine ...

... and it's embedded 'journalists'

The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash

... The "reporting" is all from the perspective of Brennan and his CIA supporters. None of these journalists even entertain the idea of disputing or challenging the pro-Brennan version.
[ ... ]
But, as has been historically true, many in "the intelligence community" are outraged by what they perceive as outside "interference" -- as though the CIA shouldn't be subjected to the same set of oversight, limitations, and democratic accountability, debate and restrictions as every other part of government. That something as straightforward as the John Brennan controversy can produce this level of backlash from the intelligence community is a very potent sign of the formidible barriers to real reform of our interrogation and detention framework and, especially, to the prospects for meaningful disclosure of, and accountability for, past crimes.

---

---

Today's QUOTES:

[Arizona Eclectic Comment: It's BushCo, Blackwater and the like who are the leaders in US perfidy. The lack of accountability for these vile and depraved individuals and organizations will come back to haunt this country. That the US does not have the moral courage to right wrongs committed by us and ours makes us irrelevant when we speak to the wrongs of others. The hubristic folly in our continuing to speak to what is right for others while assuming that absolutely anything we do is right is glaringly apparent to all the world but us.] ... They are making sure to make it very clear it's an indictment of the five guards, not of Blackwater. And we're again haunted by the ghosts of Abu Ghraib - kids gets hauled into court and blamed for being part of a situation that wasn't really entirely of their making. Old men and war profiteers say tsk-tsk and cash their paychecks. It's only partial justice, which is almost worse than no justice. --Abu Ghraib: The Sequel by Lee Stranahan, bobcesca.com To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, rather than now criticize "the left," it would be better if these insiders just said thank you and went on their way. --Mandate Watch: Were Democrats Elected to Attack "The Left?" Part II by David Sirota, OpenLeft ... infuriating DC assholes put on a clown show of humiliating Ford and GM CEO’s begging for a pittance $25 billion just because they employ UAW workers, but AIG gets $152 billion on the fly, no questions asked. --Out of Time by paradox, The Left Coaster ... The 35-hour policy was a "qualified success." But you wouldn't have known that from reading the English speaking press. ... --"Lunatic Scheme" a Qualified Success by the Sandwichman, EconoSpeak

---

---

Yesterday's QUOTES ...

Uh oh ... Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr [says] Black Super-Delegates Who Back Hillary Could Face Primary Challenge ... I'm sure that's not what it sounds like? Like bringing race (and retaliation based on race) into the Democratic primary? But, perhaps, it's OK because Jackson is black? Just imagine a Clinton surrogate saying this to either black or non-black delegates!
Quote from blurb in Science Magazine (www.sciencemag.org) about the demise of the Sunshine Project:
The news may come as a relief to microbiologists and university officials who have been subjected to Hammond's relentless probing. But even some of those scientists say Hammond has had a positive influence. Virologist C. J. Peters of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston says that although Hammond was a "pest" who often exaggerated risks to the public, his work has "made the community more careful" about biosafety. "I think the country works best with watchdogs," he says. "I am, strangely, sad to see him go."
My two cents: The reckless, the careless, the arrogant and the fraudulent may breath easier now. I suppose this is the price 'we' pay for a society based on greed (and corruption, though it really pains me to admit the pervasiveness of corruption in our country).
... the CIA is free to violate your civil rights with impunity, so long as it doesn't publicly admit to doing so. -- Well, that's the same as having NO rights. I'm so glad a US Court swept away another shred of Constitution and Law. All those rights just get in the way of the US fascistic personae elected, appointed and hired (and sworn by oath) to represent the American people and defend the US Constitution ...



Happy Valentines, if somewhat late in the day ...



The problem with Rowan Williams’s lecture lies behind the actual text. The problem is that he has contributed to the debate about national identity in a disturbing rather than reassuring way. He has signalled that he doesn’t want to hold Christianity and liberalism together. Instead, he wants to oppose secular liberalism, and to defend the rights of all faith communities to resist it. This is what has shocked so many commentators: Williams has shown that he rejects the vague liberal Protestantism of the majority of the British people: the idea that Christianity and secularism are pretty much compatible. No, he says, his role is not to prop up this dated ideology, but to fight the corner of faith communities, and to cast doubt on the very idea of liberalism.