Jane Hamsher rocks ...

... and in the process shows that many in the US House and Senate, not to mention Obama and his staff, work against the people they represent.

Whip Count: The Final Total, or How We Went from 0 to 32

Stupid me ...

As skeptical as I am about the US poison-the-food industry, along with their servants in government, I actually thought that orange juice was ... well ... uh ... really orange juice. Stupid me.

What You Don't Know About Orange Juice [ via tristero at Hullabaloo ]

The USDA Organic label gets to stay, whether the product is organic or not ...

That's how I read this article: Claims dismissed against Aurora Organic Dairy (via)
Apparently neither the judge, the USDA nor the stores that passed on the products care whether the products they were selling (at higher Organic product prices) were actually organic.

The Bush administration did their best to bastardize the organic rules to favor corrupt corporations with sufficient financial clout. The next step is to make the label itself meaningless.

In the end, of course, this process helps no one. The consumer will not get the products they want but, in addition, once the label looses all trust no one will pay premium prices for the products. Not that the corporate Robber Barons care. They will just look around for the next scam to run. How long before they organize their own militias and invade our homes to take whatever they want.

---

---

Today's QUOTES:

In a world in which our own government is using contractors to conduct unwarranted invasions of our privacy, there's something utterly perverse about our own government then inventing FOIA exemptions to protect contractors from "unwarranted invasion" of their privacy. -- Leon Panetta: I’ve Got to Protect the Contractors from Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy by emptywheel, firedoglake.com Talk about an understatement! It's looking more and more like Barack Obama's pledge to usher in a new era of openness in government may well go unfulfilled. -- CIA Stance On Torture Tape Docs Suggests Obama's New Open Government Era Won't Materialize by Zachary Roth, Talking Points Memo

---

---

Is the Obama Presidency stuck in campaign mode? ...

This article at the Feathered Bastard (White House Staffer Disappoints Phoenix Latino Leaders in Meeting at El Portal) shows an administration that is either not quite aware of the environment Latinos are stuck in here in Arizona or one that is remarkably insensitive to their plight as it appears they sent a representative to meet with "about 70 to 80 activists, politicians, and business people" but who was completely unprepared to answer questions about the out-of-control 'law enforcement' as well as immigration issues in general. A philosophy of

... accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

just does not work with such issues as people's rights no matter how much the 'pragmatic' Obama would like it to.

The article also leaves the impression that the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano may not be doing anything about the discriminatory practices because they are afraid. [Afraid of Sheriff Joe but nevertheless they propose to keep us safe by refusing to let us see pictures of past crimes.]

An update to the article follows:

UPDATE: A White House aide called me this morning, asking that I point out that the White House has a meeting scheduled on June 17 with congressional leaders of both parties to discuss immigration. Originally, the meeting was scheduled for June 8. The aide, who did not wish to be identified, could not explain the discrepancy between what Odio told Latino leaders last week, or with Abrams' statement to me quoted above. Nor could the aide tell me if the meeting will be held in public or private. The following is what the aide would say on the record:

"The president is inviting a small group of bipartisan Senate and House leaders on the immigration issue to the White House for a meeting to have an honest discussion of the issues, identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do." [emphasis added]

Get that, a 'White House aide' who one would assume is following someone's instructions in making this call does not want to be identified? And why not? And WHY did Stephen Lemons accept this type of information under those conditions? There is no reason whatsoever for the bearer of this information to be incognito.

Obama should look to who is supporting some of his proposals ...

.. and then reconsider what he is doing to the country as he treks down George W. Bush's 'US Security' path.

Some of the worst of the worst are supporting Obama's journey to absolute Presidential power and government secrecy while the more enlightened of his own party are starting to question his more authoritarian and decidedly undemocratic proposals.

Just as Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are Obama's staunchest supporters on his photo suppression policy (while progressive House Democrats oppose it), Sen. Feingold's hearing just began with a vigorous defense of Obama's preventive detention scheme from GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, which occurred right before human rights advocates and civil libertarian witnesses, and right after Feingold himself, explained their opposition. In addition to Coburn, two witnesses -- hard-core Bush follower David Rifkin and a former right-wing law clerk to Ken Starr -- heaped praise on Obama's preventive detention proposal.

The most accurate graphic depiction of Health Insurance and Drug companies I've ever seen is ...

... here.

---

---

Today's QUOTES:

Once the RNC figured out that Obama, like almost every other prominent Democrat, could be mau-maued into apologizing over an issue that didn't rate an apology, ... -- All Apologies by Phoenix Wmoan, firedoglake.com ... [Billo's] arrogance is so simultaneously cloying and macho that his act seems like some kind of retro, angry white man, drag queen performance art. ... -- by digby, Hullabaloo ... Somehow, the "Sweet Land" of liberty is plagued by murderous fears that one's freedom depends upon the death, exile or enslavement of some other. ... -- Before the Mountains: Sotomayor and Sitting Bull in America by Glenn W. Smith, firedoglake.com In all the navel gazing about the future of journalism, it seems to me that one of the most important is consideration of the cracking of the insider culture. The media's failures of the past decade can be at least partially explained by its insular nature and class based identification with those they cover. ... [...] ... the fact is that American journalism is in crisis. They can pretend it's all about the financial model and parasite bloggers or whatever other excuse they can come up with. But one of the reasons is a catastrophic loss of credibility because they are consistently either missing the most important stories of our time or helping the powerful manipulate them. ... -- Covering Your BFF by digby, Hullabaloo

---

---

Oh great, now we're 'supporting' Sotomayor because the hyenas are attacking ...

Non-progressive Obama nominates apparently non-progressive Sotomayor. The GOP sludge attacks with lies as well as racist and sexist attacks. I don't know how long it's been since I've heard menstruation a criteria for job selection, but the GOP resurrected it.

Greenwald documents the nature and vileness of the attacks on Sotomayor.

But Crooks and Liars instead of critiquing Sotomayor based on what we know about her and working to get a productive confirmation hearing, C&L is supporting a campaign to get Sotomayor confirmed as a response to GOP sludge.

We Stand With Sonia Sotomayor By David Neiwert Saturday Jun 06, 2009 10:00am

"I stand with Judge Sotomayor, and urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to give her nomination a speedy hearing and a positive confirmation."

Seems all that's required is for the Republican to be unreasonably against something for us to support whatever non-progressive non-liberal Obama chooses to do.

One definition of AUDACIOUS: showing an impudent lack of respect ...

A blast from the past.

The Audacious Book Salon: Chapter One... and done -- Tue, 04/01/2008 - 2:07pm — vastleft

A short excerpt:

Shorter Obama:

1. Politics used to be gentlemanly
2. But there were problems, like racism and such (and everyone had to be a "gentleman")
3. In the 60s, some of those problems came to a head, and things got better
4. Still, the Baby Boomers are "arrested development" cases whose whiny entitlement is the cause of today's political stalemate
5. It should be said that the Republicans have done some terrible things. So, maybe it's not a stalemate.
6. ... But I'm sure the Democrats have been just as extreme (even if there aren't any relevant examples). And, besides, we're losers.
7. Bill Clinton played the GOP to a draw. I'm going to succeed like he did. But differently. And more so. In some way.

Obama chooses the dark side, again ...

Obama nominated Catholic Alexia Kelley, anti-woman's rights and coat-hanger proponent, to advise him on "faith based issues." Like abortion? Like end-of-life issues?

ABORTION FOE TO LEAD HHS FAITH-BASED OFFICE.

Like, do you really think that I want a Catholic looking for the opportunity to tell me how to live my life and what my responsibility may or may not be. I think that as a country there are a few issues we must come to some understanding about (and notice I do not say agreement) but I do not wish those to be formulated by a Catholic, a Mormon, a Jew, a Moslem or anyone else set on imposing the rules of their own personal belief system on the rest of us. 'My God,' that's what this country was about to begin with.

Let's put an atheist in the office and see what happens. As far as I can tell Atheism appears to be as much of a religion as the rest. Better yet, let's get rid of this ridiculous office. It's just another case of Obama following down Bush's road. Step by step making it less likely we will ever pull out of our decline as a nation.

I guess we're going to find out that the only promises Obama keeps are those aimed at the religious right.

You know, Obama baby, if a woman thinks there is no reason known to man that would justify a woman having an abortion then let that woman forego such a procedure. Other than that let women make their own damn decisions.

Don't you think this country looks just a little ridiculous having this fight about the 'life' of a few cells when we are busily killing people in Afghanistan and have already killed, what, millions in Iraq. Killing like that is certainly not self defense and shows a wanton disregard of the life and well being of the people of those countries. In others words, Americans have shown that they care nothing for 'life.'

But we're are fighting about a few cells. Yea! Get real.

Does Obama really care about health care? ...

Read this post: The Way Health Care Can Die by dday

It's my opinion that Obama will undermine anything that the monied interests don't want. And the only thing the monied interests in this country want is increasing wealth and power for themselves. While Obama will continue to verbalize beautiful thoughts he has shown little interest in fighting any battles that may reduce the profits of the Robber Baron bankers, the Robber Baron insurance industry, the Robber Baron military/industrial complex.

In general, the Obama followers sound a lot like the Bush followers. Things that were evil when BushCo did them are now a-OK just because it's Obama. The more 'balanced' progressively leaning blogs, while not silent on Obama's walk down the Bush road, are specially circumspect and third-personish in their analysis of where Obama is taking us.

I was going to just pull out a quote or two ...

... but there's too much in this post: The Persistence of Ideology by batocchio.

... The only "consistency" between widespread deregulation and a bailout is always giving the rich what they want - allowing them high profits for themselves in good times and protecting them from risk at public expense in the bad. ...

[...]

... It's not just economics that seems to mystify [movement conservatism], though, but basic human nature. ...

[...]

Unfortunately, Tim Geithner and the Obama gang seem to be too willing to continue the dodgy moves of Paulson and the Bush administration. Maybe it's class solidarity, similar ideologies, or the difficulty of fighting the bankers who own Congress. Maybe they simply aren't working hard enough to protect the country's economy against astonishingly arrogant, reckless and selfish corporate narcissists. Maybe they simply fail to realize the true nature of these oligarchs, and how dangerous they are. Maybe they're just too corrupt themselves. What Jonathan Schwarz wrote back in October about a flabbergasted establishment is as relevant as ever:

Who wouldn't be stunned when the most greedy, venal, vicious, cruel, arrogant, ignorant human beings on earth aren't eager to work in the public interest? Especially when people like them have never been willing to do so in the entire history of mankind, except on the rare occasions when they've been directly threatened with execution? It's stunning!

Somehow, it never occurred to them that human beings would be greedy and selfish.

There's much more.

But we won't ...

If this incoherent, boot-strapping rationale is the best we can come up with for our/Obama's Iraq policy, I'd said its time for us to get out. The issue isn't just the photos; it's the unthinking, unexamined presumptuousness of the occupation. We no longer have any moral claim, any valid justification for being there, if we ever had one.

We need to end that occupation; then apologize, come home and, as General Sanchez said on Countdown, try to confront what we've done to them, and to ourselves, and ask why/how we let it happen. And while we're doing this, it is we who need to be looking at the photos, not just the Iraqis.

[excerpt from McClatchy: Obama Heeded Maliki on Abuse Photos; What That Says for Our Occupation by Scarecrow]

Obama, as a leader of the United States, should think this issue through and attempt to lead us out of the moral morass in which the US is drowning. But he won't. Unlike Bush, Obama has a brain. But like Bush, Obama is not a thinker ...

It's so simple ...

I was wondering what happened to Obama. While not a progressive he was at least intelligent, informed and apparently thoughtful. But this post explains it: Not Writing for Power.

We're all familiar with the idea that power corrupts.

The British historian Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I don't think that's quite what's happened to Obama. Instead, it's a case of 'power makes people stupid."

"By using mathematical theories, the American scholar Jonathan Bendor proves the great value of independent thinking and the limitations of decision makers. When leaders are too busily occupied with myriad state affairs, institutional methods can be used to ease their cognitive constraints, by seeking wise solutions from among the people and encouraging independent thinking in government officials. But in a totalitarian country, such institutional methods do not and cannot exist."

Inspite of all the hype about Obama being open to the ideas of those who do not agree with him, in actuality Obama's solution to problems come from a very narrow set of solutions proposed by those in power; those who benefit, usually monetarily, from those very decisions. Those with alternate solutions, solutions that may look beyond immediate gain of the Banksters and Robber Baron Corporatists are either shut out completely or allowed to voice their concerns after the decisions have been solidified.

Once elected, whether Republican or Democrat, the law has no meaning to them ...

... except as a tool of secrecy, wealth transference from the nation to a despotic few and oppression whenever needed to ensure compliance.

As Glenn Greewald writes:

... For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied. For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers. And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law -- again -- this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.

Other than creating an illusion of transparency and accountability, what's the point of having laws that purport to restrict what the Government can do if political officials just retroactively waive those laws whenever they want? ...

Obama makes noises about many things. Nice sounding noises. But his actions belies his pretty words. Where Bush just ignored the law to do his evil, Obama thinks of changing the laws retroactively to accomplish the same evil. And if you don't think hiding war crimes, torture, rape and murder is evil then why do we spend so much effort to capture and convict those who commit such actions who are not government protected?