Martin Luther King, Jr. on war.
I thought that in light of a couple of recent posts that this would be highly appropriate.
I don't think the Pentagon will be using it to buttress the recent claims of Jeh Johnson.
« December 2010 | Main | February 2011 »
Martin Luther King, Jr. on war.
I thought that in light of a couple of recent posts that this would be highly appropriate.
I don't think the Pentagon will be using it to buttress the recent claims of Jeh Johnson.
Posted by Sir Charles at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
"You Never Can Tell" - Chuck Berry
It actually hit 48 degrees here today. It felt like a heat wave.
Hosting a bunch of family all day, so not much time to write. Hopefully will get a chance tomorrow when not cheering the Patriots on to victory. (Toast is going to hate me.)
So who's blood libeled you today?
Posted by Sir Charles at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (34)
. . . Either you are against war or you are not. Either you use your bodies to defy the war makers and weapons manufacturers until the wars end or you do not. Either you have the dignity and strength of character to denounce those who ridicule or ignore your core moral beliefs—including Obama—or you do not. Either you stand for something or you do not. And because so many in the anti-war movement proved to be weak and naive in 2004, 2006, and 2008 we will have to start over. This time we must build an anti-war movement that will hold fast. We must defy the entire system. We must acknowledge that it is not our job to help Democrats win elections. The Democratic Party has amply proved, by its failure to stand up for working men and women, its slavishness to Wall Street, and its refusal to end these wars, that it cannot be trusted. We must trust only ourselves. And we must disrupt the system. The next chance, in case you missed the last one, to protest these wars will come Saturday, March 19, the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Street demonstrations are scheduled in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. You can find details at Answer Coalition.
We are spending, much of it through the accumulation of debt, nearly a trillion dollars a year to pay for these wars. We drive up the deficits to wage war while we have more than 30 million people unemployed, some 40 million people living in poverty, and tens of millions more in a category euphemistically called “near poverty.” The profits of weapons manufacturers and private contractors have quadrupled since the invasion of Afghanistan. But the cost for corporate greed has been chronic and long-term unemployment and underemployment and the slashing of federal and state services. The corporations, no matter how badly the wars are going, make huge profits from the conflicts.
Continue reading "Even Lost Wars Make Corporations Rich by Chris Hedges" »
Posted by Lisa Simeone at 06:25 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (101)
In remarks that surely had Martin Luther King, Jr. turning over in his grave, Pentagon lawyer Jeh (no, I don't know how to pronounce it either) Johnson claimed that if he were alive today, MLK would probably approve of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Yemen and Pakistan, but oops, we're not supposed to know about those). It's really stomach-turning to read the DOD press release, trumpeting Johnson's speechlet and his "certificate of appreciation."
Thankfully, people all over the blogosphere are slamming this shameless PR stunt, including Justin Elliott and David Swanson, the latter who has just published a book called War Is A Lie. I heard Swanson speak recently and was impressed, so I picked up the book; just started reading it last night. Excerpt, by the way, of King's own words from his 1967 speech against the Vietnam War, in obvious opposition to the Orwellian nonsense spewed by Johnson:
"The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’ This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military ‘defense’ than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Posted by Lisa Simeone at 02:16 PM in Books, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6)
The above billboard can be found on I-35 near Emporia, Kansas. Whenever I drive home to New Mexico I'm able to see it, along with the giant cross in Groom, Texas.
'Give in or burn in Hell' is hardly a message of love, but to me the problem with the message is even deeper than its lack of grace. While no doubt those who suscribe to this message - whether they are extremists like Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka or more moderate examples of the revivalist tradition - are very sincere, even in their concern for 'the fallen,' this concern is marked, even overshadowed by a smug sense of self-righteousness, self-satisfaction that the one being concerned for the 'lost' is not lost, but one of the elect, or saved.
The Left Behind book series is a good example of this. The books are really just sanctified voyeurism, a look at what will happen after Jesus rescues us to our reward, and the dirty sinners finally get what's coming to them. The billboard shown above allows whoever put it up to think, "Well, I've done my duty," after which he or she can get back to cheering on the Apocalypse, impatiently waiting for all the sinners of the world to start their regretting.
This, to me, is exactly what's wrong with Erick Erickson's nonsense about 'a saving faith in Jesus Christ' being the missing element, the ingredient that would have ensured that the massacre in Tucson never happened. For Erickson, the issue isn't about being like Jesus or living according to what Jesus taught. Instead, he sees it as a Manichaean dualism between good and evil. Those who have the 'saving faith in Jesus' thing are good, those who don't are evil. Those who do don't go around murdering people, those who don't - who are necessarily influenced if not possessed by demons - murder at every chance they get.
Most importantly, Erickson's message is that Loughner's rampage was the predictable, even necessary result of people (liberals) watering down the message of the Bible. Once true belief is disrupted, people go on shooting sprees, and society deserves it. Even the victims probably do, at least on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure Erickson would need to know the churchgoing habits of everyone that was shot in order to make a right judgment.
There's no room for love in Erickson's theology, not love like we see in Jesus's life and teaching. There's no love for the other, for the enemy, for the stranger. No love so great that one would willingly march to one's death for the sake of those not yet born as well as those committing the murder. There's just bare intellectualism, a stark cognitive choice between right and wrong, with nothing but harsh judgment reserved for those who choose wrongly.
I do, at least, agree with Erickson that what we need in this country is more Jesus. For starters, I suspect that if more people tried to live the way Jesus did, it wouldn't be easier to obtain automatic weapons than competent psychological care.
* 20-21If anyone boasts, "I love God," and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar. If he won't love the person he can see, how can he love the God he can't see? The command we have from Christ is blunt: Loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both. (1 John 4:20-21, The Message)
Posted by Stephen Suh at 01:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)
There's a fairly interesting discussion about libertarianism at Balloon Juice. The latest post can be found here, with links to the others. The question they're dealing with is why libertarians rarely take on corporatism, with mistermix arguing that libertariansm is focused on property rights, therefore concerning itself more with regulatory intrusion upon those rights.
But I don't buy it. Sorry to be glib, but the reason that America's so-called libertarians rarely focus on corporatism - and why they're satisfied to stop at mere rhetoric when they finally do - is that they are, almost to a man, a group of white, male assholes who either have property of some sort or who assume that they will get it soon and want to make sure their rights as property owners are secured when they do. They are or, more likely, think they are great captains of industry, Galtian heroes who are forging civilization itself from the earth's raw materials with their bare, calloused hands.
I consider myself to be a libertarian of sorts, perhaps a civil libertarian. Most Democrats are; we accept that certain rights are essential to our society and, most importantly, we want those rights to be applied to every single person in this society, all the time. I dare you to find a 'libertarian' who can say the same.
Update: Welcome to those from Crooks & Liars! (I was going to say 'welcome Crooks & Liars, but the link isn't from Fox News or anything. . .)
Posted by Stephen Suh at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (33)
"Devil's Right Hand" - Waylon Jennings
Oy, this memorial service is making me a bit uncomfortable. Someone should explain to U of A students that whooping at a memorial service for six dead people is not really appropriate, (This is very different than the Wellstone funeral, which was the celebration of one man's life.)
Obama is the only one who has brought suitable gravity and dignity to the proceeding. He really is quite good at this sort of thing. But the applause is jarring.
Anyone else feel the same?
What else is up.
Posted by Sir Charles at 08:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (32)
Okay, because we need some levity, and because I was reminded of one of these movies by tangential mention of the subject in news of the awful floods in Australia, which yes, are terrible, but they're a wealthy country and will come out of this just fine (is that a convoluted enough dependent clause?), here are Three Movies That Will Change Your Life.
Now I know we have an insufferably hip and sophisticated audience, many of whom may already be familiar with these magna opera, but for those of you who haven't been exposed to their beauties, subtleties, and life-enhancing properties, herewith this post.
I'm loath to include clips, because I'd hate to give anything in the, er, plots away, but this is the blabbosphere, after all, where YouTube embeds are de rigeur. So I'll concede one only, and merely tell you the titles of the other two.
Posted by Lisa Simeone at 06:42 PM in Current Affairs, Film | Permalink | Comments (1)
There's been a lot of predictable, ablist stuff in the media about how more access to mental health care may have helped prevent Gabrielle Giffords' shooting. It's ablist because it concentrates on how to empower the already in-control "us" versus the mentally-ill and disempowered "them." Vaughan Bell addressed the assumptions about mental-illness-influenced-violence in Slate pretty well, but some are reacting extremely poorly, calling for it to be easier to involuntarily commit individuals, and not worry too much about individual rights.
A lot of this is couched in terms of how the availability of mental health care could reduce murder rates (It probably wouldn't by any significant measure). I think we could safely predict that a reduction in death by suicide would occur with widespread access to mental health care. And honestly, I think that's just as good. Interpersonal violence is terrifying, but so is mental illness. It's not something you can avoid by keeping your nose clean and keeping to your gated communities, so I think it's really strange that people are drawing clear lines between the nutters and the regular people. The wealthy white people who control the media narrative have a lot more to personally gain by destigmatizing and treating mental illness than they do by writing it off as a problem for the little people. But then again, one of their own was suddenly horribly affected by a crazy plebe, so that's where the fear is currently focused.
The other disability-related issue that I think will be interesting is how the brain-injured Giffords will be received by the general public and her colleagues once she recovers. I predict that she won't be able to serve out the rest of her term, since there will be a lot of recovery to do. But that doesn't mean she's out of the game forever. Some are already preparing to write her off, but from my layperson's knowledge of brain injury (and optimistic medical predictions in the media), I doubt that's necessary. She will have some effects to deal with, but who knows how severe they will be.
Posted by Sara E Anderson at 12:45 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (10)
"How I Left the Ministry" - The Extra Lens
I am all gunned out at this point -- I don't think I have anything much worth hearing on the tragic events in Arizona. So I thought I'd post this bit of whimsy fro John Darnielle's non-Mountain Goats venture. It's quite a little work of art:
Okay, I am sitting here nursing my second Russell's Reserve small batch bourbon (highly recommended), grateful to be indoors on another cold evening, looking out at the aesthetically perfect one inch of snow we got. It's brilliant and powdery -- Stanley enjoyed it -- but it does not seem likely to impede me on what is likely a 400 mile driving day tomorrow. To talk about concessions of course. When I am not telling members about cutting their pension benefits, I am busy helping to cut their wages. It's not exactly the reason I got into this business, but there you go.
Speaking of my business, great article in the New York Times this weekend about how law school is turning into a scam, a real sucker's game for students who buy a whole bunch of debt for fairly dismal career prospects. In a nutshell, don't go to law school unless you really want to be a lawyer. And not because your parents will be pleased. Do it for the drugs and groupies. I know I did.
Even better article in Harper's on the benighted state of the State of Arizona and how it's tea party politics are bringing ruinous consequences. Well worth a read.
One gets the impression from reading it and stuff like this, that right wingers don't really know how to govern.
Nah, couldn't be.
Alright kids -- play nice while I'm out driving through the Old Dominion.
Posted by Sir Charles at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)
Via Toast's comment, E.J. Dionne said in his column today
It is not partisan to observe that there are cycles to violent rhetoric in our politics. In the late 1960s, violent talk (and sometimes violence itself) was more common on the far left. But since President Obama's election, it is incontestable that significant parts of the American far right have adopted a language of revolutionary violence in the name of overthrowing "tyranny."
Toast then followed up with
I've seen a couple of instances of the "Both Sides" crew struggling to find examples of left-wing violence and reaching back to the 1960's. Um, no, sorry. Not relevant to this political moment, or to any moment in the last thirty years for that matter. Violence has been the province of the American right for my adult lifetime.
True, and not something we can allow the right wing and the 'liberal' media that carries water for it to forget. But there's more.
It is possible that America in the late 1960s had to worry more about violent rhetoric and action from the left than the right. I'm not a good enough student of history to know for sure, and I was still a few years from being born, let alone being aware of the world around me.
What I do know, however, is that violence, in America at least, has always come from the right wing far more than the left. The late 1960s may have seen left wing violence, but earlier in the decade bombs were exploding at African-American churches. The police were attacking people with dogs and firehoses. Crosses were burned on yards, people were beaten. JFK was assassinated - and perhaps Dionne should be reminded that both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated in 1968.
Jim Crow, union busting, attacks on immigrant communities, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the entire Civil War - all were perpetrated upon this society by those who saw something different, something new and immediately hated and feared it. Even the rounding up of Japanese-Americans on the west coast during WWII was an example of the conservative mindset at work.
Every single right enjoyed by Americans today was purchased with the blood of others at the hands of that era's conservatives - rarely by soldiers wearing this nation's uniform. Not to discount the profound sacrifices made by men and women in America's armed forces, but there is not a single right, not one freedom that we as a nation gained from our involvement in Vietnam, for example.
A war separated the colonies from Britain, but the political process gave us the Bill of Rights. After that, every freedom and right - minority suffrage, freedom for the slaves, the outlawing of child labor, the minimum wage, health and safety standards, everything that makes America great was provided to us by progressives fighting conservatives.
It is the liberal who lights freedom's fire, the progressive who provides the fuel. It is those who see something or someone different and refuse to immediately retreat to hate and fear, instead - sometimes through great effort - choosing to respect, even to love and revere.
The culture of violence in this nation - and we do have one - is created and maintained by conservatives, just as it has always been. There are those who can be conservative; that is, cautious of change, partial to tradition, who are not inherently violent in word or deed. But frankly, they either do not exist in large numbers or have willingly ceded their role in society to the monsters in their midst. Until those conservatives rise up to take over their own movement, we as a nation need to act as if they don't even exist, taking such steps as are necessary to protect ourselves from those who would harm all of us - even themselves - in service of their irrational hatred and fear.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Memo to ex-governor Palin and her ghostwriters and puppetmasters:
History and literature--not that you've ever demonstrated any understanding of, or respect for, either of those things--would suggest that you may as well save your energies, because the scrubbing never works.
Never. Ever.
Posted by litbrit at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)
On the air right now, on the public radio program The Diane Rehm Show, former DynCorp employee Kathryn Bolkovac talking about how blew the whistle on UN peacekeepers in Bosnia who were engaged in sex trafficking and prostitution rings. Wherever you live, if your local public radio station carries the program, you can listen. (Audio will be on-line at the link later, after broadcast.) Readers of Cogitamus might remember litbrit's recent post that exposed more of DynCorp's criminal behavior. Bolkovac was also threatened after she blew the whistle; she talks about her experiences in a new book.
Posted by Lisa Simeone at 11:37 AM in Books, Current Affairs, Travel | Permalink | Comments (0)
As you may recall, there was in the summer of 2009, a disturbing tendency for various disaffected right wingers to show up at political events openly carrying fire arms. When some of us on the left voiced concern about this trend, geniuses like Megan McArdle made the case for gun toting as a form of protest, entitled to protection.
I remember writing about this trend with alarm at the time; it didn't seem to require an abundance of prescience to see that this was all going to lead to no good end. Quoting myself is a bit crass, but a couple of things I wrote were said about as well as I can express them. First, with respect to McArdle and others mischaracterizing carrying guns as a form of politcal speech:
Let me explain the issue so even McArdle can understand it. The guns that people bring to these events are designed to kill people -- that is their sole purpose. When I strap one on and wear it to an event I am saying to my fellow citizens "if you fuck with me, I am willing to kill you." The gun is not designed to stimulate debate, it is designed to end it. It is not a symbol of civil liberty, it is an instrument of solipsistic incivility saying rather clearly that I intend to have the last word -- and not in the way that Megan imperiously proclaims from her perch on high in her blog post.
As for the dangerous interplay of guns, the fringe characters attracted to the tea party ethos, and their right wing cheerleaders, here was my impression from 16 months ago of what we were probably going to see:
What you see here is a lumpen mass whose inherent sense of resentment and suspicion has been turned up to eleven by right wing manipulators like Fox, NRO, Malkin, Instapundit, and their fellow traveling cretins. It's all well and good until one one or two or more of these armed rubes snaps and we have carnage on our hands. Then despite the inevitable protestations of shocked innocence on the part of the aforementioned shit stirrers, they will truly have blood on their hands.
I wish I had been wrong.
Posted by Sir Charles at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (30)
Whatever may have happened in another country and another time, the plain, simple fact is that the right wing in this country is and has been routinely endorsing violence against their political opponents for decades now.
There are people still alive who supported the segregationist policies of George Wallace, who cheered as the police used dogs and firehoses on marchers. These people don't vote for Democrats anymore. They were conservative in the 1960s, and they're conservative now. They have always used violence to achieve their ends.
The entire conservative movement - from their politicians to their media personalities to the 'grassroots' Tea Party groups - has embraced continual calls for violence against their fellow citizens. Ann Coulter has sold a lot of books advocating that conservatives speak to liberals only with baseball bats. The very same conservatives - again, from politicians to TV hosts to columnists to nameless fool on the street - who got the vapors every time Bush was denounced now consider it perfectly fine to call the President of the United States of America a non-citizen usurper, a traitor to this country, a dangerous criminal hell-bent on destroying everything we hold dear. They worship guns, they constantly fantasize about violence.
So in whatever way you can, resist those who want to blame 'both sides' and/or cast conservatives as victims. Do not give into those who warn against 'politicizing' this event; someone tried to assassinate a politician based upon her views and votes. It was political from start to finish.
PZ Meyers has a great post about this, please read it if you haven't already.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list,” said Giffords. “Crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences.”
That was Representative Gifford speaking in March of last year.
Sarah Palin exhorts her followers to "Don't Retreat, Reload."
Glenn Beck when the Health Care Reform bill passes says "The war has just begun."
Michelle Bachman dreams of a Minnesota where the citizens are "Armed and dangerous."
They get all worked up over trivialities. They rage and froth over things that don't matter. Yet, when something does matter, they still focus on the trivialities.
To paraphrase my buddy driftglass:
You can be a good Republican, or a good human being. Not. Both.
Not after Saturday.
House Speaker John Boehner, in his statement, did not choke up and cry. He cries over votes in the house on the stimulus. He cries when he thinks about children going to school. He cries when he talks about mopping the floors in his daddy's bar while going to night school.
People were gunned down on a street in America, including a nine year old girl and a federal judge.
Not a tear. Not the glimmer of a tear.
The triviality of their focus and their emotions is immense.
The lack of tears from Speaker Boehner is the dog that doesn't bark.
That dog don't hunt neither.
Posted by Minstrel Hussain Boy at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
In case any of you were expecting that the mass murder in Tucson would prompt any kind of introspection among our right wing brethren, you can rest easy.
As Roy Edroso details on both his blog and in his Voice column, the right has gone into immediate attack mode (surprise, surprise) and asserted that 1) the shooter here is a liberal; and 2) that the left is politicizing the attack, in the process engaging in a "blood libel" on the right, which is really the group being victimized here.
Because, of course, it's always about them. And they are always the victims, even when others lie dead and bleeding. Or as Roy puts it (once again making the Edrosothon seem more of a benefit to us than him) in response to this especially vile bit of twisted self pity from NRO's Jay Nordlinger:
Though such extraordinary self-pity may seem from the outside depressing to live with, it has its advantages. It gives the sufferer's life purpose and meaning. Since he's always the victim, he never has to step up and accept responsibility for anything. In short, being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry, which makes it ideal for people who are fundamentally incapable of admitting they ever have anything or anyone besides themselves to be sorry for.
And don't miss the comments at Roy's site. My personal favorite: "The stinging comment is the 9mm Glock of liberal fascism."
So Stephen, don't lose a lot of sleep over one overly feisty sentence.
Posted by Sir Charles at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Yes, the last sentence in this post was over the line. It was written from deep emotion, as a father of a girl about to turn nine years old.
As a blogger, though, I'm extremely reluctant to alter what I write. I don't want to attempt any scrubbing of the record; perhaps in that, at least, I can claim a greater level of integrity than those who do try to erase what they've written and done and who make up ridiculous lies about 'surveyors symbols.'
It's also important to remember that people can be blameless legally while still culpable morally. There is no contradiction between recognizing the constitutional right to certain types of speech - and being willing to legally defend even that speech one finds utterly repugnant - and holding the same people morally responsible for the effect their speech has.
So the right wing purveyors of violent rhetoric need not worry that I, at least, will ever attempt to prosecute them in a court of law. But they are all of them, in small ways or large, accessories to mass murder in Tucson, Arizona.
Thanks to everyone for the good discussion.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 07:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (26)
I ended up having to really get into the whole alchemy of tempering the chocolate this time. I found that a good portion of the chocolate I had on hand had broken temper. Instead of being dark, glossy and shining it was patched with blooms of cocoa mass.
No matter. Here's how we do that.
Continue reading "Tempering and Dipping (chocolate is tricky stuff)" »
Posted by Minstrel Hussain Boy at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
From this day forward, may they know only the best and most beautiful of things of which humans beings are capable.
May they know amazing grace.
And may they know peace.
Posted by litbrit at 01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, Fox News, RedState, and on and on, to the entire Tea Party movement, to those who mindlessly pass on every stupid email they get. . .
You did this.
You Did This.
You picked up the gun, you went to that grocery store, you killed five people and wounded at least 10 others. You murdered a 9-year-old girl.
Frankly, you deserve the same treatment, if not worse.
Posted by Stephen Suh at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (57)
I just heard the horrible news that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D. AZ) has been shot and killed at a constituent event in Tucson. Evidently five four people have been killed in the same incident, and seven others wounded. (Updated: Although CNN reported that Giffords was dead, they appear to have walked that back. They are now saying that she was shot and is in surgery.)
Details are unknown at this point -- there is some talk that the assailant is a 21-year old male -- but I think it's fair to say that an environment in which it is acceptable for people to openly carry weapons at political events is one in which this sort of thing is bound to happen.
I am going to bite my tongue and learn more facts before I say more, although I have a gut reaction about the kinds of influences likely to have motivated the shooter to exercise his Second Amendment remedies
This is really horrible news. Our thoughts go out to the families of all of the victims.
Posted by Sir Charles at 02:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (40)
In a disturbing and potentially game-changing development on the Wikileaks front, the United States Department of Justice has served a subpoena on the wildly popular microblogging website Twitter. Specifically, they want all manner of personal information about various Twitter users connected to the online whistleblower organization, Wikileaks, which group of notable activists, writers, and even government figures includes a member of Iceland's parliament.
On Friday, Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported (emphasis mine):
Last night, Birgitta Jónsdóttir -- a former WikiLeaks volunteer and current member of the Icelandic Parliament -- announced (on Twitter) that she had been notified by Twitter that the DOJ had served a Subpoena demanding information "about all my tweets and more since November 1st 2009." Several news outlets, including The Guardian, wrote about Jónsdóttir's announcement.What hasn't been reported is that the Subpoena served on Twitter -- which is actually an Order from a federal court that the DOJ requested -- seeks the same information for numerous other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange. It also seeks the same information for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks' Twitter account.
The information demanded by the DOJ is sweeping in scope. It includes all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards. It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present. A copy of the Order served on Twitter, obtained exclusively by Salon, is here.
The Order was signed by a federal Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, Theresa Buchanan, and served on Twitter by the DOJ division for that district. It states that there is "reasonable ground to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation," the language required by the relevant statute. It was issued on December 14 and ordered sealed -- i.e., kept secret from the targets of the Order. It gave Twitter three days to respond and barred the company from notifying anyone, including the users, of the existence of the Order. On January 5, the same judge directed that the Order be unsealed at Twitter's request in order to inform the users and give them 10 days to object; had Twitter not so requested, it would have been compelled to turn over this information without the knowledge of its users. A copy of the unsealing order is here.
Continue reading "DOJ demands records of Wikileaks volunteers' Twitter accounts" »
Posted by litbrit at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Year-to-date statistics on airport screening from the Department of Homeland Security:
Transvestites 1,133
Hernias 1,485
Hemorrhoid Cases 3,172
Enlarged Prostates 8,249
Breast Implants 79,350
Natural Blondes 3
Terrorist Plots Discovered 0
(H/T Penny in sunny Florida)
Posted by Lisa Simeone at 09:27 AM in Current Affairs, Travel | Permalink | Comments (3)
Technorati Tags: comedy, dhs, farce, funny, security, travel, tsa
"What Made Milwaukee Famous" - Jerry Lee Lewis (Apropos of the excellent info from l-t c in comments.)
- I thought this was a pretty interesting take on the theater of the presidency.
- Lisa!!
- The tip off was its unwillingness to drink milk with its feast of dead flesh.
- The right wing "grown ups" are concerned.
Almost time to call it a day here. What's happening?
Posted by Sir Charles at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)
Recent Comments