My favorite line is from this WSJ piece where the oil company official says of the Iraqi position: "We didn't think they would be so tough." (2)

Boo hoo, cry me a record profit river.  

From Glenn:

In anticipation of the release of that report, there is an important effort underway -- as part of the ACLU Accountability Project -- to correct a critically important deficiency in the public debate over torture and accountability.  So often, the premise of media discussions of torture is that "torture" is something that was confined to a single tactic (waterboarding) and used only on three "high-value" detainees accused of being high-level Al Qaeda operatives.  The reality is completely different.

The interrogation and detention regime implemented by the U.S. resulted in the deaths of over 100 detainees in U.S. custody -- at least.  While some of those deaths were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House, including extreme stress positions, hypothermia, sleep deprivation and others.  Aside from the fact that they cause immense pain, that's one reason we've always considered those tactics to be "torture" when used by others -- because they inflict serious harm, and can even kill people.  Those arguing against investigations and prosecutions -- that we Look to the Future, not the Past -- are thus literally advocating that numerous people get away with murder.

Emphasis was in the original (applies to text quoted below, as well).

There's a lot to digest, most of it enough to make you sick, and Glenn concludes:

It's not uncommon, of course, for our political debates to be distorted.  But discussions over torture and accountability have descended to a new level.  The picture that is most commonly conveyed -- that torture was confined to a small handful of cases, was highly regulated, and resulted in no long-lasting harm -- is pure propaganda, completely false.  The reality -- that our "interrogation tactics" killed numerous detainees, who, by definition, are people confined helplessly in our custody, virtually none of whom has been convicted of anything, and at least some of whom are completely innocent -- is virtually never heard as part of these debates.  It's vital that this changes.  Tomorrow's likely release of a new version of the incriminating CIA IG Report provides an excellent opportunity for that finally to happen.

It appears, and this is somewhat old news, Specter will support the bill with some figleaf changes....Just occured to me (given the news that Franken just won before the Supreme Cout and the discussion that we now have 60 votes), that Specter hasn't been much of a problem lately (Specter is a 60th vote), no doubt due in part to the primary challenge by Sestak.

Two anti-abortion groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new "personhood" initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot.

Colorado voters soundly defeated a similar measure, Amendment 48, in the 2008 election...

...Rather than defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," the new initiative will establish personhood in "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"The change," Garcia said, "doesn't leave any loopholes to artificial forms of reproduction such as cloning."

Link

Turns out that's important because WE ARE STILL IN THE BUSINESS OF COVERING IT UP.

Via Pam, I found this disturbing:

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis issued a warning letter to departmental employees late last week, after posters celebrating Gay Pride Month hanging in 35 department elevators since June 22 have been either defaced or removed altogether.

Groove all day, peeps.

I don't feel that his crimes were any more grave than those other two cretins.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Ct., said Tuesday that a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is long overdue.

"Creating an independent agency whose sole focus is protecting consumers - be it credit card holders, anyone with a bank account, or families with mortgages or student loans - is really the key to creating the foundations for a stronger economy," Dodd said in a statement.

It must be good because this is what the bankers are saying:

"Its costs exceed the benefits," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a lobby for the nation's largest financial firms.

[snip]

"It allows the agency to set the terms of a financial product, and that could have a chilling effect on creativity and innovation of products," said Talbott.

McClatchy

The UN General Assembly in New York just voted on the resolution discussed yesterday that unequivocally condemns the coup d'etat in Honduras, executed on Sunday, June 28th. The resolution calls for the immediate, unconditional return of President Zelaya to the presidency of Honduras to complete his term which ends in January 2010.

the US signs on, but:

"General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding.", meaning, it's symbolic, important, but still, symbolic.

link

What does seem legally binding is that if the US has finally called this a coup d'état, the US must end all non humanitarian aid to Honduras.

But the United States has several points of leverage: It is Honduras's biggest trading partner, and President Obama has requested $68 million in development and military aid for 2010. Portions of that aid, which are provided directly to the government, would be cut off in the event of a coup. Congressional officials said last night they were not sure exactly how much that amounted to. Honduras also is a recipient of a five-year, $215 million Millennium Challenge grant that is conditioned on the country remaining a democracy.

Now, a bank is, or was intended to operate exactly like a shoe store. The shoe shop keeper buys a pair of shoes wholesale for $35.00, and sells it for $50.00. He/she makes $15.00 gross profit, or 30%. Pretty good, no? Now, if the shopkeeper wants to make more money, there are good business techniques to do so. They could be friendlier which would bring in more customers, and more repeat customers. They could be more astute buyers which would raise their margins, and their profits. They could advertise wisely, promote smartly, have contests....just a whole host of things.

And a bank was supposed to be just the same. It borrows cheaply from the government, and lends it out somewhat dearer. If the banker wants to make more money, he/she can employ the very same techniques a shoe store does.

So now imagine this: You go into the shoe store, take off your shoes, and try on a pair of $45.00 new shoes.  Uh, oh. When you sat down it was 2:55, now its 3:05; and the shoes now cost $55.00. Now you don't want the shoes at $55.00, so the shop keeper takes one of your own shoes, and keeps it as a "service charge." Suppose you find a pair of shoes you like, you pick them and carry them around with you as you peruse other merchandise. Uh, oh. You held the shoes for 15 mins; the limit is 10; bam! You're penalized, and your credit/debit card is automatically charged $25.00.

Pretty soon the shoe store morphs into a criminal justice system, and the owner is licensed to create, and abjudicate situations, and punish its customers for violating rules it hires m.b.a. psychologists to create.

The point is, who the heck gave banks these extraordinary powers? Since when can a bank "penalize" me $45.00 for a transaction that costs the bank a billionth of a cent? What kind of fools are we to elect representatives that permit these atrocities? We're not customers to banks; we're victims, or targets. How did we allow a situation where we submit to being sheep, while the bankers are licensed as snipers? Don't you see the Kafkaesque, sick, submissive irony that we allow banks, unique to all other businesses, to take on judicial powers, to punish, fine, and forcefully seize money from us. And they create rules designed to trap, and trick you into violating them. Rules, that when violated, cause no loss, nothing and no one suffers, no damage is inflicted, in fact the violation occurs in total silence, and invisibly. And yet, our Congress grants these special entities license to just take our money, and give absolutely nothing back.

And, so proud are they with the success of their slaughter, they reward themselves with even more of our money; tens of millions each, countless billions in all.