Friday Morning Obama "Change" Open Thread

[H]ere you have the Obama DOJ in all its glory: no prosecutions (but rather full-scale immunity extended) for war crimes, torture, and illegal spying. For those crimes, we must Look Forward, Not Backward. But for those poor individuals who courageously blow the whistle on oozing corruption, waste and illegal surveillance by the omnipotent public-private Surveillance State: the full weight of the "justice system" comes crashing down upon them with threats of many years in prison. - Glenn Greenwald

Busy again. Open Thread.

Here is Jeralyn's previous coverage. Let me direct your attention to Glenn Greenwald's coverage (See also John Cole) of the stunning and disgraceful decision by the Obama Department of Justice to prosecute a NSA whistleblower. As Glenn writes, for an Administration dedicated to "looking forward, not backwards," this is stunning, hypocritical and disgraceful.

For all who expressed outrage about the Bush Administration threats to prosecute the NYTimes and whistleblowers, the moral imperative to speak loudly against the Obama Administration is strong.

< Iman in Zazi Case Sentenced to Time Served, Issues Remain Who Blew Investigation | On Torture Tapes Destruction:Where's "The Heat?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And it comes on the same as this: (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by david mizner on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:34:45 AM EST

    Porter J. Goss, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2005 approved of the decision by one of his top aides to destroy dozens of videotapes documenting the brutal interrogation of two detainees, according to an internal C.I.A. document released Thursday.

    Shortly after the tapes were destroyed at the order of Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the head of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service, Mr. Goss told Mr. Rodriguez that he "agreed" with the decision, according to the document. He even joked after Mr. Rodriguez offered to "take the heat" for destroying the tapes.

    Whistleblowers prosecuted, war criminals untouched.

    Don't tell the neo-progressives, but the Bush-Cheney era hasn't ended.

    I cant deal with this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    Ditto (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:40:46 AM EST
    It is time for the leftosphere to wake up, I'm tired.

    its really (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    baffling.  does he think this will get him votes?
    does he think this is a good idea?  I cant decide which is most disturbing.

    More authoritarian than (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:53:23 AM EST
    the previous administration.

    the Wen Ho Lee case comes to mind here.


    Ron Paul 2012... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:01:42 AM EST
    looking better everyday...batsh*t crazy or not, I'm confident the authoritarianism would at least take a 4 year coffee break...that's the best deal I see on the table.

    But enough of all that...tis Friday, I got a pocketful of California made medicinal tootsie rolls and Big Sam is blowing his horn tonight on Sullivan St...things could certainly be worse:)


    I'm listening to (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    "Peace Love and Understanding."

    Really great stuff.


    The guy can blow... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    I just got turned onto them...I'm psyched to beam on up to the mothership with 'em tonight.

    You may not be far off (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    A recent Ras poll showed an Obama - Paul race to be statistically tied at this point, 42-41.

    Ahh, a sweet h0rny respite in the latest sucktasm (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    Lucky you, yabastid. Because (speaking of the mothership) I'm on the verge of completely removing a funk-related brain splinter:

    Pr!ng-ding-diddley-ingles (not remotely) potato(-like) "chips" using Tear the Roof off the Suckah / Give up the Funk (Parliament/Funkadelic) in their latest ad campaign.

    What the freakin funk???!?

    Okay, as an adult and frequent money grubber, I understand that even my personal faves will collect pocket change at New Jack City.

    Yes, I have done the math and I will endure (both already empirically proven beyond the reasonable evidentiary standards of earthly AND heavenly courts.)

    Yes, Pavarotti did commercials and pasta and Iggy Pop handed Lust for Life over to that cruise line and Luisa Tetrazzini did some pasta and Enrico Caruso did pasta and Andrea Bocelli -- much to my surprise -- did pasta.

    But here's the thin starchy line between sanity and madness that Pr!ng-ding-diddley-ingles crossed.

    They are the worst chips of all: simultaneously The Ned Flanders of Chips and The Devil's Preferred Chip. This uniformly molded pressed and irradiated blighted potato vomit led a whole movement of atrocities, each worse than the predecessor. (Baked Lays from the Low-Fat Hurl of Binge-Scarfing Supermodels. I rest my case.)

    When the Fatzis came just for chips, people who thought chips were bad anyway didn't speak up.

    An avalanche of sham improvements over real, slow food (honestly enjoyed) later, and now they've come for the Funk ...

    Just. No.

    (Fun truth: Chips, from potatoes or other commestible, are something even cooking doofuses can do in 10-15 min, but only do masterfully, in an iron skillet or pot. Good and good for you. Honestly.)


    FWIW, Greenwald has a theory about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    what motivated the Obama DOJ to prosecute Drake: LINK:
    Think about whose interests the Obama DOJ is devoted to given that -- while they protect the most profound Bush crimes based on the Presidential decree of "Look Forward, Not Backward" -- they chose this whistle-blower to prosecute (and Drake, incidentally, is apparently impoverished, as he's been assigned a Public Defender to represent him)...  

    Anyone who doubts that whistle-blower prosecutions like this are intended to prevent any further disclosures of wrongdoing should simply review the 2008 Pentagon report which identified WikiLeaks as a major threat to the U.S. and proposed that exposure and prosecution of their sources would crush their ability to obtain further leaks.

    (BTW, so sorry about Loudon Wainwright 3.5 - perhaps you and Mary Jane gave him the best day of his life though.)


    One size doesn't fit all for me (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    It never really has.  I was just too young and too super single mom busy during the Clinton Presidency to be outraged at the times I should have been outraged. I guess I'm that AGE now when the current President is serving on my watch.  Obama comes with some things I like, some things I can live with, and some things that I really don't like and really can't live with. Being me, I must fight the latter.

    Cool video (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:23:25 PM EST
    once its ok to do to some (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:00:37 AM EST
    its ok to do to all

    I have heard of the vile discharges before, but this takes it to a whole new level

    how can any document signed under those conditions be worth 1/100th the value of the paper it is printed on?

    can lawyers help?

    Man (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    The Obama apologists over at Cole's site are just hilarious. And sad.

    "I expected better of Obama..."

    Um, why?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by szielinski on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    I expected better from Obama than the horror story he's actually given us. Yet I voted for Nader anyway because I believed Obama would be a bad president!

    Nixon went to China, Reagan made a deal with Gorbachev, Clinton killed welfare and Obama will complete the Bush agenda.


    But, don't you see? This paves (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    the way for the Looking Forward, makes sure the path is free of those who would expose wrongdoing, no matter who was - or, perhaps more importantly - is doing it.  Makes sure the road is lined only with cheering supporters, showing anyone who might think about throwing a figurative rotten tomato, or who might point out and expose any illegality, what kind of peril awaits them: the full force of the law.

    Why, it's almost like the Obama DOJ is operating out of the Authoritarian Handbook or something.

    But, good to know that we've established what's important - hunting down and vigorously prosecuting those who dared to expose the illegal acts of those at the highest levels of government - and made clear that those at the top will not only be tolerated, but they can "move forward" with no fear of reprisal or accountability.

    I sure feel better, don't you?

    It does sort of remind me of the (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 06:46:50 AM EST
    Obama caucus states machine at work.  Bullying and strong arming the common citizen and turning it into he said she said when called on it.

    Not the first time I've said (none / 0) (#33)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    that Obama reminds me of Nixon more than anyone.

    Obama is a lot better looking and (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    doesn't wear dress shoes when he walks on the beach.

    Or when he walks (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    on water . . .

    Thus far, I don't see any commenter (none / 0) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    on this thread defending the Obama DOJ for prosecuting this whistle blower.

    Could this be some kind of a tipping point, at least at TL? Meaning that Obama has finally done something that even his staunchest defenders find indefensible?

    If so, that is somewhat HOPEful, in the true sense of the word.


    Oh, I can think of someone (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    who will get around to it as soon as school is out for the day.

    Thus far, I don't see any commenter on this thread defending the Obama DOJ for prosecuting this whistle blower.

    Wait for it. The defense will begin with some variation on "But Bill Clinton . . . "

    Funny how often the 'Bots sound like the Rethugs.


    Sounds almost like you're (4.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:29:23 PM EST
    sitting there rubbing your hands together, with all that "wait for it"..

    And, I thought you were the one who resented all that "bots", "puma posse" talk..

    Getting anxious to jump on a bot with both feet are we?  


    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    Just tweakin' a "frenemy."

    No I'm not going to go that (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:12:00 PM EST
    route I've always been mixed about prosecuting whistle blowers, and there's no reason to look at the Clinton DOJ as even the Clintonistas on here hated it- I mean Wen Ho Lee, Ruby Ridge, etc.

    Good sport (none / 0) (#65)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    And I'm actually with you on Wen Ho Lee and Ruby Ridge.

    But SS, bless your heart, you did (none / 0) (#78)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 03:50:30 AM EST
    "go that route" and you deflected attention away from problems with Obama's DOJ by dredging up problems in the Clinton DOJ - vis a vis Wen Ho Lee and Ruby Ridge. (BTW, the handling of those two cases is not something that I would in any way defend - peace.)

    You lost me (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    what part of Ruby Ridge? The investigation and murders took place under Reagan and Bush one. Wasn't the beginning of the Wen Ho Lee misery in Dec 1999? Waco was Clinton's claim to shame IMO.

    The corrective action phase (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rojas on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    or better said lack thereof.

    "Corrective action phase" of what? (none / 0) (#83)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    The coorective action phase of Ruby Ridge (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rojas on Sun Apr 18, 2010 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    In a nation of laws that would be the part where we hold people accountable when their actions violate the constitution.

    For a hint of how this is supposed to work you might refer to the indictment of Laurence Powell, Stacey Koon, Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno.

    Ruby Ridge happened in August of 92. Late in papa Bushs term. Most of the players from that fiasco took part in Waco. From running the so-called tactical operations on the ground to serving at the FBI command center in Washington. Lon Horiuchi was there serving at the pleasure of our ubiquitous tank commander Dick Rodgers.

    No doubt, in a rational society they would have been in jail at the time, but as events in Waco unfolded it became clear that the civil rights generation in America had come to the point where we were neither rational nor reasonable.

    What we saw from the Clintons and their DOJ was sanction. Even gave them cash bonuses for their efforts. We ushered in an era with a new set of rules. The rules of engagement had changed. The Bill of Rights we came to agree no longer carried the force of law. They are more like guidelines really, as it is plain to see. It's the center in this country that has gone crazy

    And if you think I am trying to deflect from the Obama DOJ that is certainly not the case. Hell, for all practical proposes they are one in the same. The overriding theme of the last two decades has been continuity. The overriding legacy has been one of lowering of the bar for the next.


    Thanks IG - your account of events (none / 0) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    appears to be absolutely right.

    This sub-thread started with my comment #55 where I remarked that, as of that point in time, none of the usual Obamapologists were defending the Obama DOJ's prosecution of Drake.

    Spamlet predicted that the apologists would soon show up and start making comments to deflect criticism from the Obama DOJ.

    As predicted, SocraticSilence replied to her with a comment (#63) that attributed Ruby Ridge and Wen Ho Lee to the Clinton DOJ.

    Neither Spamlet, nor I, noted or corrected SS's (deliberate?) error. Kudos to you for catching it. And I agree, Waco was "Clinton's claim to shame", as you said.

    Now, let's see if this puts an end to the diversions.


    I gave a slight edge (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    to Gordon Brown in last night's first-ever Brit PM-level debate.  For the most part he shed some of the dour and stodgy persona as he went after Tory Cameron with gusto most of the time, scoring the occasional zinger.  His attempts at bridge-building with LibDem Clegg, alas, were met with disdain.

    Cameron, the highly touted youthful Kennedyesque New Tory with his royal family lineage came off as stiff and humorless as he appeared either too uptight from too much debate prepping or too locked in to a strategy of not making a mistake.  Smart and quick, but too often wooden and flat in delivery.  

    Nick Clegg (who looks a little like a college-age Stone Phillips) actually stole some of Cameron's pre-debate youthful glamour and charisma as he came off more relaxed than Cameron and was, given his party's minor party status, freer to engage the other two in attack while he also established himself as a solid and serious liberal pol.

    Lively format, despite the many rules, with a no-nonsense moderator who kept things moving at a very brisk pace as he would interrupt whenever a candidate invoked the name of an opponent to allow that person to immediately respond.  The candidates amazingly were cooperative in cutting short their remarks when the mod stepped in, and the 90 minutes was relatively free of repeated cross-talk and of a sense of a free-for-all.

    Well done, Brits.  Looking forward to debates #2 and 3.  No embarrassing low-brow Palins or Shrubs over there.  These 3 pols knew their stuff and were ready to articulate and attack.

    Thanks for the summary (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 03:01:28 PM EST
    I was wondering how this had gone.

    45 years of continuous outrage, and, when (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    Democrats hold power, betrayal, on issues of civil liberties, justice, war, have left me depleted. Not depleted of outrage, but of hope. I simply have no expectation that our government, Democrat or Republican, will ever, when called on, do the right thing.

    It does feel hopeless... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    one has to wonder when we will finally elect somebody with a letter besides D or R after their name to a big office...one is left to assume we are gluttons for outrage and betrayal and punishment.

    The amazing thing is that it has taken this long (none / 0) (#37)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    for me to get to this point. They say that "hope springs eternal," but in my case I guess it's actually just a bit less than half a century.

    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    I can't say the same...it took me one presidential election to realize the two party thang is a practical joke on the populace...but you older cats were alive when the Democratic Party actually did some good between cons.

    What gets me is having (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    struggled through the nearly endless Bush regime with the expectation that it would get better when it was over.  And then we get this.

    It's like suffering through a couple of root canals at the dentist, only to realize when you get home you've developed another abcess.


    Big Cycling Week (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:34:03 AM EST
    Who you got for
    Amstel Gold?
    La Fleche Wallonne?

    At least we know that it will not be Cancellera making it look easy.

    Hot Air was praising this decision as non partisan.  (If I understood their convoluted logic, big if)

    It's a mortal crisis (none / 0) (#11)
    by szielinski on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:03:35 AM EST
    The democratic republic is dying. What would Jack Bauer do to resolve this crisis?

    A pol is a pol (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:05:55 AM EST

    Until he isn't :) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    But not all pols are tyrants. (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:12:51 AM EST
    Perhaps not all... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    but safe to say most:)

    Though I agree with dear departed Kurt, they are all psychopathic personalities to even want the job of politician.


    Coming from someone who thinks (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    any government tax is tyranny, that comment doesn't say much to me.
    There's a huge difference between the government collecting taxes, or getting between you and your bong, and threatening to imprison people who criticize the government (in essence what is happening to Drake).

    Not all tax... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    I don't mind or consider it tyranny to be forced to chip in for roads, bridges, and garbage collection...obscene numbers and prisons and unnecessary war, yeah:)

    I don't see much difference for caging a human being for choice of vice and caging a human being for whistleblowing, except for one pursuit being more noble and selfless...both can accurately be called tyranny.


    err... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    obscene numbers of prisons.

    "Kurt" - Vonnegut or Cobain? (none / 0) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    Vonnegut... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by desertswine on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    So it goes... (none / 0) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:44:08 PM EST
    "Thus.. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 01:34:21 AM EST
    did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun."

    "So it goes" from Slaughter House Five. (none / 0) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 03:23:22 AM EST
    Mentioned 116 times in the novel, on the occasion of every death. LINKY goodness:
    Paradoxically, the expression of fatalism serves as a source of renewal, a situation typical of Vonnegut's works, for it enables the novel to go on despite -- even because of -- the proliferation of deaths.

    I don't have time to be outraged (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    any longer today.  I must grout, then wash dogs for herding trial tomorrow, then babysit.

    Jeralyn and other lawyers, (none / 0) (#18)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    isn't obstruction one of those charges that's made when nothing else really fits? I've often wondered how many times an obstruction of justice charge is a way to punish someone when there's no other charge...

    How often is this used as a main charge, and how often is it used to add to the number of charges?

    Could, say, a bank robber be charged with obstruction for fleeing from law enforcement?

    In a nutshell, is this charge being made to make sure this guy is 'gotten?'

    A few more questions from another angle (none / 0) (#30)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    They seem to have gotten this guy because the leak was made to a newspaper and had an e-trail. Would this kind of leaking be traceable thru Wikileaks? Will an unintended consequence (for the government) be whistleblowers will expose information in new creative ways?

    And I agree from a completely lay pov that "obstruction of justice" makes no sense whatsoever for the nature of the act.


    Goldman Sachs charged with fraud (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    Just came over CNN, so I don't know the details, but the feds have apparently filed fraud charges on them.

    If this is true and they're serious charges, it's astounding. (Not that they committed fraud but that the Goldman-heavy administration is willing to go after them for it.)

    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    Goldman "charged" with fraud.  Umm...Goldman is a fraud...always was.

    I'd have to wager any charges were pre-approved by the G.S. board...kinda like a kick-back for all the free money so Uncle Sam doesn't look so bad.


    That's a wee bit too tinfoil-hatty (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    for me.

    Here's the NY Times article.

    First graph, "Goldman Sachs, which emerged relatively unscathed from the financial crisis, was accused of securities fraud in a civil suit filed Friday by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly devised to fail."


    You're no fun...:) (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    slightly less cynical take...feds trying to get leverage to get Goldman on board with new proposed regs...or the SEC is tired of looking like a bunch of maroons and proceded without an ok from the DC branch of Goldman Sachs.

    Perusing the article I gotta wonder why anybody who doesn't play golf with a big shot at Goldman would invest with Goldman...they blatantly screw their customers left and right...amazing.


    I think SEC is one of those (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    at least nominally independent government agencies.  Pres. gets to appoint commissioners for staggered five-year terms (ie, one comes up every year) and there have to be three from one party and two from the other, no matter who's president.  But he doesn't get to tell them what to do.  So the character of those members I think pretty much determines what they do or don't do.

    There are a lot of these outfits that need to be prosecuted for fraud, IMHO, and I hope this is a harbinger of more to come.  I suspect the SEC staff has been pretty well overwhelmed by the amount of stuff they have to look into and I'm hoping this is a sign that they're now at the stage where they've got their ducks in a row and are ready to start moving.

    (Financial reporters seem to think this is a pretty big deal, btw.)

    I'd really, really like to see the Justice Dept. get involved and file some criminal charges on this stuff, too.


    More equality under the law... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    would sure be nice...they should be hounded like the bankrobbers on the loose they are.

    I'm wary of anything "financial reporters" aka "stock price manipulators" have to say about it though...if they say biggie they just got off the horn with their broker short-selling some Goldman.


    Not talking about (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    CNBC hacks or Fox Business ideologues.  One guy I was listening to was from Fortune.

    Also, fwiw, the TV people are forbidden by their networks to own stocks, something they grumble and sigh about on air from time to time.

    Goldman stock has dropped about 10 percent and the stock market has dropped about 135 points so far today.

    I think what you're vaguely remembering was a scandal some years ago when various investment companies' analysts were discovered to have been pimping or bad-mouthing stocks they stood to gain personally from when they were interviewed on these shows.  That's also been stopped, and in fact, I rarely see this kind of "analyst" on financial shows anymore, where once they were absolutely ubiquitous.

    Not suggesting the whole field is clean or has superb objective judgment, but it isn't close to the out-and-out cesspool it once was.

    The problems with financial reporting are many and varied, but they have a lot more to do with culture than with out-and-out financial conflict of interest.


    Nothing particular in mind... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    just the general shadyness of the markets...insider trading and insider info is the norm, not the exception.

    Didn't know the tv hacks were forbidden from owning stocks...seems easy enough to get around though, just put the trades under somebody elses name.


    Beat me to it (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    I was just about to post the story about it from the LA Times.

    Great news, IMO. Better late than never.


    Former LA Police Chief Daryl Gates dead at 83 (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    I would hope this may trigger 'a teaching moment' about police brutality and the war on drugs, but I'm not that optimistic. I'll just hope he is meeting some of the victims of his policies in the afterlife.

    People (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    who get to the point at which they become emotionally addicted to having the sh*t scared out of them and are accepting of living in a state of perpetual low-level crisis, will always feel comforted on some level by the Gates', Sheriff Joe et al.They live for the next cowboy who's going to come and clean up this town once-and-fer-all.



    Or more than just (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    meeting them.  According to one theory I've read and find credible, the newly deceased gets to personally experience exactly what his victims experienced as a result of his earthly actions.  

    Another similar theory has it that you get the above plus you will reincarnate to a life situation which puts you more in the position of being the victim rather than overlord victimizer.

    Either one is fine with me.  Or both.


    Now now my friends.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    Though I'm right there with ya in your opinion of the departed s.o.b...we must always strive to be better than said s.o.b.

    Blessed are the merciful, for they shall know mercy.


    Karma is inscrutable (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    and there's another theory that "good folks" have to do duty as people like Gates as instruments of karma to a whole slew of other people in their later incarnations.

    "Teaching moments," so to speak, sometimes for individuals and sometimes also for cultures.  I think what happened to Rodney King was without a doubt a "teaching moment" for a whole lot of folks.


    Agree karma (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    can be complex, but I have problems with the "good folks having to do bad things" theory.  Seems like a lot of do-gooder, other-oriented learning in one or more lifetimes just gets somehow tossed aside or forgotten in that scenario, almost like you become a different person, which goes against what I've read in this area.  

    Maybe a good person has to undertake in the next life some challenging situation such as physical/mental disability, or severe poverty, or having to marry a difficult spouse.  That I could understand.  That makes sense.  But not doing a 180 in the next lifetime in terms of personal moral behavior and attitudes towards others.

    Whatever.  What do I know.  Can't say I have any conscious memory of any previous life, and never had a NDE, so who knows what happens in reincarnation.


    No way to know (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    it's all theoretical anyway and could work any number of different ways, most of which would almost by definition be incomprehensible to us.

    But the "doing duty" theory is pretty much the only acceptable spiritual explanation for the existence of pure evil I've ever found.  In any case, it's a good metaphor for dealing with it.


    The best is if someone (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    like Gates actually wakes up, sees the nature of the web of cause and effect, and becomes an instrument of positive change.

    Gates was just living his dream, the way most people are..Who's to say whats on the other side of that?


    A very wise mnister (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:55:56 PM EST
    once said to me, "Everybody thinks they're doing the right thing."  Gates didn't intend to be a stinker, he thought he was defending stuff that needed to be defended.  I suspect, I'm sorry to say, that he passed with an entirely clear conscience.

    They can bury the SOB right off of my back porch (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 08:17:05 PM EST
    That's a grave that needs to be pissed on early and often.

    Kagen/CBS Lies (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    Digby posts about CBS spreading lies from a known GOP plagerist GOP operative blogger's drive by hit on Kagen

    The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

    Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would "please" much of his base by picking the "first openly gay justice." An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

    CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

    Sorry to post something not in the spirit of the thread... But maybe some can stretch here and say Kagan is not to be trusted as she is too conservative..

    Digby's qualifier mat help:

    None of this is meant as an endorsement of Kagan. I'm hoping the administration picks someone far less amenable to executive power than she seems to be.

    Sean Hannity (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    is just too ridiculous for words...from Crooks and Liars:

    Angry Fox News executives ordered host Sean Hannity to abandon plans to broadcast his nightly show as part of a Tea Party rally in Cincinnati on Thursday after top executives learned that he was set to headline the event, proceeds from which would benefit the local Tea Party organization.

    Rally organizers had listed Hannity, who is on a book tour, as the headliner of the four-hour Tax Day event at the University of Cincinnati. The rally, expected to draw as many as 13,000 people, was set feature speakers such as "Liberal Facism" author Jonah Goldberg and local Tea Party leaders. Participants were being charged a minimum of $5, with seats near Hannity's set going for $20, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, which reported that any profits would go to future Tea Party events. Media Matters for America noted that Hannity's personal website directed supporters to a link to buy tickets for the Cincinnati rally.

    Oh my GOD.  How funny is that?

    So the angry Fox Nooz execs (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    actually think they're promulgating news and not entertainment?  As if.  

    Or maybe they're just mad because they didn't think of it first -- selling tickets.


    Yes, and (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:59:09 PM EST
    they're mad because he wasn't properly deferential and asked first.  Can't blame him, really, for not asking.  They've always let him get away with murder, so how is he supposed to know where they draw the line?

    He endlessly hawks his books on their air and his big, fat super-patriotic concerts, which supposedly raise money for veterans but I gather have turned over precious little actual cash money, what with the "administrative expenses" and all.


    THE (NOT SO) EARLY DAZE, pt. 11 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    Change (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    Now gay people can visit their partners in the hospital- now I realize that this isn't a big deal to some on here since its actually a major thing that Obama did, but hey considering we seem to spend 24-7 hating on the guy, maybe, just maybe we should give him some cred when he does the right thing.  


    He's also pushing for tough financial regulations:
    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/obama-says-hell-veto-financial-reform-without-deriv atives-controls.php?ref=fpa

     and as noted above prosecuting Goldman for fraud. But hey- just like Bush!

    Good for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:08:09 PM EST
    Now how about Obama pushing for marriage equality at the federal level instead of continuing to push the odious "states' rights" line so that this "step toward fairness" (Associated Press) would be unnecessary and irrelevant?

    Obama, actually (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    had nothing to do with the SEC going after Goldman.  They're an independent agency.

    And "allowing" gay folks to visit partners in the hospital is lese majeste, not equal rights.  "Oh, thank you, thank you, kind sir!!!"

    Not to mention the next president can rescind that order in seconds.


    It's a little step ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 07:36:49 AM EST
    ... in the right direction, but:

    ... now I realize that this isn't a big deal to some on here since its actually a major thing that Obama did.

    ... that was seriously funny.  I also love when people use something Obama says he's going to do in order to defend him.  So he talks tough about vetoing any financial regulation that doesn't include derivatives regulation - as if any legislation wouldn't have some provisions dealing with derivatives?  Wow.

    Hey, ,.... remember the time he said he would veto the FISA/telecom immunity provisions?  Remember when he said he opposed offshore drilling?  Remember when he said he would only sign a HCR that included a strong public option?  Remember when he said he was against individual mandates for health insurance?  Remember when he said, ...

    ... well, ...

    ... you get the idea.