[personal profile] edelsont
 After Robert Mueller spoke on Wednesday, I was left, like a lot of people, with more questions than answers.  But unlike most folks, I have access to the Wayforward Machine.  So I logged in there, and poked around, and found something that cleared it up for me.
 
It's a published interview with him, which will appear [redacted] years in the future.  After I read it, I felt that I understood the current situation a lot better.  Maybe you will, too.
 
It's in PDF format, and on a different site.  Here's the URL:

    people.well.com/user/edelsont/politics/mueller-speaks.pdf

I hope this helps.  (Seriously.  All kidding aside, that's why I wrote it.)
 
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Just thought I'd add this fun bit of audio I found via Salon to the discussion:

Republican Representative Mark Meadows is now trying to spin the shut down as having nothing to do with Obamacare. The idea seems to be to pretend that he and his fellow Republicans are concerned civil servants horrified and suprised by the shut down (which they engineered) and eager to bring it to an end.

Unfortunately for him, NPR's Tamara Keith was there to ask a pertinent and (for Meadows) embarrassing question.

I've included a transcript after the cut, not just for readers who might not have audio available on their computers, but because the sheer incoherence of Meadows reaction is even more obvious when it's read.

Read more )
[identity profile] dexeron.livejournal.com
Jon Stewart returned last night, and the talk of the day was, of course, Syria (and he, of course, tried to inject a little humor into the situation.) However, the interview segment with which he closed out the show was anything but humorous, bringing in Andrew Harper, the head of the United Nations Refugee Agency in Jordan. This is the important story, in my opinion: the story of millions of people displaced from their homes, many of them women and children. It's also the story of nations such as Jordan who are doing what they can to provide a safe haven for some of these people, and the incredible work being done by the UN, an organization that is so often derided by folks here in the U.S., but which does certain things very well; this is one of them.

Any discussion of our response to the situation in Syria should involve the discussion of how we can help these people. While we're talking about what message we should send to the Assad regime, or whether or not we should act militarily, and in which way, here is an obvious human crisis where we could all put our money where our mouths are. I'd prefer to see this story given the lion's share of airtime on our cable news stations, over constant redundant talking heads debating back and forth on questions of chemical weapons and factions and military responses and political calculus.

Here's the interview, in two parts:

Videos )
[identity profile] nairiporter.livejournal.com
He said, "I am an expert with a Ph.D."
She heard, "I am Al-Qaeda."


This is a comment under a BuzzFeed article following last Friday's FoxNews show, Spirited Debate, where the host Lauren Green interviewed the theology scientist Reza Aslan, and it pretty much sums up what happened on screen. The whole interview may not only be a contender for the Most Provocative and Absurd TV Shows award, but also an eloquent manual of How Not To Do Journalism. And it speaks a lot about prejudice, and cultural insensitivity, and tolerance. Or rather, the lack thereof.

The guest Reza Aslan was introduced by Green as "a former Christian who turned to the religion of his ancestors (Islam), and authored a new book about Jesus Christ". The book, entitled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, quickly became subject to criticism and accusations, primarily due to the religious affiliation of its author. And naturally, that was Green's first question to Aslan: why had he written a book about the founder of Christianity, if he himself was Muslim? After that introduction, the Iranian-American author decided to politely provide some clarifications about his background. He is a theology scholar with four PhDs (one of them, specifically on studying the Old Testament), he is fluent in ancient Greek, and has researched for decades on the foundations of Christianity. So he is "not just a Muslim writing about Jesus, but rather an expert on the history of religion".

Read more )
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
In that same interview with Charlie Rose I mentioned last week, our esteamed maximalist leader reassured the listening audience that due process applies to "American persons" when it comes to military telecommunications surveillance. This statement stuck out like a sore thumb for a number of reasons. I thought back on my American educational experience in a search for any mention of this expression in a high school or college civics class. My search was in vain but it was not very thorough either. It is possible that I heard it mentioned but paid little or no attention to it. My sensitivity to the amorphous concept of personhood is something that came into my life at about the time that Operation Rescue began to make headlines with its campaign against feminine health care.

Another aspect of Obama's expression was how little attention it was given by the interviewer, Charlie Rose. A qualified journalist should be sensitive to the subtleties of this kind of word play. Rose made no attempt to get Obama to define the term. What exactly does he mean by an American person? Is his meaning the same one used by everyone in the executive branch? There could be a significant discrepancy between his meaning and the meaning of the people in the military or law enforcement. Rose made no attempt to obtain a practical criterion for who (or what) falls into the set of American persons and who (or what) does not.

In discussing the term with some of our students the ideas of non-American persons and American non-persons came up. The Feds might consider me to be a non-American person because my knowledge of American culture exceeds a certain critical ceiling. Only non-Americans are as interested as I am in American culture. Would the Feds consider me to be an American non-person? They might cover their surveillance-happy posteriors with a case that anyone who professes to transcendence has an irrational psyche and falls outside of the norm for legal personhood.

None of this bothers me because the more effort that the Feds spend keeping tabs on me, the better for me. It also serves the interests of our school because it expands our base of students to include people we might never have considered educating.

What do you think of the fuzzy set of "American persons?" Do you sympathize more with the members of the set or with those on the outs? What do you think of the division of people into two distinct classes of legal status? Will this have any effect on the willingness of non-Americans to do business in the US?

Links: Charlie Rose's Fathers' Day interview with President Obama.
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
One of the most cliche expressions in English speaks of people living in a house made of glass. This expression came to mind during a discussion of Obama's Fathers' Day interview with Charlie Rose. The smooth operator denied any connection between US government actions and the escalation of violence in Syria. This is like denying any connection between US policy in Afghanistan and the rise of al-Qaeda. It reminds me of the scene in Stevie Wonder's song "Living For the City" where a naive country kid takes the fall by running across the street.

Official US policy on Syria has been to encourage regional governments to arm anti-Assad fanatics. Obama denies this policy because he is guilty of signing off on it. He even made an allusion to the policy in previous remarks. The Saudis are especially adept at secretly interfacing with fanatical militants. That is exactly how the House of Saud achieved its political status to begin with. Let us not forget that the Saudis are the chief financiers of Wahhabi training facilities. (Those guys make the Westboro Baptists look progressive.) The US government has a long history of giving a nod and a wink to this medieval vector of theft, murder and destruction as long as it serves Washington's narrow minded purposes. Here is Obama denying reality in order to establish a fraudulent moral superiority.

During the interview Obama mentioned that the fanatics are more militarily effective than the moderates. This was exactly the rationale that was used by the CIA in supporting the more fanatical Mujaheddin in Afghanistan back in the Reagan era. Moderates are less militarily effective because they have reason on their side. If Obama listened to reason rather than knee-jerk policy advisers, he would realize that a military solution cannot be a moderate solution. The most moderate people will not take up arms because they know that violence only begets more violence.

In the interview Obama claimed that he was only reacting to the use of violence by Assad's government against unarmed protesters. He claimed to be sensitive to the loss of civilian life. Promoting armed resistance has the inevitable consequence of escalating the level of violence, as we have seen in Syria and elsewhere. If Obama was serious about reducing the level of violence against civilians he would not even consider arming the opposition, whether fanatical or moderate.

Finally, he spoke of promoting a representative government. This is an area where the glass house syndrome seriously applies. Nobody who knows anything about the American political system considers it to be representative. It cannot even guarantee equal treatment to its own citizens when it comes to marital rights. It should be the last government to make a case in favor of representation. (It also brings to mind Kennedy's policy of destabilizing the Vietnamese government in order to promote greater representation.)

What other aspects of the interview with Charlie Rose strike you as problematic? Do you trust the CIA when it comes to picking who to arm in Syria?

Links: The full interview with Charlie Rose. Bob Dreyfuss on US policy in Syria. Music by Stevie Wonder.
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-17-2012/exclusive---nate-silver-extended-interview-pt--2

I was watching this Jon Stewart interview with a statistician the other day - this is a guy who has explored the intricacies of polling and electorate research from a statistics perspective. In this segment of the interview he touches on a subject that caught my attention: election campaigns mining data to target increasingly shrinking, tiny portions of the electorate for the sake of winning swing states and thus, the election.

It was recently argued here that the electoral college system is (quote) "better" than a direct vote system - for reasons unexplained, unfortunately. Now, I'm aware that, being a non-American, I'm by definition doomed to never quite "understand" how the US electoral system is "more awesome", so I'm humbly prepared to be enlightened on the subject.

Still, I'll venture to give it a shot, and see if the way I understand this system is anywhere close to reality.

A bunch of deluded ramblings )
[identity profile] msmichelle.livejournal.com
For the TL;DR set:

That's exactly right. In fact, President Obama has not only maintained the position of George W. Bush in the area of national securities and in civil liberties, he's actually expanded on those positions. He is actually worse than George Bush in some areas.

And, for the mods: This article provides objectivity and facts by two former Obama supporters. Obama's "hope and change" promise to end the war in Afghanistan when he challenged Hilary Clinton by saying, "she supported the war, I didn't" And the war still rages on. This is a good illustration of the Obama administration's clever manipulation of the public on matters of torture and war crime that were so near and dear to Democrats (and Republicans) but more importantly, unconstitutional and unchecked. In fact, the Obama adminstration bullied the Spanish government when called on these violations and conflicts of interest on an international allied scale.
I'd love to hear any thoughts, beyond the Obama Kool Aid variety.


John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Happy Labour Day, cats and kittens!

A number of years ago I was working with a group of homeless women and men. One of the members of the group, Jake, came in and boasted about killing a guy. Jake was a white supremacist migrant from Oregon who turned tricks and shot up crank. He had not actually killed anyone, but he did send the guy to the hospital. They had gotten into an altercation on a bus when Jake stabbed the guy. Jake's buddies counseled him to keep his antics to himself lest someone call the cops. His story showed up in the news the following day.

When I later retold the tale to a friend she was appalled that I did not turn Jake in myself. She thought it would to him good to cool his jets behind bars. I disagreed with her assessment. Behind bars he would spend his time with a bunch of like-minded white supremacists learning how to become a more hardened crook. In the wider world he would have a greater variety of people and experiences from which to learn and grow.

This case came to mind when I listened to Toby Watson describe his practice in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. In a podcast interview he advocates a form of civil disobedience against mandated reporting laws for psychotherapists. He describes a few cases where he acted counter to the requirement for licensed therapists to call the cops when a client describes violent tendencies. In making his stand public he makes himself vulnerable to bullying by the bad boyz. It is tantamount to posting dissident theses on a church door.

Watson makes some pretty good points in the interview. His goal is to benefit his clients by getting them to take more responsibility for their actions. He sees the medicalization of violent conduct as an approach that tends to prevent perpetrators from moving beyond institutional dependency. His approach to deinstitutionalization seems to have some merit. I only hope he is not derailed by the big guns who risk the loss of funding were his work to become popular.

What is your perspective on mandated reporting laws with respect to psychotherapy? Are they important for public safety? Or are they a manifestation of totalitarianism to be resisted by conscientious professionals?
[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein are no strangers to D.C. politics. The two of them have been in Washington for more than 40 years — and they're renowned for their carefully nonpartisan positions.

But now, they say, Congress is more dysfunctional than it has been since the Civil War, and they aren't hesitating to point a finger at who they think is to blame.

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition," they write in their new book, Even Worse Than It Looks.


Interview at NPR.org

This is something that I've been saying for quite some time, both here and elsewhere. The Democrats are craven, inauthentic, and arrogant -- but the GOP is something else entirely. And not only has the GOP become a party of plugging their ears and yelling "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!" when it comes to things like climate change, immigration and revenue, the media has also broken faith with the electorate by refusing to stand up and say "hey, this isn't right," but instead tries to play "fair and balanced" by suggesting that any point of view, no matter how stupid, no matter how untrue, deserves to be heard.

When the GOP isn't even willing to try to come up with rationales for their positions other than "we want to make Obama look bad", even when that's to the point of refusing to support republican plans that Obama supports because that might make Obama look GOOD, you don't have two parties of government, you have one party and one small child, refusing to do anything, and holding their breath till they turn blue in the face.

How can this be considered responsible governance? Well, it can't, I suppose. When Ronald Reagan is held up as your example of recognizing that, for example, you can't increase spending without increasing revenue, and you can't cut spending on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and yet the GOP even holds up a fictional version of him as their patron saint, where do you go from there? HOW can you go anywhere from there?

Until we have a media that's willing to stand up and say "this is wrong," until we have buy in for actual governance, there's no stopping gridlock. The GOP has to recognize that there's an actual job to be done here, and it can't simply be cut. But that's not on their litmus test, so we just sit and wait for something that may never happen.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Earlier this afternoon, Sandra Fluke received a personal phone call from President Obama, two days after she was called a "slut" on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Ms Fluke attends the prestigious Georgetown University (a Jesuit school) and its president released earlier today a letter of support for Ms. Fluke, strongly critical of Mr. Limbaugh's comments, calling them "vile and misogynistic." Ms. Fluke broke the news about her call from the President during an interview on Andrea Mitchell's show. Fluke was the woman who was to testify before the Republican House Committee hearing but was denied by Darryl Issa, who instead had an all male panel testify on the subject of birth control and freedom of religion. A week later, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi held a non-binding hearing and asked Ms. Fluke to appear. Rush Limbaugh went on the offensive on his radio show and "...demanded that Fluke release tapes of her having sex in exchange for the contraception that she argued should be covered by employers." Fluke said the President's phone call was completely unexpected and added "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much."

Sandra Fluke interview )

Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican member of the United States House of Representatives stated in an interview, he's had several conversations with what he described as "fire breathing conservatives" going into panic mode over the recent news cycles painting Republicans as opposed to women's rights and birth control when instead they are allowing President Obama off the hook, and thinks the election will be lost because of the focus on issues that don't matter, and were settled years ago.

Joe Scarborough interview )

It seems that the some in the Republican party are so intent on pushing it more to the right, at the expense of moderate and women voters, the chances of winning the Senate back (Olympia Snowe's retirement all but guarantees that her seat will go to a Democrat), or winning the White House are going to be severely crippled (this has happened already in a key state, Virginia, which has seen a significant movement by independent and women voters from Romney to President Obama because of the forced ultrasound amendment for abortions). While Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives obviously, he is the face for one of the largest audiences in talk radio, and the massive condemnation, he's now receiving should wake him up, or at least give him pause for making such reckless statements
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


In one of Carl Sagan's last interviews on May 27, 1996, Charlie Rose asked Dr. Sagan's opinion about a frightening scientific survey with the results published in the New York Times, which showed Americans lack of knowledge regarding the most fundamental scientific facts: e.g. the worst showing came when those surveyed were asked to define scientific terms. Only about 9 percent knew what a molecule was, and only 21 percent could define D.N.A., the genetic material. But even more fundamental questions stumped many: less than half knew that the Earth orbits the Sun annually. [lol whut!?] Nevertheless, there is enthusiasm for research, except in some fields like genetic engineering and nuclear power that are viewed with suspicion.

More behind the cut )
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Harold Ford: People like Medicare, and if it’s framed that someone is against Medicare…

Joe Scarborough: You know what I like? I like chocolate cake. You know what else I like? I like steak. And I don't just like the lean steak, I like the steak that has the fat...and I will actually carve off the fat first and eat it and watch it go down my face. Now, I would like to have that every lunch and dinner. I would love to wake up with chocolate cake and wash it down with a big milkshake. I like sunshine, I like daffodils…



Read more )
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Chris Wallace on Fox News:

I’m not asking why it was okay to shoot Osama bin Laden…What I am second-guess is, if that’s okay, why can’t you do waterboarding, why can’t you do enhanced interrogation…




So now the argument is that if we’re going to shoot people, we might as well torture them. Apparently Wallace can’t see the difference between shooting someone in a firefight and systematically torturing a naked, bound prisoner. This moral difference is one that has been recognized for decades in the civilized world – people who waterboarded captured combatants in the past have been tried and convicted for it -- but apparently it’s lost on him.

This is why some of us have reservations about targeted assassinations without trials, even targeted assassinations against someone like bin Laden. It’s not because we feel sorry for bin Laden. It’s because of people like Wallace. Give them in inch in that direction, and they'll clamor for a mile the next day. Remove one human rights barrier, and it doesn’t matter how many assurances you get about it only being this once, about it only being done in very specific circumstances, about it never, EVER being abused… A day later the Chris Wallaces of the world will point to where the barrier once stood, assert out there's no barrier anymore, and ask why we all don't go just a little further.

Honest. Just this once! Just a few inches! Cross their hearts and hope to die...

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Well not really but in the science fiction movie Terminator 2, the Skynet system went online and declared war on humanity within a few days, starting a long conflict between artificial intelligence and humans. Recently in an interview, director and producer James Cameron said:

"Kyle Reese said in the first film that it was only 'one possible future.' Clearly, not the one we're in. Maybe Kyle, Sarah, John and the T-800 changed things enough to steer us away from that possible future...Now instead of nuclear war and the machines taking over, we need to worry about global climate change. And the machines taking over. With everybody going through their lives bent over their Blackberries all day long, you could even argue the machines have already won."


But what can we really expect? Sure-- if you look at movies from the 1950s and 1960s, or even Star Trek, the predictions have been somewhat more off than on, depending on what you use as a yardstick. But what are people saying NOW? What's OUR future really hold? Futurist Ray Kurzweil lays out his vision in a new documentary Transcedent Man - Prepare to Evolve to released next month.

More behind here. )
[identity profile] paft.livejournal.com
Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) on the Senate Floor, explaining why it’s necessary to pass a bill defunding Planned Parenthood:

Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.



Statement from John Kyl’s office later that day, after it’s revealed that, in fact, abortion comprises only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does:

His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.


Read more )
[identity profile] okmewriting.livejournal.com
On a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.

"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.

"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
More here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.interviews/

I have four thoughts on this:
Read more... )
[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Hi, self-absorbed Americentrics curious readers who are dying to learn something new about the world! Here's a curious look into the spirit of provincialism permeating every facet of life in most Balkan societies. What you're about to witness is the original spirit of the Balkan type - narrow-minded, selfish, and backward, and at the same time cordial, sincere and down-to-earth. It's a strange mix really.

This interview with the mayor of a small village somewhere in Western Bulgaria became viral on the BG webz, spurring a cannonade of diverse comments, opinions and pranks, but also provoking some deep introspections and insights about our society and its neighbors.

Below follows a transcript of the interview (which is here presented as a monologue), plus my rough translation of this epochal tirade:

Video/interview + interview transcript + some pompous flatulence on my part )
[identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com
Branding Moammar Gaddafi “an international crook,” U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said today that now is America’s best chance to get rid of the Libyan dictator and criticized President Barack Obama for not seizing the opportunity sooner and more forcefully.

“He [Obama] needs to relish leading the free world,” Graham said. “Now it’s almost like leading the free world is an inconvenience.”

While Obama said the goal of military force in Libra is to protect civilians, Graham said the president should also take advantage of his best chance to knock Gaddafi out of power.

“Isolate, strangle and replace this man,” Graham said. “That should be our goal.”

source:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110320/NEWS03/110320004/Graham-says-now-is-time-to-oust-Gaddafi-
---

At least Lindsey Graham offers a more honest condemnation of Obama's stated objectives in Libya than Gingrich's "Final Four Picks". Graham would like to see a full-fledged invasion of Tripoli to hang Gaddafi's corpse from the nearest tree - contrary to what the UN vote agreed upon. It's more of the "I've got a bigger d*ck than them Europeeans, and I'm ready to wave it" mentality. As usual, it would be with risking the lives of American soldiers - not his own hide. Given the opportunity, Graham would turn "Operation Odyssey Dawn" into "Operation Bottomless Abyss".

This operation has been a success thus far; I hope it continues with NO coalition troops on the ground. Let the Libyans finish it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2HLKemsOP4

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all. So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves! Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!"

March 2026

M T W T F S S
       1
2345 678
910 1112 1314 15
1617 1819 202122
23242526272829
3031     

Summary