I've finally achieved consistency in my life. Any person of average or above intelligence can predict what I will say next with unerring accuracy. And what I say will always be wrong.

Thursday, August 04, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Important article

 

It just keeps getting worse and worse, don't it? I posted this link on Facebook, and the dialogue has already started. Talk about it while you still can!

Matt Love
The time is not far off (maybe its here) when anybody who wants a good life (or maybe a life, period) is just going to have to learn to shut the hell up about politics. Foolish me, I thought we were at war in 5 - 7 countries, turns out we're at war in 120 countries. Not only is it terrible what our government is doing in the world, and the retaliation they are inviting on us - what will they find for these psychos to do once they cycle out of their "service" and return to "civilian" life?

Nick Turse: The Pentagon's New Power Elite
counterpunch.org
America's Best Political Newsletter.
14 minutes ago ·

Steven Paige Streeter: it's terrible out there Matt. Feel like it's getting thinner every day. Hard to focus on anything without getting a migraine. The time is now to say ... well ... maybe our parents had it better. end of a cycle.

Steve Peters: ‎"they hate our freedom"

Matt Love: Wouldn't it be great if the American Empire ended sooner rather than later, and economic decline meant shrinking special ops to the size where you could drown it in the bathtub, and we could go about trying to peacefully rebuild our economy and republic? Anybody want to give odds on it playing out that way?


People are so indoctrinated, they think assassins are attractive adulterers like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.  They are mentally ill sociopaths like Charlie Manson, and the only good reason I can think of to not acknowledge this is if you're afraid you'll get on Obama's assassination list for it.

http://counterpunch.org/turse08042011.html

August 4, 2011

A Secret War in 120 Countries

The Pentagon's New Power Elite

By NICK TURSE

Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission. Now, say that 70 times and you're done... for the day. Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the U.S. military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world's countries. This new Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has never been revealed, until now.

After a U.S. Navy SEAL put a bullet in Osama bin Laden's chest and another in his head, one of the most secretive black-ops units in the American military suddenly found its mission in the public spotlight. It was atypical. While it's well known that U.S. Special Operations forces are deployed in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's increasingly apparent that such units operate in murkier conflict zones like Yemen and Somalia, the full extent of their worldwide war has remained deeply in the shadows.

Last year, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reported that U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency. By the end of this year, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me, that number will likely reach 120. "We do a lot of traveling -- a lot more than Afghanistan or Iraq," he said recently. This global presence -- in about 60% of the world's nations and far larger than previously acknowledged -- provides striking new evidence of a rising clandestine Pentagon power elite waging a secret war in all corners of the world.

The Rise of the Military's Secret Military

Born of a failed 1980 raid to rescue American hostages in Iran, in which eight U.S. service members died, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was established in 1987. Having spent the post-Vietnam years distrusted and starved for money by the regular military, special operations forces suddenly had a single home, a stable budget, and a four-star commander as their turseadvocate. Since then, SOCOM has grown into a combined force of startling proportions. Made up of units from all the service branches, including the Army's "Green Berets" and Rangers, Navy SEALs, Air Force Air Commandos, and Marine Corps Special Operations teams, in addition to specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, civil affairs personnel, para-rescuemen, and even battlefield air-traffic controllers and special operations weathermen, SOCOM carries out the United States' most specialized and secret missions. These include assassinations, counterterrorist raids, long-range reconnaissance, intelligence analysis, foreign troop training, and weapons of mass destruction counter-proliferation operations.

One of its key components is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. Reporting to the president and acting under his authority, JSOC maintains a global hit list that includes American citizens. It has been operating an extra-legal "kill/capture" campaign that John Nagl, a past counterinsurgency adviser to four-star general and soon-to-be CIA Director David Petraeus, calls "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

This assassination program has been carried out by commando units like the Navy SEALs and the Army's Delta Force as well as via drone strikes as part of covert wars in which the CIA is also involved in countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen. In addition, the command operates a network of secret prisons, perhaps as many as 20 black sites in Afghanistan alone, used for interrogating high-value targets.

Growth Industry

From a force of about 37,000 in the early 1990s, Special Operations Command personnel have grown to almost 60,000, about a third of whom are career members of SOCOM; the rest have other military occupational specialties, but periodically cycle through the command. Growth has been exponential since September 11, 2001, as SOCOM's baseline budget almost tripled from $2.3 billion to $6.3 billion. If you add in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has actually more than quadrupled to $9.8 billion in these years. Not surprisingly, the number of its personnel deployed abroad has also jumped four-fold. Further increases, and expanded operations, are on the horizon.

Lieutenant General Dennis Hejlik, the former head of the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command -- the last of the service branches to be incorporated into SOCOM in 2006 -- indicated, for instance, that he foresees a doubling of his former unit of 2,600. "I see them as a force someday of about 5,000, like equivalent to the number of SEALs that we have on the battlefield. Between [5,000] and 6,000," he said at a June breakfast with defense reporters in Washington. Long-term plans already call for the force to increase by 1,000.

During his recent Senate confirmation hearings, Navy Vice Admiral William McRaven, the incoming SOCOM chief and outgoing head of JSOC (which he commanded during the bin Laden raid) endorsed a steady manpower growth rate of 3% to 5% a year, while also making a pitch for even more resources, including additional drones and the construction of new special operations facilities.

A former SEAL who still sometimes accompanies troops into the field, McRaven expressed a belief that, as conventional forces are drawn down in Afghanistan, special ops troops will take on an ever greater role. Iraq, he added, would benefit if elite U.S forces continued to conduct missions there past the December 2011 deadline for a total American troop withdrawal. He also assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that "as a former JSOC commander, I can tell you we were looking very hard at Yemen and at Somalia."

During a speech at the National Defense Industrial Association's annual Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict Symposium earlier this year, Navy Admiral Eric Olson, the outgoing chief of Special Operations Command, pointed to a composite satellite image of the world at night. Before September 11, 2001, the lit portions of the planet -- mostly the industrialized nations of the global north -- were considered the key areas. "But the world changed over the last decade," he said. "Our strategic focus has shifted largely to the south... certainly within the special operations community, as we deal with the emerging threats from the places where the lights aren't."

To that end, Olson launched "Project Lawrence," an effort to increase cultural proficiencies -- like advanced language training and better knowledge of local history and customs -- for overseas operations. The program is, of course, named after the British officer, Thomas Edward Lawrence (better known as "Lawrence of Arabia"), who teamed up with Arab fighters to wage a guerrilla war in the Middle East during World War I. Mentioning Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, and Indonesia, Olson added that SOCOM now needed "Lawrences of Wherever."

While Olson made reference to only 51 countries of top concern to SOCOM, Col. Nye told me that on any given day, Special Operations forces are deployed in approximately 70 nations around the world. All of them, he hastened to add, at the request of the host government. According to testimony by Olson before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, approximately 85% of special operations troops deployed overseas are in 20 countries in the CENTCOM area of operations in the Greater Middle East: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen. The others are scattered across the globe from South America to Southeast Asia, some in small numbers, others as larger contingents.

Special Operations Command won't disclose exactly which countries its forces operate in. "We're obviously going to have some places where it's not advantageous for us to list where we're at," says Nye. "Not all host nations want it known, for whatever reasons they have -- it may be internal, it may be regional."

But it's no secret (or at least a poorly kept one) that so-called black special operations troops, like the SEALs and Delta Force, are conducting kill/capture missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen, while "white" forces like the Green Berets and Rangers are training indigenous partners as part of a worldwide secret war against al-Qaeda and other militant groups. In the Philippines, for instance, the U.S. spends $50 million a year on a 600-person contingent of Army Special Operations forces, Navy Seals, Air Force special operators, and others that carries out counterterrorist operations with Filipino allies against insurgent groups like Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf.

Last year, as an analysis of SOCOM documents, open-source Pentagon information, and a database of Special Operations missions compiled by investigative journalist Tara McKelvey (for the Medill School of Journalism's National Security Journalism Initiative) reveals, America's most elite troops carried out joint-training exercises in Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Germany, Indonesia, Mali, Norway, Panama, and Poland. So far in 2011, similar training missions have been conducted in the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Romania, Senegal, South Korea, and Thailand, among other nations. In reality, Nye told me, training actually went on in almost every nation where Special Operations forces are deployed. "Of the 120 countries we visit by the end of the year, I would say the vast majority are training exercises in one fashion or another. They would be classified as training exercises."

The Pentagon's Power Elite

Once the neglected stepchildren of the military establishment, Special Operations forces have been growing exponentially not just in size and budget, but also in power and influence. Since 2002, SOCOM has been authorized to create its own Joint Task Forces -- like Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines -- a prerogative normally limited to larger combatant commands like CENTCOM. This year, without much fanfare, SOCOM also established its own Joint Acquisition Task Force, a cadre of equipment designers and acquisition specialists.

With control over budgeting, training, and equipping its force, powers usually reserved for departments (like the Department of the Army or the Department of the Navy), dedicated dollars in every Defense Department budget, and influential advocates in Congress, SOCOM is by now an exceptionally powerful player at the Pentagon. With real clout, it can win bureaucratic battles, purchase cutting-edge technology, and pursue fringe research like electronically beaming messages into people's heads or developing stealth-like cloaking technologies for ground troops. Since 2001, SOCOM's prime contracts awarded to small businesses -- those that generally produce specialty equipment and weapons -- have jumped six-fold.

Headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, but operating out of theater commands spread out around the globe, including Hawaii, Germany, and South Korea, and active in the majority of countries on the planet, Special Operations Command is now a force unto itself. As outgoing SOCOM chief Olson put it earlier this year, SOCOM "is a microcosm of the Department of Defense, with ground, air, and maritime components, a global presence, and authorities and responsibilities that mirror the Military Departments, Military Services, and Defense Agencies."

Tasked to coordinate all Pentagon planning against global terrorism networks and, as a result, closely connected to other government agencies, foreign militaries, and intelligence services, and armed with a vast inventory of stealthy helicopters, manned fixed-wing aircraft, heavily-armed drones, high-tech guns-a-go-go speedboats, specialized Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, as well as other state-of-the-art gear (with more on the way), SOCOM represents something new in the military. Whereas the late scholar of militarism Chalmers Johnson used to refer to the CIA as "the president's private army," today JSOC performs that role, acting as the chief executive's private assassination squad, and its parent, SOCOM, functions as a new Pentagon power-elite, a secret military within the military possessing domestic power and global reach.

In 120 countries across the globe, troops from Special Operations Command carry out their secret war of high-profile assassinations, low-level targeted killings, capture/kidnap operations, kick-down-the-door night raids, joint operations with foreign forces, and training missions with indigenous partners as part of a shadowy conflict unknown to most Americans. Once "special" for being small, lean, outsider outfits, today they are special for their power, access, influence, and aura.

That aura now benefits from a well-honed public relations campaign which helps them project a superhuman image at home and abroad, even while many of their actual activities remain in the ever-widening shadows. Typical of the vision they are pushing was this statement from Admiral Olson: "I am convinced that the forces… are the most culturally attuned partners, the most lethal hunter-killers, and most responsive, agile, innovative, and efficiently effective advisors, trainers, problem-solvers, and warriors that any nation has to offer."

Recently at the Aspen Institute's Security Forum, Olson offered up similarly gilded comments and some misleading information, too, claiming that U.S. Special Operations forces were operating in just 65 countries and engaged in combat in only two of them. When asked about drone strikes in Pakistan, he reportedly replied, "Are you talking about unattributed explosions?"

What he did let slip, however, was telling. He noted, for instance, that black operations like the bin Laden mission, with commandos conducting heliborne night raids, were now exceptionally common. A dozen or so are conducted every night, he said. Perhaps most illuminating, however, was an offhand remark about the size of SOCOM. Right now, he emphasized, U.S. Special Operations forces were approximately as large as Canada's entire active duty military. In fact, the force is larger than the active duty militaries of many of the nations where America's elite troops now operate each year, and it's only set to grow larger.

Americans have yet to grapple with what it means to have a "special" force this large, this active, and this secret -- and they are unlikely to begin to do so until more information is available. It just won't be coming from Olson or his troops. "Our access [to foreign countries] depends on our ability to not talk about it," he said in response to questions about SOCOM's secrecy. When missions are subject to scrutiny like the bin Laden raid, he said, the elite troops object. The military's secret military, said Olson, wants "to get back into the shadows and do what they came in to do."

Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com, where this article originally appeared. His latest book, The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso Books), which brings together leading analysts from across the political spectrum, has just gone into its second printing. Turse is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute. His website is NickTurse.com.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] My chat with flossi buhmann

 

flossi buhmann: im bored wuts up?
valis2001us: hey flossi.  got any robots?
flossi buhmann:  heya
valis2001us: flossi flossi flossi
flossi buhmann: whats up, I found your username on a member directory of social sites..not sure which one cause it bundles them all together lol
valis2001us: yeah, bundling is like that innit
flossi buhmann: maybe AFF, or fling?
valis2001us: I'm on both of those
flossi buhmann: i dont think so
valis2001us: why?
flossi buhmann: ya well, i am bored at home...and this usually leads to bad things
valis2001us: I thought it led to good things.  Like giant robot fights
flossi buhmann: i dont think so
valis2001us: that's too bad. Those robots get started on it, they have a good time, I'll tell you what
flossi buhmann: i dont think so
valis2001us: I don't think so either. I was just putting you on. let's just get back to the bad things
flossi buhmann: well...i am a true "Autagonistophiliac" which means I have a fetish for being on camerayou can google it if you dont believe me! lol
valis2001us: Oh I believe it. You are the expert.
flossi buhmann: have you ever used Yahoo Messenger Adult Chat? its a yahoo adult site that allows us to chat, and even go live like skype
valis2001us: i never heard about that. Holy robots, tell me more
flossi buhmann: i dont think so
valis2001us: I can make you say "I don't think so" at will
flossi buhmann: they give you a unique page, my link is http://www.ymessengermatch.com
valis2001us: i just have to use the word Robot in a sentence, and you are powerless before me.
flossi buhmann: bot? like a robot? lol
valis2001us: oh my little robot friend, I'll bet you think you are so clever
flossi buhmann: not the last time i checked
valis2001us: just say "I don't think so" robot and we can move on
flossi buhmann: bot? like a robot? lol
valis2001us: ok, all right forget it. Let's move on the the robot sex talk then
flossi buhmann: when was the last time you had any
valis2001us: any robots?
flossi buhmann: i dont think so
valis2001us: it's been 147 years since my last sexual encounter with a robot.
flossi buhmann: when was the last time you had any
valis2001us: 147 years and counting
flossi buhmann: go there and my video will load, just click the "Accept Invite" button on the bottom left and it'll connect us..if your camera shy you dont have to show yourself, I'M the one with the fetish remember LOL
valis2001us: Hey I remember that. and that was several minutes ago
flossi buhmann: im always either on the phone or online, im a chat addict lol...i dont normally give my number out but if you meet me in the chat and I get comfortable with you we can talk on the phone
valis2001us: my memory must be improving
flossi buhmann: my number is 206-222-1648...my phone is dead, so give it a few minutes to charge, and please dont go give that out! hehe...come talk to me over on the chat site
valis2001us: ah, I'll met you really do normally give out your number to all the homocidal maniacs that you chat with
flossi buhmann: yes im real
valis2001us: a real robot I'll bet
flossi buhmann: yes im real
valis2001us: I'm going to post your phone number on my blog, do you like that?
flossi buhmann: ohh hotornot, hey how are u?
valis2001us: I'm hot as an icebox and ready for some chillin. how are you?
flossi buhmann: I'm great babe!! how about yourself?
valis2001us: is it ok if I publish your private phone number on my blog?
flossi buhmann: ohh hotornot, hey how are u?
valis2001us: can I take that as a "yes"?
flossi buhmann: they charge a buck for age verification, if you dont wanna stay you can cancel it...im sure i'll keep you entertained though
valis2001us: So this is the way it works... I post this number on my blog: 206-222-1648... somebody calls you, you have a nice talk, then he comes over to your place late with an ax and cuts off your head, got it?
flossi buhmann: Like a transformer robot?? what the hell are u talking about?
valis2001us: I'm sorry, I need to run now, I have to go out - we can chat again soon, I hope?
flossi buhmann: i love the site cause its streams fast in real-time sorta like a skype, fill out your info, its only a buckk?
valis2001us: I'll put this information onto my blog, too. I'm sure some crazy man will read it there, and you'll get to meet him some day soon
flossi buhmann: i use this site to play on cause i don't want to be recorded, just watched!...this site doesn't allow people to record my camjust click the "Accept Invite" button on the left of the page and we'll be able to have a live chat
valis2001us: goodbye for now
flossi buhmann: Well if you must leave... tell ya what if ya want to see me later on my cam goto http://www.ymessengermatch.com just click the yellow JOIN FREE button at the top of the page, its 100% free to join ..its free and i'll prolly be online for the rest of the day so you can go and see me on my cam
valis2001us: thank you. goodbye.
flossi buhmann is typing...
flossi buhmann: Well if you must leave... tell ya what if ya want to see me later on my cam goto http://www.ymessengermatch.com just click the yellow JOIN FREE button at the top of the page, its 100% free to join ..its free and i'll prolly be online for the rest of the day so you can go and see me on my cam


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Re: Welcome to the ddfnw group

 

Ok, fine.  somebody post something and I'lls ee if I want to stick around. 


who are you, ddfnw Moderator? anybody I know?

check out my song "Don't want no Sugar-Coated Satan Sandwich!" at http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10911961

I believe it will be helpful in meditation.


On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, ddfnw Moderator <ddfnw-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hello,

I've added you to my ddfnw group at Yahoo! Groups, a free,
easy-to-use service. Yahoo! Groups makes it easy to send and receive
group messages, coordinate events, share photos and files, and more.


Description of the group:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d3418my1xr


Important information about the ddfnw group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To send a message to the members of this group, send an email to:
 ddfnw@yahoogroups.com

* To leave the group, you can unsubscribe by replying to this message,
 or by sending an email to:
 ddfnw-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* To learn more about the ddfnw group, please visit:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ddfnw

* To view and modify all of your groups, visit:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

Regards,

Moderator, ddfnw

Report abuse:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Yahoo! Groups values your privacy, it is a violation of our
service rules for moderators to add subscribers to a group against
their wishes. If you feel this has happened, please notify us:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/abuse.html

You may also change your email preferences to prevent group owners from
adding you to their groups. To do so, please go here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/s?tag=r9LnLcAyjUYjq8QESKjzRntQxnJ1jF99D0VVJeaNQfJdqXZyx2is9JMrtUNprgHgfnpLiNjX6sHOp9Tle6MAC6QQ

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







--
I want to play in your town for you and 2 of your friends. 
http://eventful.com/performers/matt-love-/P0-001-000156481-4/demands



--
I want to play in your town for you and 2 of your friends. 
http://eventful.com/performers/matt-love-/P0-001-000156481-4/demands

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Libya, elbowed off the table by domestic matters

 

There was some discussion here a while back about Gaddafi - is he a good guy?  a bad guy? oh, ok, bad. just how bad, then?. as if it were the case that he was really bad, we should hunker down and silently accept the far more murderous and distructive actions of NATO. 

Here's an update, one of many on the Counterpunch website that I've found useful:

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick08012011.html

How can I know I'm not just getting leftist propaganda?  Well, Cockburn and his crowd are pretty iconoclastic, pissing off the left at least part of the time (the ones who show up there to take their medicine), as well as the right. But its also their proven record for accuracy over time.  If most other news outlets had it right, Gadaffi would have been defeated months ago, perhaps in exile in Venesuala. Yet he remains, despite the tons of non-hostile bombs (thanks for the new Orwellian language, Obama) and the ongoing attempt to prop up the ragtag crew of contras we think can run the country.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Monday, August 01, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Re: Thank you for your input Re: Seeking clarification

 

Dear Rebuild The Dream

Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate form reply. I do hope that you eventually get around to replying to my email, as I will not hesitate to express my questions and misgivings about your organization to anybody and everybody who will put up with my complaints in the mean time.

Misgivings that were amplified, not diminished, by my visit to the page you recommended. I see NO place to submit my idea, only an opportunity to vote for ideas other people have submitted. It appears to be an extension of the change.org/farmville con I explained in my last email. Of course, the ideas are great. Nearly all the half dozen I looked at were great, all of them 5 stars.

But the question for me is "how are we going to get anywhere with these ideas when we have two right wing parties and an administration who thinks we are fucking retarded professional leftist crybabies?"

I think I can help with that. The idea I want to submit is a change you can believe in:  "Dump Obama in 2012."  I would very much like to get this idea before thousands of my fellog citizens, but I don't see a mechanism for submitting it. 

I couldn't even see if it was already there, since there seems to be no search engine or directory, just a slow crawl through one warm-fuzzy-and-unachievable idea after another.  People who have been on the internet for more than a decade are likely to come to negative opinions about what you are trying to achieve with this kind of set up. People are getting pretty net savvy. I think you'll have to try a little harder to convince people they are part of a movement when they visit your webpage. Change.org did a lot better job of it.




On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Rebuild the Dream <info@rebuildthedream.com> wrote:
Hi, thanks for writing. We receive a heavy volume of e-mails and have
a tiny staff. We read all of them and try to respond to as many of
your e-mails as possible -- but we're unable to answer each and every
e-mail. We do welcome your feedback!

If you have an idea for the Contract for the American Dream, please go
to our Contract website at http://contract.rebuildthedream.com/ to
submit it for review by thousands of your fellow citizens.

Thanks for the e-mail, and together, let's rebuild the American Dream.



--
I want to play in your town for you and 2 of your friends. 
http://eventful.com/performers/matt-love-/P0-001-000156481-4/demands

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Seeking clarification

 

Dear Rebuild The Dream:

After I heard Van Jones interviewed on NPR yesterday (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/31/138867706/former-obama-adviser-brews-a-different-tea-party) I left the following comment on their website. I doubt it's going to get much notice in the middle of the crazy and disturbing flames, but I want to assure you that my intent is serious, so I've contacted you directly.

"I was disappointed to read through this very lengthy list of comments, and see how few people actually wanted to discuss the piece.  It was welcome news that somebody wants to start a high profile progressive alliance, but I'm deeply troubled by the past history of the Obama team marshaling and then sidelining progressive energy and resources. I was quite irritated when Jones said: "First of all, let's be clear. The slogan was never yes, he can. The slogan was yes, we can. Too many of us sat down..." I am thinking of the website Change.org, which supposedly polled the American people on what they wanted Obama to do, but actually it was just a social network site to get them to waste time in pursuits as meaningful as farmland.  Almost everything that people wanted the most were ignored... the few that were addressed, we were told "forget it."  After the election all that stuff was stripped out, and look what the site has become now (a strange mishmash of special pleading, with no overarching progressive agenda whatsoever - http://www.change.org/).  The people didn't sit down so much as they were shut down. I want to know - is Jones' new endeavor yet another Obama Trojan Horse invented to destroy what little progressive America is left?  I would like to hear Jones discuss this."

After a little further investigation, I was surprised to find Mr. Jones had put forward a proposal on the Huffington Post site (first time I've visited it since the boycott started) back in February.  There a generally more left readership responded in a way that mostly ranged from tepid to suspicious, not an auspicious beginning auguring great things for the organization.

If this movement is intended to be a progressive wing of the Democratic party in the way that the Tea Party is a reactionary wing of the Republican party, it would be greatly reassuring to me if there was evidence that it isn't just more of the center right to hard right policies dressed up in kind and gentler rhetoric that Obama has been delivering for the few scant years he's been a public figure.  The man who went on bended knee before the myth of Ronald Reagan (http://counterpunch.org/whitney08012011.html) sacked Van Jones, to appease his conservative buddies. Does Jones have nothing but reverence for this man?  I would sure like to see him address this, too.

SIncerely,

Matt Love

**************
Dump Obama in 2012. You know you want to.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] The Deal, point and counterpoint

 

Tom in the Great NW's analysis:


And what have we observed in this stand-off between the teanuts and the regular gop line? THE teanut-gop party is in a whirlwind fight WITH ITSELF.
..
....WHAT IS GOING TO OCCUR AT THE teanut-gop CONVENTION NEXT YEAR?
......MORE DEADLOCK?
........MORE POSTURING by the WOODEN HEADS?
..........MORE ferocious grabbing for the Oval Office among the teanuts?

............REGISTER NOW - a landslide victory for the President and the Democrats in November, 2012 is UP TO US!!


My analysis:


Beohner lost control of his party when the Tea Partiers obstructed him. My wife shouted out with exuberance that it was the end of the Republican Party. But instead of grabbing the moment, Obama urged them to regroup and within two days he had cooked up a sugar-coated Satan sandwich with them. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Or collaborating in our defeat to insure the victory of the owning classes? The administration is either supremely incompetent, or obscenely venal, or both. But some people are in a jubulent mood and see this as an opportunity to help Obama sell us out more. Dump Obama in 2012. Pass the word.

--
If you are inclined you can chose sides (or advocate another side entirely) at: http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/07/31/obama-announces-a-debt-ceiling-deal-has-been-to-avoid-default.html?cid=idnb

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Sunday, July 31, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Fwd: A show was added to your page by a feed

 

If you follow the adventures of Superman, you know that he has a small army of robot doubles that he keeps around for important tasks like fooling Lois Lane into thinking Clark Kent isn't Superman. 

I've taken a page out of Superman's book, and created my own army of robot doubles to gig in the many locations where people demand I perform, but I haven't made it out there yet. 

I hope that you all will go out to the famous Powell's Books in Portland on August 22, and let me know how my robot did.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <reverbnation@reverbnation.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM
Subject: A show was added to your page by a feed
To: mattlove1@gmail.com


Dear Matt Love,

This is to inform you that the following show has been automatically added to your schedule:

Source: Eventful
Showtime: 08/22/2011 07:30 PM
Venue: Powell's Books on Hawthorne
3723 SE Hawthorne Boulevard
Portland, OR 97214 US
Details: Matt Love & Kim Cooper Findling Monday, August 22nd @ 7:30PM Powell's Books on Hawthorne3723 SE Hawthorne Blvd. (800) 878-7323 Love and the Green Lady: Meditations on the Yaquina Bay Bridge: Oregon's Crown Jewel of Socialism by Matt Love Sale - Trade Paper$14.00Matt Love & Kim Cooper Findling Oregon opened the Yaquina Bay Bridge in Newport on Labor Day 1936. For 75 years, the bridge has stood as a monument to excellence in architecture and proof that a partnership between state and federal government can produce something practical, beautiful, and lasting. Blending a variety of genres including memoir, essay, autobiography, and commentary, Matt Love's Love and the Green Lady (Nestucca Spit Press) is an ode to an Oregon architectural landmark. In 23 essays set over 20 years, Kim Cooper Findling's Chance of Sun: An Oregon Memoir tells the story of an Oregon girl coming of age in the '70s and '80s, navigating her way through pick-up trucks, dive bars, higher education, and backwoods trails before finding a place she belonged.

ReverbNation imports show data from Eventful, JamBase, and LiveNation for the convenience of artists who list their shows with those companies (so they don't have to add it to ReverbNation as well).

If this show is incorrect, or you would like to prevent these shows from automatically being added to your schedule in the future, click here to edit your feed settings.

Thanks,
The ReverbNation Team
___
Privacy Policy
Physical inquiries can be sent to: 501 Washington St. Suite D, Durham, NC, 27701, USA



--
I want to play in your town for you and 2 of your friends. 
http://eventful.com/performers/matt-love-/P0-001-000156481-4/demands

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Thursday, July 28, 2011

[ItsAllAboutMeMan] Re: [progressive] "15 years in prison for taping the cops?" Rania Khalek/AlterNet 7/27/11

 

Good article.

On Jul 13, in response to another topic, I posted to this list: The US government wants the exclusive right to invade our privacy.  Of course, they probably wouldn't raise a stink if Murdoch tapped your phone or mine. They are concerned about maintaining the privacy of the deciding class.

It's useful to know that we can expect to be treated the same way as a journalist (whatever the motive, whether it's Assange or Murdoch) if we expose the wrongful exercise of state power, and the police will be treated the same way as the administration if they break the law enforcing state power.

It is nice to know that some police remember that they are us (workers, doing mostly boring, sometimes dangerous public service for low pay) but many others clearly get off on the power of being the enforcers for the deciding class.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Rick Kisséll <rick@kissell.org> wrote:
 

AlterNet

15 years in prison for taping the cops? How eavesdropping laws are taking away our best defense against police brutality

by Rania Khalek, AlterNet
Posted on July 27, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/151806/15_years_in_prison_for_taping_the_cops_how_eavesdropping_laws_are_taking_away_our_best_defense_against_police_brutality

Over Memorial Day weekend this past May, residents of Miami Beach witnessed a horrific display of police brutality as 12 cops sprayed Raymond Herisse's car with 100 bullets, killing him. The shooting provoked outrage in the surrounding community, not only because of the murder, but because of what the police did afterward.


Officers on the scene confiscated and smashed witnesses' cell phones; later, when they were confronted by the media, the police denied trying to destroy videos of the incident. 

But 35-year-old Narces Benoit removed his HTC EVO's SIM card and hid it in his mouth. He later sold the video to CNN, placing the police in the awkward position of explaining why they lied about allegations of cell phone destruction. More importantly, the video showed at least two officers pointing guns at Benoit, demanding that he stop filming.


Police brutality takes many forms around the country on a regular basis, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods. Sometimes, the only method of accountability is a victim's word (if they are still alive) against that of an officer. Unsurprisingly, the police officer's version of the story is often adequate for a judge to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing, unless there is hard evidence of misconduct, such as a video or audio recording, which can be useful to unravel conflicting versions of police-citizen encounters.


Due to advancements in technology, the average citizen carries a digital camera in his or her pocket or purse, creating a potential army of amateur videographers on every street corner. A quick YouTube search of "police brutality" lists endless videos, often cell phone footage, of what appear to be police acting with unnecessary and violent force. Some of those videos have served a crucial role in bringing charges against brutality that may have gone unaddressed had it not been for bystanders recording.


One would think the fear of videographers on every block would be a powerful deterrent to police misconduct. However, legislatures are not taking this newfound power against police abuse lightly. In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.


Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a "privacy provision" that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings — where it is obvious to all that recording is underway — from accidentally committing a felony.


Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state's wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.


Cases keep piling up

Recording on-duty police officers has gained momentum in states around the country for some time now. But it's only in the last few years, after several high-profile incidents, that the topic has begun to generate nationwide headlines and debate.


Two of these incidents occurred in Maryland last year, just weeks apart.


One involved Jack McKenna, who was arrested by Prince George's county police last March and charged with assault and resisting arrest when he was out celebrating the University of Maryland basketball victory over Duke. Fortunately for him, his fellow Terps fans happened to record the encounter on their cell phones, showing riot police throwing McKenna against a wall and beating him with batons. Once the videos appeared on the Internet, Prince George's County suspended the officers and dropped the charges against McKenna.


The second incident took place last April, when Maryland State Trooper David Uhler pulled over Anthony Graber for speeding and reckless driving. Graber had swerved across several lanes and did at least one wheelie on his motorcycle while driving 80mph. Graber had a video camera mounted to his motorcycle helmet that was recording at the time of the stop, and captured footage of Uhler, dressed in plainclothes while yelling with his gun in hand.


Although Graber was only given a traffic ticket, he posted the video on YouTube to publicize Uhler's threatening behavior. Maryland State police responded by raiding Graber's home, confiscating his computer and charging him with two felonies. One was for violating Maryland's wiretapping law by recording a trooper without his consent, and the other was for "possession of an intercept device," a provision intended for bugs and wiretaps but in this case referred to Graber's video camera. As a result, Graber faced up to 16 years in prison for recording a police officer during a public traffic stop.


Graber's case was ultimately dismissed, as are almost all of these cases, on the grounds that on-duty cops have no such expectation of privacy, which is in accordance with every court in the country that has considered the issue. Because there is no legal justification, the charges are usually dropped or never filed at all. But that doesn't stop the arrests. Radley Balko points out that, more often than not, police arrest photographers for obstructing law enforcement even in states that have no wiretapping law:

"In addition to arresting citizens with cameras for wiretapping, police can use vaguer catch-all charges, such as interfering with a police officer, refusing to obey a lawful order, or obstructing an arrest or police action. Such arrests are far more common. Even more frequent are incidents where police don't make arrests but illegally confiscate cameras, delete photos and videos, or incorrectly warn camera-wielding citizens that they aren't allowed to film."

One such encounter took place earlier this year, when a California man, who recorded a police officer arresting someone at gunpoint down the street, found himself handcuffed as well. Lonell Duchine was videotaping the arrest on his cell phone from inside his garage, when an officer pulled up to his home and demanded the phone for evidence. Duchine refused, so the police officer arrested him, citing "police interference" for withholding evidence.


While illegal confiscation happens in a range of scenarios, from traffic stops to people's homes, the most famous example was on New Year's day 2009, when Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Officer Johannes Mehserle shot 21-year-old Oscar Grant at point-blank range, as he lay face down in an Oakland subway station, allegedly resisting arrest. The incident captured the nation's attention not simply because an unarmed black man was publicly killed by a white police officer, but also because dozens of onlookers captured it on their cell phones for the world to see.


In California, police are not permitted to confiscate a phone unless the phone was used in a crime. Nonetheless, after the incident BART police attempted to confiscate the phones of subway riders, and even chased one camera-wielder onto a subway car. Had a bystander not been equipped with his cell phone, charges may not have been brought against Mehserle, demonstrating the crucial role video recording can play in accountability. Since then there have been multiple incidents of police brutality recorded by cell phones, which may have otherwise gone unaddressed.


The most pernicious prosecutions to date have taken place in Illinois, where the sentence for recording a police officer is considered a class 1 felony — on par with a rape charge — and can land a person behind bars for more than a decade.


Tiawonda Moore from Chicago, Illinois, faces up to 15 years in prison for using her Blackberry to record two Internal Affairs investigators who spoke to her inside police headquarters. She was there last August to file a sexual harassment complaint against another officer, who she alleges had fondled her and left his personal telephone number when he was at her home investigating a domestic dispute. She says the police department actively discouraged her from filing a report, so out of frustration, she began to record the conversations on her phone. Although the case initially received national media coverage, attention has since died down as 21-year-old Moore awaits a trial date that continues to be pushed back.


Michael Allison is another Illinois resident facing the wrath of the eavesdropping law. The 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport faces four counts of violating the eavesdropping law, which adds up to a possible 75-year sentence. Allison believed the local police were harassing him in retaliation for a lawsuit he'd filed against the city over a local zoning ordinance, so he began to record his conversations with them.


Allison was eventually charged with violating the zoning ordinance. When he was told there would be no record of his trial, he informed court officials that he would record his trial with a digital recorder. This prompted the judge to have him arrested on the day of his trial, for violating her right to privacy. After confiscating Allison's digital recorder, the police found the recordings between Allison and the cops.


Christopher Drew, a 60-year-old artist and teacher, is also being prosecuted for violating the eavesdropping law. Drew was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. He recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.


These are just a handful of cases that illustrate the danger that comes with recording police in public. Carlos Miller, a journalist who has been arrested twice for photographing the police, has documented hundreds of similar cases on his blog, Photography is Not a Crime.


What do the police think?

In the most comprehensive article to date about recording the police —" The War on Cameras" — Radley Balko interviewed James Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which describes itself as "the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers." Pasco argues that videotaping police officers in public should be illegal because it can intimidate officers from doing their jobs. Mark Donahue, president of FOP, concurs, telling the New York Times that his organization "absolutely supports" the eavesdropping act and was relieved that the ACLU's challenge filed last year failed, adding that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty "can affect how an officer does his job on the street."



Police officers are not a monolith, so while there are many, like Pasco and Donahue, who support these laws, there are also many who doubtless oppose them. At the same time, police apprehension about being videotaped on the job is understandable, especially with the advancement in cell-phone technology increasing at record speed. Some also worry that their actions will be preserved and used against them in ways that weren't possible just a few years ago, while others are simply uncomfortable being videotaped.


However, when considering recent developments in police surveillance, Pasco's argument is rather baffling. In stark contrast to the laws banning citizens from monitoring police misconduct with recording devices, police officers are equipped with top-of-line surveillance cameras in their cars and on their uniforms. According to a recent AP report, hundreds of police departments across the country are equipping officers with tiny body cameras to record anything from a traffic stop to a hot vehicle pursuit to an unfolding violent crime. The mini cameras have even spawned a new cable reality TV series, "Police POV," which uses police video from Cincinnati, Chattanooga and Fort Smith, Ark.


The cameras are intended to provide more transparency and security to officers on the street and to reduce the number of misconduct complaints and potential lawsuits. Which begs the question: what is the difference between these cameras and the footage captured by citizens in public? Why is it acceptable for police officers to record, but not citizens? Aren't the uniform and dashboard cameras, which unlike citizen recordings document police actions all through the day, intimidating police from doing their jobs, just as Pasco suggested?


Unconstitutional

Pasco goes on to suggest that we have to "put faith and trust in our authority figures," which is the absolute antithesis of a functioning democracy and the US constitution, which rests on transparency and accountability.


As usual, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has taken the lead in challenging these laws. In August of last year, the ACLU of Illinois filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act (ACLU v. Anita Alvarez), arguing that the act violates the First Amendment and has been used to thwart people who simply want to monitor police activity, including the ACLU itself. The Illinois law is unique in that it makes it a crime to record not only private but also public conversations made without consent of all parties. In the lawsuit, the ACLU pointed to six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges after being accused of violating the state's eavesdropping law for recording police making arrests in public venues.


Although the lawsuit was dismissed in January, the ACLU has appealed the suit and expects to begin making oral arguments sometime in the fall. Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney with the Illinois Chapter of the ACLU, explained why the eavesdropping law is unconstitutional:

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information for the purpose of sharing it with other people and for the purpose of using it to petition government for redress of grievances. And so for a long time courts have protected the right to record by various means what government officials are doing in public, so the press can publish that and so that citizens can use it to petition government. 


"When we talk about police officers doing their jobs in public, we're talking about very important government activity which is often used properly but sometimes is abused, and it's very important that citizens have the ability to document what police are doing so they can seek improvement in police policy and the like… therefore, the first amendment protects the right to make audio-recordings of on duty police officers who are doing their jobs in public places."  

Schwartz went on to compare audio-recording to other forms of documentation that, although less efficient, are not illegal:

"We believe that a police officer who is doing their job in a public place does not have an expectation of privacy.  Even the police can see that if they're arresting somebody on a corner, other people can watch….they don't dispute that someone can stand a small distance away and watch, or that the person who's watching can take out a pen and take notes or on what they're seeing, or that they can take photographs of what they're seeing or that they can make a silent video recording of what they're seeing. The addition of the audio is a very powerful way for citizens to ensure that police officers are turning square corners."

Schwartz also emphasized that resolving disputing testimonies with citizen recording, while important, is not the only benefit to overturning the eavesdropping law:

"If police officers are doing their jobs in public places, for example policing a demonstration and something goes awry, it is very valuable for there to be a strong record, including audio of what happened, so that if there is a need to change the rules, the public can go to the government and say "look what happened, change the rules about how police officers are enforcing the peace at a political demonstration."

The court's decision in this case is said to be critically important in setting a precedent that will either protect or endanger newsgatherers' constitutional rights to monitor and record police misconduct. Schwartz said the ACLU is "cautiously optimistic" about the eventual ruling, which is expected to be handed down sometime in 2012.


Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/151806/




























--
I want to play in your town for you and 2 of your friends. 
http://eventful.com/performers/matt-love-/P0-001-000156481-4/demands

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___