ShamelesslyRed's Xanga

Coffee Anyone?

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:13:39 GMT

I worked my last day for the next week and a half yesterday. Due to Christmas chaos, winter snows, and a schedule that keeps me exhausted and grouchy, I've ignored to some degree my laundry, my dishes, my friends and....my Xanga . For those of you who have been on the brunt end of my insane life, I apologize. I wish I could say that my world isn't always this crazy, but unfortunately the truth is, that it is, sometimes even a bit worse. On a much brighter note, a baby girl was welcomed into the world, and into my extended family at 8 pm last night. Baby AJ, weighing in at 7#'s, 9 ounces and 18 1/2'' long was thee best Christmas present that could have been gifted to my family. When was the last time you smelled a newborn? Ahh. There's something about smelling them that makes the world completely right again. Sweet, new, and wonderful. Fragile to hold and so magnificent. What's better than baby? Not one thing that I can think of.
Back to my bed I go to sit in front of the news and drink my java. Good morning Xanga . You have been missed...terribly

Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:44:36 GMT

**Brought to you by bloggers for liberty who will keep you informed when the media does not**

While we were all out doing our Christmas shopping, the highest court in the land quietly put the kibosh on a few more of the remaining shards of human liberty.

It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

Here's how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

This extraordinary ruling occasioned none of those deep-delving "process stories" that glut the pages of the New York Times, where the minutiae of policy-making or political gaming is examined in highly-spun, microscopic detail doled out by self-interested insiders. Obviously, giving government the power to render whole classes of people "unpersons" was not an interesting subject for our media arbiters. It was news that wasn't fit to print. Likewise, the ruling provoked no thundering editorials in the Washington Post, no savvy analysis from the high commentariat -- and needless to say, no outrage whatsoever from all our fierce defenders of individual liberty on the Right.

But William Fisher noticed, and gave this report at Antiwar.com:

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."

...Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

The lower court also dismissed the detainees’ claims under the Alien Tort Statute and the Geneva Conventions, finding defendants immune on the basis that "torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants."

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.

And yet this is what Barack Obama -- who, we are told incessantly, is a super-brilliant Constitutional lawyer -- has been arguing in case after case since becoming president: Torturers are immune from prosecution; those who ordered torture are immune from prosecution. They can't even been sued for, in the specific case under review, subjecting uncharged, indefinitely detained captives to "beatings, sleep deprivation, forced nakedness, extreme hot and cold temperatures, death threats, interrogations at gunpoint, and threatened with unmuzzled dogs."

Again, let's be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand -- in court -- that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities. Nothing to answer for, nothing meriting punishment or even civil penalties. What's more, in championing the lower court ruling, Barack Obama is now on record as believing -- insisting -- that torture is an ordinary, "foreseeable consequence" of military detention of all those who are arbitrarily declared "suspected enemy combatants."

And still further: Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be "persons." They are, literally, sub-humans. And what makes them sub-humans? The fact that someone in the U.S. government has declared them to be "suspected enemy combatants." (And note: even the mere suspicion of being an "enemy combatant" can strip you --even as an American citizen-- of your personhood.)

This is what President Barack Obama believes -- believes so strongly that he has put the full weight of the government behind a relentless series of court actions to preserve, protect and defend these arbitrary powers. (For a glimpse at just a sliver of such cases, see here and here.)

One co-counsel on the case, Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, zeroed in on the noxious quintessence of the position taken by the Court, and by our first African-American president: its chilling resemblance to the notorious Dred Scott ruling of 1857, which upheld the principle of slavery. As Fisher notes:

"Another set of claims are dismissed because Guantanamo detainees are not ‘persons’ within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – an argument that was too close to Dred Scott v. Sanford for one of the judges on the court of appeals to swallow," he added.

The Dred Scott case was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

And now, once again, 144 years after the Civil War, we have established as the law of the land and the policy of the United States government that whole classes of people can be declared "non-persons" and have their liberty stripped away -- and their torturers and tormentors protected and coddled by authority -- at a moment's notice, with no charges, no defense, no redress, on nothing more than the suspicion that they might be an "enemy combatant," according to the arbitrary definition of the state.

Barack Obama has had the audacity to declare himself the heir and embodiment of the lifework of Martin Luther King. Can this declaration of a whole new principle of universal slavery really be what King was dreaming of? Is this the vision he saw on the other side of the mountain? Or is not the nightmarish inversion of the ideal of a better, more just, more humane world that so many have died for, in so many places, down through the centuries?

(Written by Chris Floyd )

Inflation, Unemployment & Falling Polar Bears

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:53:12 GMT

If you have a minute...or 3, watch this video. It's smart, to the point and well said...Just the way I like 'em

Word Play on Thoughts from Afar

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:30:59 GMT

**For my best friend. Here's to the Unspoken and to Mint Tulips **

Filled with so much
emotion
Too much isn't welcome
Isn't accepted.

The pretense is easier.
Funny
But not flagrantly.
Too smart
But not overly.
Isn't tolerated.

Filled with faith, 'She must be rigid'
So it's hidden
Like a genuine smile.
A conversationalist with a power vocab
Unsettling
Thinking faster than most she doesn't fit in

Hard working yet can't compete
In the world
Sex is what's seen.
The mind of a woman is intrusive
Inconvenient
invaluable, as her heart
To a man.

The mask. All wear it
Imposing. Opposing. Supposing
that she's no different.
Pretending that she's asleep
Not listening to her inward voice
To be loved isn't a choice

Eluding tides
of thought just to cope. Loneliness overcomes
Succumbs into numb. Don't let anyone in
Again.

Brilliance and Beauty
Fading away
hiding
waiting to be found
Safety
The only craving
She finds it
losing herself
behind
her mask

The Best Idea Before Congress in 2009--Possibly the Best in a Decade

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:56:47 GMT

**why didn't America elect this man for it's President?**

Ron Paul Introduces the "Free Competition in Currency Act"

Before the US House of Representatives, December 9, 2009

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes.




Gold and silver are anathema to governments.

This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for every-day transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses.

At this country’s founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to reintroduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.

The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit.

In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king’s coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight.

The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, which hates competition. The responsibility to protect contracts is of no interest to the government.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.

The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver.

In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.

1.6 Million Whacko's --Conspiracy Theory Fans

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:54:43 GMT

No, I'm not plugging cable TV programs now---but...

CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA Delivers 1.6 Million Viewers, truTV’s Biggest Audience Ever for a New Series Launch

In a year that has seen truTV reach new heights in popularity, the network scored another triumph Wednesday night with the premiere of its original series CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA. The premiere episode was watched by 1.6 million viewers, truTV’s biggest audience ever for a new series launch.

“CONSPIRACY THEORY is the latest success story in a year that is well on its way to being truTV’s best ever,” said Marc Juris, executive vice president and general manager of truTV/IN SESSION. “We couldn’t be more thrilled with the success of this show, and we’re very happy to be working with Jesse Ventura.”

CONSPIRACY THEORY Ratings Highlights:

CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA premiered with 1,635,000 viewers, truTV’s biggest audience ever for a new series launch.

The premiere episode also scored truTV’s biggest deliveries of men 18-34 (206,000); men 18-49 (494,000); men 25-54 (532,000); and adults 25-54 (812,000) for a 2009 series launch.

Additional deliveries for the premiere include 341,000 adults 18-34 and 767,000 adults 18-49.

CONSPIRACY THEORY scored tremendous growth compared to the same time period last year, with total viewers up 82%, adults 18-34 up 33%, adults 18-49 up 66%, adults 25-54 up 67%, men 18-34 up 84%, men 18-49 up 74% and men 25-54 up 77%.

The premiere also garnered extraordinary growth when compared to the same time slot during the four previous weeks, with total viewers up 80%, adults 18-34 up 53%, adults 18-49 up 58%, adults 25-54 up 62%, men 18-34 up 53%, men 18-49 up 74% and men 25-54 up 83%.

Did anyone watch it? If yes, what did you think of it?

이게 나야 ... This is Me

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:53:58 GMT

I love you guys
My heart to Eugene, who already knows what it means to be me

In the arena of surreal solitude
peace will be found -

Cleanse the consciousness of moral impurities.

Atone the inner sanctum

of one's mind.

When Time's cognitive gates

burst open

allow the flood

of insight

to cleanse your sins.

Carry away

the tarry naivety

of young ignorance

and fertilize

the fresh sod

with righteous dogma.

As the mind lays open

receptive to all knowledge,

shield it

from tainted ideas

of tyranny and prejudice.

When the crops

of enlightenment yield fruit

Harvest the axiom

and let others rejoice.

Sow your seeds of wisdom

in barren fields.

Together we can feed the hungry.

The Way We Were

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:00:45 GMT

The tune that eludes my mind is as beautiful and haunting as the words...keeps me awake at night

Memories,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
Scattered pictures,
Of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were
Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we? Could we?
Memories, may be beautiful and yet
What's too painful to remember
We simply choose to forget
So it's the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember...
The way we were...

Soiling His Pants--Obama's "other" Accomplishments

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:55:49 GMT

Other than those little unprofessional snafus like giving Queen Elizabeth an Ipod, and Prime Minister Brown a set of DVD's that he couldn't even play, Obama has now ticked off the same people who gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. "Arrogant" is the word Norwegians are using to describe Barack after the President was willing to accept the award and 1.4 million dollars (of which he gave to charity) but canceled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honor at the Nobel Peace Center. He also declined a lunch invitation with the King of Norway. He has found time to meet with other foreign heads and dignitaries however.

The Wall Street Journal noted that in nearly nine months in office, Obama has found time to meet with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Vladimir Putin, but not the Dalai Lama, a peaceful religious leader who has long been a friend to the US. It was the first time in ten visits to the US in 18 years that the Dalai Lama has failed to meet with the American president. The political and diplomatic slight to the man widely admired in the US has brought forth an outpouring of criticism against Obama, until that time hailed a champion of human rights. Apparently, the idea to snub to the Dalai Lama was a political maneuver to not upset the Chinese, whom Obama needed cooperation with over Climate Change, trade with Iran, and other key geo-political issues. As usual, his bad manners may have backfired on him politically yet again. Foreign Policy interviewed Former Czech President, political prisoner and playwright Vaclav Havel on Barack Obama and the costs of moral compromise:

Question: How, as president, do you decide when these small compromises are worth it and when they might lead to something more dangerous?

Havel: Politics, it means, every day making some compromises, and to choose between one evil and another evil, and to decide which is bigger and which is smaller. But sometimes, some of these compromises could be very dangerous because it could be the beginning of the road of making a lot of other compromises, which are results of the first one, and there are very dangerous compromises. And it’s necessary, I think, to have the feeling which compromise is possible to do and which, could be, maybe, after ten years, could be somehow very dangerous.

I will illustrate this with my own experience. Two days after I was elected president, I invited the Dalai Lama to visit. I was the first head of the state who invited him in this way, directly. And everybody was saying that it was a terribly dangerous act and issued their disapproving statements and expressions. But it was a ritual matter. Later, the Chinese deputy prime minister and the foreign minister came for a visit and brought me a pile of books about the Dalai Lama and some governmental documents about what good care they have taken of Tibet, and so on. They were propagandist, fabricated books, but he felt the need to explain something to me.

I had a press conference with this minister of foreign affairs. And he said, “It was wonderful, meeting, because we were speaking openly. Mr. Havel gave me his opinion, and I explained the opinion of our government. I gave him this book, and he thanked me for it.”

This was unbelievable! Why did they feel the need to explain their point of view to the leader of such a small nation? Because they respect it when someone is standing his ground, when someone is not afraid of them. When someone soils his pants prematurely, then they do not respect you more for it.

Wasting Away Again...and Again...and Again

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:02:39 GMT

Anna Nicole's death by overdose, Brittney Spears insanity, Rihana's beating by Chris--
now Tiger's domestic/cheating issues
Have you had enough of the daily diet of brain rotting news that means absolutely nothing to you and your life much less the world?
Good! Here's something to think about :

According to.Reuters this morning...

In October and November, the government spent $292 billion more than it took in, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.

That was even worse than the same period last year ( GWB era), when the government was on its way to posting a record $1.4 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

The federal budget has been battered by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, as tax revenues have plunged and spending on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance have skyrocketed.

The budget deficit was $176.4 billion in October, according to Treasury Department records, and the CBO estimated the deficit for November will have come in at $115 billion.

Last week however, according to the SOD (Congressional "Statement of Disbursement) that in the last quarter alone, the House spent more than $300 million on stuff, flowers, bottled water (apparently tap water is not good enough for them?) and...doughnuts. (yes, I said doughnuts) That's $300 million, and $1.2 billion every year. Among the worst offenders are names from both sides of the aisle.

As America is going bankrupt,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent $2,993 in taxpayer money on flowers for Jack Kemps funeral (remember that Ms Pelosi is an independently wealthy woman) She also allotted $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water, contributing to the nearly $120,531 total from all congressional leadership accounts. House Majority Whip James Clyburn has a thing for Chantilly Donuts, spending about $265 at the Virginia shop in the past quarter.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) racked up about $24,617 in catering costs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) spent about $1,561 in bottled water and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) spent no money on water but a touch over $18,000 in food. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spent about $24,116 on food and beverage.

One of the biggest line items for congressional offices outside of salaries tends to be the pricey subscriptions to Congressional Quarterly, which produces high end legislative tracking products, a magazine and a daily publication. Cantor and Boehner together spent $69,832.50 on the company’s publications – Boehner spent $48,085 on CQ publications.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) spent $28,410 with a market communications firm to send a newsletter to his constituents, querying them on issues ranging from the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, earmark reform and health care. A spokesman said it was sent to 196,000 constituents and is just “one of the many tools Congressman Kirk uses to communicate with constituents.”

Etc., Etc., Etc.,

It dawns on me sitting here that you and I work our butts off so these people can spend portions of what we make on---- absolutely nothing important.

Here's a thought :

Why don't we just get up every morning, work 10 -12 hour days for two weeks. When the paycheck comes, go to the bank, cash it, and as you drive away, open your window and throw that hard earned money into the wind. At least then we'd would be the only ass's throwing away our money .