Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Reporter, 1010 WINS; editor, Fox News Radio; News and programming director, Paltalk News Network.
Monday, May 31, 2010
News Talk Online May 31, 2010: The Israeli Interdiction Of The Gaza Humanitarian Flotilla
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Sunday, May 30, 2010
News Talk Online May 28, 2010: Radio Talk Show Hosts Advocates Blowing Up Mosque
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
News Talk Online May 28, 2010 Memorial Day Weekend At Coney Island
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
News Talk Online May 27, 2010: Obama's Handling Of The Gulf Oil Spill
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Saturday, May 29, 2010
News Talk Online May 26, 2010: Border Security, Middle East & Korean Tensions & The Gulf Oil Spill
Today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network focused on a slew of important topics.
The threat of terrorists entering the U.S. from Mexico, tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, more tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the latest attempts to cap the Gulf oil spill were all explored.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
News Talk Online May 25, 2010: Sending National Guard Troops To The Mexican Border
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Monday, May 24, 2010
News Talk Online May 24, 2010: A Way To Cleanup The Gulf Oil Spill, Things Heating Up Between The Koreas
Michael Fitzgerald of Petro Buster Products was the guest for the first segment of today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network. He believes his product, which is environmentally safe, could be used to combat the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But no one from the government or any of the companies involved are returning his calls.
The showdown between the Koreas was the second topic. U.S./South Korean war games are planned in response to the North Koreans sinking of a South Korean navy ship - increasing tensions between the Koreas.
He Has The Solution To The Oil Spill Cleanup
The EPA wants BP to use a less toxic dispersent to break up the oil gushing into the Gulf. BP is balking, saying what they are using was previously approved by the EPA and is more effective and more plentiful than anything else on the market.
Michael Fitzgerald of Petro Buster Products says he's been petitioning every federal agency and company involved in the clean up to try his company's Fuel and Oil SPill Eliminator. Those attempts, he says, have fallen on deaf ears.
"We have decided not to petition anyone involved in the Gulf oil crisis to use our Fuel & Oil Spill Eliminator which has virtually no harmful bi-product to clean up the oil spill any longer," he said.
"So instead, we are re-bottling our product and labeling it as a foot cleaning solution for beach goers to use to remove the oil stains from their feet ..."
He says a new instruction is being added to the bottle:
"Caution: If a SLICK British Petroleum VIP asks what you are doing – HOLD BOTTLE VERTICALLY AND SPRAY DIRECTLY INTO THEIR EYES"
Maybe then, he says, they will see the solution.
Fitzgerald will appear live on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM New York time today. Just go to www.paltalknewsnetwork.com and click on the Watch Live Now button at the top of the page to join in the conversation. There is no charge.
Friday, May 21, 2010
News Talk Online May 21, 2010: The Immigration Debate Rages On
Mexican President Calderon's visit to Washington and his criticism of the new Arizona immigration law in statements made at the White House and on Capitol Hill are refueling the debate over the issue of what to do about illegal immigrants.
Every caller, save one, two the show, said they favored sending illegal immigrants back to their countries. One caller suggested making giving every Mexican and every American dual citizenship - of the other's nation - as an unusual solution.
No callers favored amnesty nor the status quo.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.comImmigration Debate Rages
Paltalk News Network
There's not much consensus in this nation over the debate over illegal immigration. An interesting contradiction in approaches can be seen when comparing Arizona with Los Angeles - and Los Angeles with nearby Costa Mesa, California.
Arizona, as well all know, has passed a law requiring local cops to enforce federal immigration laws. It's been heralded by anti-illegal immigration advocates. But criticized by others - like the ACLU which has filed a suit challenging the law - on the grounds that it's discriminatory against Latinos.
Joining the ACLU in its opposition to the law is the city of Los Angeles, which has threatened an economic boycott of Arizona.
Arizona officials are contemplating tit for tat of that - threatening to cut off the flow of electricity to LA. Los Angeles gets about a quarter of its electricity from Arizona.
Now, Costa Mesa, California, has weighed in - declaring itself a so-called "rule of law city." Which means - illegal immigrants aren't welcome here.
Kind of reminds me of the old "We reserve the right to refuse service" signs you'd see in the old South. Which translated into blacks aren't welcome here.
You could, of course, argue that there's a difference. The African-Americans who were denied service were - of course - in the United States legally. But laws and declarations of this type can having a chilling effect on Latinos who are in this nation legally as well. Especially if they fear they will be harassed - or scrutinized, because of their brown skin color.
Adding fuel to the rhetorical fire over illegal immigration was the visit of Mexican President Felipe Calderon's visit to Washington. In both a White House appearance with President Obama, and during an address to Congress, Calderon blasted the Arizona law.
It was, to put it mildly, a case of diplomatic poor form.
How dare a president of another country come to this country to complain about laws here?
If he's so concerned about the treatment Mexicans receive, maybe he should get his own house in order and focus less on the United States. After all, the Mexicans who come here are fleeing economic hardship and drug wars. There would be fewer Mexicans illegally crossing the Rio Grande if his nation were more stable.
By the way, doesn't Mexico have immigration laws? Shouldn't Americans who visit his country be respectful of their laws?
Presuming the Mexican authorities enforce their immigration laws - they'd have to racially profile too, wouldn't they. I doubt that they'd ask people who look Mexican to prove they are citizens. One could argue that Mexican immigration laws create racial profiling of gringos.
One thing's for certain. Until the United States comes to a consensus over how to address the immigration issue, this debate will rage on. Only time will tell if the Arizona law results in civil rights violations of United States citizens of Latino heritage. But if it does - that's a matter for the United States government to address. Not, President Calderon, the government of Mexico.
--
You can find Gary at http://www.paltalknewsnetwork.com
Thursday, May 20, 2010
News Talk Online May 20, 2010: Everybody Draw Mohammad
Joining us on the show as our guest was Sami Zataari of Muslim Responses. He says it's all an overreaction - to an overreaction.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
News Talk Online May 19, 2010: Excommunicated Nun, Tea Party Official's Islamophobia
Two issues were discussed on today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network.
The excommunication of a nun for approving a lifesaving abortion was the first topic. Then we discussed Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams' characterization of Allah as a "monkey god," his reference to Muslims as "animals of Allah," and his suggestion that there be built "a nice, shiny new U.S. military base on the smoldering ruins of Mecca."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
News Talk Online May 18, 2010: Are Sanctions Against Iran Enough?
Russia and China are now on board with the United States wanting to impose sanctions on Iran.
Joining us to discuss the new developments on today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network was Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network.
May 16, 2010 Paltalk News Network Zombie Walk Madison Square Park in Manhattan
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
News Talk Online May 17, 2010: Should Sexual Predators Remain Behind Bars After Their Prison Term Ends?
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Friday, May 14, 2010
News Talk Online May 14, 2010: The Threat Of Islamic Terrorism
Perry also opposes the planned construction of a mosque several blocks from the World Trade Center site.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Obama's Approval Rating Up
Paltalk News Network
Oh how I remember people coming to News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network - Republicans mainly - excited by President Obama's falling approval rating. How certain they were that he'd be a one-term president.
Well, their prognostications may prove true - only time will tell. But certainly not based on daily trends.
Because if the daily trends were the determining factor - then one would say - the president is destined for a second term.
How else - after all - are we to interpret his return from his fall from grace?
The daily Gallup Poll of Obama's job approval rating is at 52 percent. Fifty-two percent! A majority!
Of course, as ridiculous as the claims that his lower ratings provided proof he's a one-term president - so too would be claims that this poll is indicative of any kind of long-term trend. All it is, is a snapshot. And like any snapshot - people have good days and people have bad days. Think about all those photos of you that you'd rather no one else ever see!
Obama is not the first, nor will he be the last, president to both suffer and enjoy wide fluctuations in approval ratings. After all, we the voters, are fickle political lovers, aren't we?
For the most part, I'm dismissive of daily polling. But in this case, I'm actually interested in watching the trends for a few days. Now that Obama has taken the gloves off with regard to the Gulf oil spill. Sending verbal darts that could kill at both the companies that are responsible - but who try to dance away from that responsibility - and the federal regulators who the president so correctly suggested have cozied up to those they are supposed to be regulating.
It took him three weeks to grow some cohonas and stand up to the status quo. I'd have been happier had it happened in three days. But no matter. His remarks today showed leadership and decisiveness. So it will be interesting to see how it affects daily polling trends.
News Talk Online May 13, 2010: 3 More Arrests In The Times Square Plot
The arrests of three alleged conspirators - the cash couriers the feds say - in the Times Square bombing plot was the topic of today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
3 More Arrests In Times Square Bombing Plot
FBI agent leaves Massachusetts house after raid
By GARY MOSKOWITZ
Paltalk News Network Homeland Security Correspondent
NEW YORK - Raids in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts have resulted in the arrests of three people believed connected to the plot to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.
The three suspects are believed to be cash couriers - people who allegedly helped fund the attempted terrorist attack.
This is nothing new. For more than a decade, I have been advocating that the war on terrorism should include an assault on the funders of these attacks as well.
Since 1997 I have been advocating that the government should sue corporations and individuals who are funneling money into terrorist organizations.
The terrorists can't afford to fund these attacks on their own. They are sometimes using non-profit organizations - posing as charities - who launder the money and send it to them.
If you sue the individuals and organizations involved in raising the money you accomplish two things.
First, and most obvious, you tie up the money.
But there's a secondary - and perhaps even more important benefit. Through discovery, a legal action that requires those involved in a civil suit to turn over documentation - you may be able to obtain information that can later be used in a criminal action against those involved.
The fact that the FBI didn't stop with the arrest of the alleged bomber but continued the probe and conducted these raids is an indication that they consider this a serious investigation. And, indeed, it is. Imagine the outcry had the bomb in Times Square actually gone off!
This investigation is a reaction, of course, to the failed bombing attempt. But it underscores a need to be proactive - to conduct probes of terrorist financial support networks before another attempted attack takes place.
To put it in simple terms, when someone wants to fight me, I don't wait until he punches me before I take action. When he puts his hands up in a threatening manner - I go after him.
That's exactly what we need to do if we want to stop these terrorists in their tracks.
Terrorism is no longer just something that occurs in some far off land that we can view with detachment from afar. It's here. On the homeland.
We have no choice but to take proactive measures now.
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/qwrrty/4603772713/
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
News Talk Online May 12, 2010: The UK's New Government, Bilateral Talks With Afghanistan & The Gulf Oil Spill
Paltalk News Network correspondent Cassandra Wood reported on the new coalition government in the UK on the first segment of today's News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network.
Guest for the second segment was NYU international security professor Patricia DeGennaro - freshly back from a trip to Afghanistan - who analyzed the bilateral talks between that nation and the United States.
Finally, Paltalk News Network contributor and Free Press.org senior editor Harvey Wasserman spoke about the environmental disaster the BP oil spill is creating in the Gulf of Mexico - and he criticized the U.S. government for not doing enough to mitigate its effects.
The Oil Spill Threatens Us All
By HARVEY WASSERMAN
FreePress.org
COLUMBUS - As you read this, the life of our bodies, nation and planet is being blown out a corporate hole in the Gulf of Mexico and into a BP Dead Zone of no return.
The apocalyptic gusher of oily poison pouring into the waters that give us life can only be viewed - FELT - by each and every one of us as an on-going death by a thousand cuts with no end in sight.
Yet our government - allegedly the embodiment of our collective will to survive - has done NOTHING of significance to fight this mass murder. Not one meaningful thing.
As it did while New Orleans drowned downstream from a willfully neglected levee system, our most potentially effective counter-force dithers on the other side of the world, in the wrong Gulf.
We squander our treasure on the largest conglomeration of people and weapons the world has ever seen. It's bloated with hardware designed specifically to destroy and kill. Hundreds of thousands of Americans sit on our dime in more than a hundred countries, rotting in the outposts of a bygone empire.
Why aren't they in the Gulf of Mexico, fighting for our truest "national security?"
The depth and scope of this catastrophe is impossible to grasp because it is just beginning. The entire Gulf, the west coast of Florida, the Everglades, the east coast of Florida and all the way up, wherever the currents go are all at risk.
This is the most lethal single attack on the life of this nation since December 7, 1941. It is a time that will live only in infamy.
The moment it happened, a sane president, a functional government, a society worthy of survival, would have marshaled every mobile resource available and moved it down to the Gulf.
Except by hitting a nuclear power plant and rendering this all radioactive, no terrorist could dream of igniting the kind of havoc now destroying our most vital, precious and irreplaceable resources.
Our mass media should be filled with stirring images of a focused, determined president mobilizing all available assets to curb the damage. Instead, President Obama defends offshore drilling and endorses the resumption of whaling - if this underwater gusher actually leaves any alive. It is a suicidal tribute to the power of corporate ownership.
Instead of a seeing a Gulf population deputized and mobilized to fight for survival, we are subjected to a loathsome trio of corporate stooges - apparently named Larry, Moe and Curley - blaming each other for the catastrophe. They should all be clamped into orange jumpsuits and locked onto a clean-up vessel.
Thus far the only armies officially mobilized are of the corporate PR departments and ubiquitous lawyers savoring the gusher of billable hours sure to stretch through the decades.
Our collective non-response to this cataclysmic reality now includes the introduction of a pathetic "climate bill" concocted by another woeful trio, in service to the very corporations that have brought us this lethal gusher.
This bill will do nothing to solve this particular problem. Nor will it address the root cause of our addiction to obsolete and suicidal fossil and nuclear fuels at a time when the clean, cheap renewable alternatives are readily available. It is, in short, Beyond Tragic.
Make no mistake: in our lifetime, the Gulf will not recover. Nor will our species.
There are no corners of the Earth that we can pollute without poisoning it all - and our own bodies. We cannot squander our resources on killing people on the other side of the Earth while leaving ourselves to be destroyed by the mayhem at home.
Either our species learns this lesson, and acts on it - NOW! - or we do not survive.
--
Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia! Our Green-Power Earth, is at www.harveywasserman.com. He is senior adviser to Greenpeace USA and senior editor of FreePress.org, where this was first published.
A Changing Of The Guard In Britain
By DANNY SCHECHTER
The News Dissector
NEW YORK - My muse, the news, seems to be in hyper-drive these days, with “breaking news” dominating all news. As I write, word has to the Dissector comes that Gordon Brown has lost the election after the election as the Lib Dems, Britain’s third party, opted to make a deal with the Conservatives i.e., Tories, preempting all future maneuvers. David Cameron is now prime minister.
Personally I credit Tony Blair, poodle-in-chief, for so trashing/betraying Labour’s legacy that it lost its mission and millions of supporters. Brown finished what he started, hardly helped by a devastating economic collapse.
The Financial Times reported, “Speaking outside Number 10 at the end of five days of tense political negotiations, Mr. Cameron pledged to put tackling the £163bn deficit at the center of a long-term program, announcing that the next election would be held in May 2015.″
Me olde UK mate Pat Kane gets to the real implications of all this:
The bankers and bond traders want cuts introduced as rapidly and quickly as possible, and appear to believe that a coalition of Tories and Liberals would be just the ticket in the present circumstances. That much was made clear by the sudden upsurge in share values when Clegg announced that he would prefer to deal with the Tories, duly reported by the BBC immediately after Clegg had made his statement.
If the bankers want to impose cuts on the electorate as quickly as possible, and with as authoritative a mandate as possible, then the prospect of social turmoil, strikes and protests greeting a government with a weak mandate is a problem for them. This is why capital threw its weight behind the Conservatives, why the right-wing press went crazy over the Liberals’ brief moment in the sun, and why Cameron warned of calamity in the event of a hung parliament.
Long ago, the sun set on the British empire. Now it will set on Britain as a stable country. The economic collapse has led to an effective political collapse.
Pat noted that 15 million eligible voters, many in the working class, sat it all out, refusing to vote. He adds, “The issue of the deficit and who pays for it is the single biggest issue in this electoral morass. There is nothing that comes close to how important this is for the city, for British capitalism, and for the future of welfare and public services in this country. It is in this light that we have to judge the available options now.”
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marca-pasos/4587814832/
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
News Talk Online May 11, 2010: Arizona's New Immigration Law
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Wall Street Goes To The Movies
By ZACH CARTER
Media Consortium
Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a plan that would have broken up the nation's six largest banks firms into firms that could fail without wreaking havoc on the economy. Even though the defeat reinforces Wall Street's political dominance, there is still room for a handful of other useful reforms, like banning banks from gambling with taxpayer money and protecting consumers from banker abuses. After looting our houses, banks are now pushing for the ability to bet on movie box-office receipts, and will keep trying to financialize anything they can unless Congress acts.
Writing for The Nation, John Nichols details last week's Capitol Hill damage. Today's financial oligarchy, in which a handful of bigwig bankers and their lobbyists are able to write regulations and evade rules they don't like, will still be in place after the Wall Street reform bill is passed. The lesson is clear, as Nichols notes:
Whatever the final form of federal financial services reform legislation, one thing is now certain: The biggest of the big banks will still be calling the shots.
As I emphasize for AlterNet, Congress has made a terrible mistake here, but there is still room for reform. It took President Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven years to enact his New Deal banking laws. It took even longer to reshape public opinion of monopolies when President Theodore Roosevelt took on corporate America in the early 1900s.
What's still worth fighting for? We have to curb the derivatives market—the multi-trillion-dollar casino that destroyed AIG. We have to impose a strong version of the Volcker Rule, which would ban banks from engaging in speculative trading for their own accounts. We have to change the way the Federal Reserve does business and force the government's most secretive bailout engine to operate in the open. And we have to establish a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency to ensure that the horrific subprime mortgage abuses are not repeated.
As Nomi Prins details for The American Prospect, the current reform bill will not effectively deal with the dangers posed by hedge funds and private equity firms—companies that partnered with banks to blow up the economy through investments in subprime mortgages. That means that whatever happens with the current bill, Congress must again take action next year to rein in other financial sector excesses.
As Nick Baumann demonstrates for Mother Jones, banks are doing everything they can to gobble up other productive elements of the economy. The economy crashed in 2008 in large part because banks had used the derivatives market to place trillions of dollars in speculative bets on the housing market. This wasn't lending, it was pure gambling: Instead of using poker chips, bankers placed their bets with derivatives. But, as Baumann emphasizes, banks are now looking to expand the sort of thing they can make derivatives gambles with. The latest proposal is to allow banks to bet on the box office success of movies. That's right, banks would be gambling on movies.
Hollywood may be shallow, but it isn't stupid. It doesn't want to see the banking industry repeat its destructive looting of the housing industry on the movie business, and is pushing hard to ban banks from betting on movies. But we can't count on every industry having a powerful lobby group to counter every assault from the banking system.
Consider the unsettling report by Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now!. Gonzales details how big banks gamed the charter school system to score huge profits while simultaneously saddling taxpayers with massive debts that make teaching kids supremely difficult. By exploiting multiple federal tax credits, banks that invest in charter schools have been able to double their money in seven years — no small feat in the investing world — while schools have seen their rents skyrocket. One school in Albany, N.Y. saw its rent jump from $170,000 to $500,000 in a single year.
It's not like public schools are flush with cash right now. The $330,000 increase in rent could pay the salaries of more than a few teachers. As the recession sparked by big bank excess grinds on, even the good news is pretty hard to swallow. As David Moberg emphasizes for Working In These Times, the economy added 290,000 jobs in April, but the unemployment rate actually climbed from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent in March. That's because the unemployment rate only counts workers who are actively seeking a job—if you want a job but haven't found one for so long that you give up, you're not technically "unemployed." All of those "new" workers are driving the official figures up.
In other words, it's still rough out there. And likely to stay rough as state governments try to deal with the lost tax revenue from plunging home values and mass layoffs. Nearly half of all unemployed people in the U.S. have been out of a job for six months or more. And while we'd be much worse off without President Obama's economic stimulus package, that percentage is likely to grow this year, Moberg notes.
This is what unrestrained banking behemoths do. They book big profits and bonuses for themselves, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the economy. Congress absolutely must impose serious financial reform this year. After the November election, breaking up the banks must once again be on the agenda when Congress considers the future fate of hedge funds, private equity firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If we don't rein in Wall Street, banks will continue to wreak havoc on our homes, our jobs and even our schools. Congress must act.
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/galeriaspreciadas/4595550401/
'Tis The Season To Dissect Kagan
By DANNY SCHECTER
The News Dissector
NEW YORK - Had enough oil spill, tired of financial reform, bored with the wars? Don’t worry, the season is changing and, with it, the issues we are supposed to focus on.
Out with the old, and in with another partisan food fight in the making: the nomination of a Supreme Court justice, a ritualistic drama that we don’t seem to get enough of. Forget bashing institutions, kiddos. Let’s go after individuals.
Our Harvard-Law-Graduate-in-Chief has spoken, naming his dean for the opening on the court. The fact that Elena Kagan is the solicitor general and argues for the government before the Supremes must mean she knows a thing or two about how robed ones operate.
Why did they chose her? The Boston Globe reports it is because of her skills as a “broker.” She certainly is not a liberal counterweight to the likes of Scalia et.al.
Also she never was a judge before — like the late lamented Earl Warren — and so has no record for the negative researchers to pick apart. That may mean a character assault may be in the making. On the other hand she clerked for Thurgood Marshall and Abner Mikva, two leading jurists. (She also worked for Clinton.) She seems to be an Obama-style centrist Democrat although many fear she would push the court rightwards and would compromise any principles she may have left.
On the other hand, the first naysayers out of the gate are from the left. They question her conservative leanings, deference to presidential power and apparent fondness for being tough on terror even if it means watering down the law.
One Harvard alum, Francis Boyle, not only blasts her in hardline prose but also the horse she rode in on — that is the very Harvard law School he graduated from.
His Headline: “Dean Elena Kagan: Harvard’s Gitmo Kangaroo Law School — The School for Torturers“
Not surprisingly, the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Imperial Law–otherwise known as the self-styled American Journal of International Law but originally founded a century ago and still operated by U.S. War and State Department legal apparatchiks and their law professorial fellow-travelers – published an article by Harvard Law School’s recently retired Bemis Professor of International Law Detlev Vagts (who only taught me the required course on legal accounting) arguing in favor of the Pentagon’s kangaroo courts system on Guantanamo despite the fact that they have been soundly condemned by every human rights organization and every human rights official and leader in the entire world as well as by the United States Supreme Court itself in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).….
As for Harvard Laws Neo-Con Dean Kagan, Harvard Law Graduate President Barack Obama appointed her Solicitor General in his Department of Justice as the third highest ranking official in that department and thus as the proverbial oeTenth Justice for the 9-Justice U.S. Supreme Court. In this capacity Kagan has quarter-backed, supervised, and defended in all U.S. federal courts the Obama administrations continuation of the Bush Jr. administrations hideous atrocities perpetrated against human rights, international law, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and Americas Bill of Rights.
In the Democratic Center, She’s the one, writes Andrew Cohen in Politics Daily::
In choosing Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his next nominee to the United States Supreme Court, President Obama has managed to achieve three important goals at once. He’s picked another distinguished woman to become a justice — for the first time in its history three women will sit at the same time on the high court. He’s chosen a younger person to join the group, a mortality-table parry to the 2005 Republican nomination of the youthful Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts. And he’s selected a candidate whom some Senate Republicans were publicly signaling they’d accept and confirm even before she was named.
ThinkProgress.org: Far-Right Group AFA Demands To Know Kagan’s Sexuality, Since ‘No Lesbian Is Qualified’ To Sit On SCOTUS
Is she or isn’t she [a lesbian]? Let’s ask her By Bryan Fischer - American Family Association
Brace yourself for another season of invective, character assassination and political chicanery, I am sure viewers of Fox and MSNBC have already had a taste with more, much more, make that endless punditry and put downs to come.
--
Photo: By DANNY SCHECTER
The News Dissector
NEW YORK - Had enough oil spill, tired of financial reform, bored with the wars? Don’t worry, the season is changing and, with it, the issues we are supposed to focus on.
Out with the old, and in with another partisan food fight in the making: the nomination of a Supreme Court justice, a ritualistic drama that we don’t seem to get enough of. Forget bashing institutions, kiddos. Let’s go after individuals.
Our Harvard-Law-Graduate-in-Chief has spoken, naming his dean for the opening on the court. The fact that Elena Kagan is the solicitor general and argues for the government before the Supremes must mean she knows a thing or two about how robed ones operate.
Why did they chose her? The Boston Globe reports it is because of her skills as a “broker.” She certainly is not a liberal counterweight to the likes of Scalia et.al.
Also she never was a judge before — like the late lamented Earl Warren — and so has no record for the negative researchers to pick apart. That may mean a character assault may be in the making. On the other hand she clerked for Thurgood Marshall and Abner Mikva, two leading jurists. (She also worked for Clinton.) She seems to be an Obama-style centrist Democrat although many fear she would push the court rightwards and would compromise any principles she may have left.
On the other hand, the first naysayers out of the gate are from the left. They question her conservative leanings, deference to presidential power and apparent fondness for being tough on terror even if it means watering down the law.
One Harvard alum, Francis Boyle, not only blasts her in hardline prose but also the horse she rode in on — that is the very Harvard law School he graduated from.
His Headline: “Dean Elena Kagan: Harvard’s Gitmo Kangaroo Law School — The School for Torturers“
Not surprisingly, the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Imperial Law–otherwise known as the self-styled American Journal of International Law but originally founded a century ago and still operated by U.S. War and State Department legal apparatchiks and their law professorial fellow-travelers – published an article by Harvard Law School’s recently retired Bemis Professor of International Law Detlev Vagts (who only taught me the required course on legal accounting) arguing in favor of the Pentagon’s kangaroo courts system on Guantanamo despite the fact that they have been soundly condemned by every human rights organization and every human rights official and leader in the entire world as well as by the United States Supreme Court itself in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).….
As for Harvard Laws Neo-Con Dean Kagan, Harvard Law Graduate President Barack Obama appointed her Solicitor General in his Department of Justice as the third highest ranking official in that department and thus as the proverbial oeTenth Justice for the 9-Justice U.S. Supreme Court. In this capacity Kagan has quarter-backed, supervised, and defended in all U.S. federal courts the Obama administrations continuation of the Bush Jr. administrations hideous atrocities perpetrated against human rights, international law, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and Americas Bill of Rights.
In the Democratic Center, She’s the one, writes Andrew Cohen in Politics Daily::
In choosing Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his next nominee to the United States Supreme Court, President Obama has managed to achieve three important goals at once. He’s picked another distinguished woman to become a justice — for the first time in its history three women will sit at the same time on the high court. He’s chosen a younger person to join the group, a mortality-table parry to the 2005 Republican nomination of the youthful Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts. And he’s selected a candidate whom some Senate Republicans were publicly signaling they’d accept and confirm even before she was named.
ThinkProgress.org: Far-Right Group AFA Demands To Know Kagan’s Sexuality, Since ‘No Lesbian Is Qualified’ To Sit On SCOTUS
Is she or isn’t she [a lesbian]? Let’s ask her By Bryan Fischer - American Family Association
Brace yourself for another season of invective, character assassination and political chicanery, I am sure viewers of Fox and MSNBC have already had a taste with more, much more, make that endless punditry and put downs to come.
Accepting Israel As The Jewish State
By DANIEL PIPES
DanielPipes.org
When a major Arab state would finally sign a peace treaty with Israel, it was long assumed, the Arab-Israeli conflict would end. The Egypt-Israel peace treaty of 1979, however, buried that expectation; it had the perverse effect of making other states and also the Egyptian populace more anti-Zionist.
The 1980s gave birth to a hope that, instead, Palestinian recognition of Israel would close the conflict. The total failure of the 1993 Declaration of Principles (also known as the Oslo Accords) then buried that expectation.
What now?
Starting about 2007, a new focus has emerged, of winning acceptance of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. Israel's former prime minister Ehud Olmert set the terms: "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."
Olmert was Israel's worst prime minister but he got this one right. Arab-Israeli diplomacy has dealt with a myriad of subsidiary issues while tiptoeing around the conflict's central issue: "Should there be a Jewish state?" Disagreement over this answer – rather than over Israel's boundaries, its exercise of self defense, its control of the Temple Mount, its water consumption, its housing construction in West Bank towns, diplomatic relations with Egypt, or the existence of a Palestinian state – is the key issue.
Palestinian leaders responded, with howls of outrage, declaring that they "absolutely refused" to accept Israel as a Jewish state. They even pretended to be shocked at the notion of a state defined by religion, although their own "Constitution of the State of Palestine," third draft, states that "Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion." Olmert's efforts went nowhere.
On taking over the prime ministry in early 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Olmert's point in his diplomacy. Regrettably, the Obama administration endorsed the Palestinian position, again sidelining the Israeli demand. (Instead, it focuses on housing for Jews in Jerusalem. Talk about the heart of the issue.)
If Palestinian politicians reject Israel's Jewish nature, what about the Palestinian and the broader Arab and Muslim publics? Polls and other evidence suggest a long-term average of 20 percent acceptance of Israel, whether in the Mandatory period or now, whether Muslims in Canada or Palestinians in Lebanon.
To learn more about current Arab opinion, the Middle East Forum commissioned Pechter Middle East Polls to ask a simple question of a thousand adults in each of four countries: "Islam defines [your state]; under the right circumstances, would you accept a Jewish State of Israel?" (In Lebanon, the question differed slightly: "Islam defines most states in the Middle East; under the right circumstances, would you accept a Jewish state of Israel?")
The results: 26 percent of Egyptians and 9 percent of urban Saudi subjects answered (in November 2009) in the affirmative, as did 9 percent of Jordanians and 5 percent of Lebanese (in April 2010).
The polls reveal broad consensus across such differences as occupation, socio-economic standing, and age. For no discernible reason, more Egyptian women and Saudi and Jordanian men accept a Jewish Israel than their gender counterparts, whereas among the Lebanese both sexes rank similarly. Some significant variations exist, however: as one would expect in Lebanon, 16 percent of (largely Christian) North Lebanon accepts a Jewish Israel in contrast to just 1 percent in the (mostly Shi'ite) Bekaa Valley.
More significantly, weighting these responses by the size of their populations (respectively, 79, 29, 6, and 4 million) translates into an overall average of 20 percent acceptance of Israel's Jewishness – neatly confirming the existing percentage.
Although 20 percent constitutes a small minority, its consistency over time and place offers encouragement. That one-fifth of Muslims, Arabs, and even Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state suggests that, despite a near-century of indoctrination and intimidation, a base for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict does exist.
Would-be peacemakers must direct their attention to increasing the size of this moderate cohort. Getting from 20 percent to, say, 60 percent would fundamentally shift the politics of the Middle East, displacing Israel from its exaggerated role and releasing the peoples of this blighted region to address their real challenges. Not Zionism but such, oh, minor problems as autocracy, brutality, cruelty, conspiracism, religious intolerance, apocalypticism, political extremism, misogyny, slavery, economic backwardness, brain drain, capital flight, corruption and drought.
--
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edo-finelight/2394087158/
If You See Something, Say Something But Then What?
By GARY MOSKOWITZ
Paltalk News Network Homeland Security Correspondent
NEW YORK - Here in New York City, people are implored by the police to report suspicious activities that could be indicators of act of terrorism. A simple slogan is employed to get the message across: If you see something say something.
Officials say, once you do that, you've done your job and it's time for the professionals to take over. But what if they don't?
This is not a hypothetical question. It actually happens. And when it does, the slogan becomes just that - a slogan - and nothing more.
I have personally been involved in several incidents in which I followed the advice - and - to my knowledge - in both cases, no one showed up.
The first case involved a man who looked like he was from Middle Eastern background videotaping the inside of a subway train and the platform. You can't do anything more suspicious than that.
I called 911 and reported the incident - and no one ever came.
The other incident had nothing to do with terrorism. But it did have to do with a crime.
I spotted a man stealing a woman's purse. I'm a former NYPD officer, and my training kicked in automatically. I chased the man down, subdued him, and called 911. Then I waited. And waited. And waited.
Finally, after it became clear that police were not going to respond to my call, I had to let the guy go.
The woman was happy to get her purse back intact. But, as in the first case, I saw something. I said something. But then the professionals did nothing.
This is not to say police aren't doing their jobs. But there are too many cops on desk duties. We need more police officers on the streets. Police officers who are willing to respond.
By the way, although they are not detectives, uniformed police officers should be trained - and directed - to investigate.
How?
For one thing, procedure should include attempts to contact the person reporting the crime. All too often, by the time a radio car arrives on the scene, it appears that there is no crime in progress. If the officers don't talk to the person who called, it goes as an unfounded call.
Some precinct commanders actually favor this outcome. Because if the cops don't find something when you see something and then say something then the crime stats in their precincts stay low. And they get credit for keeping the neighborhood safe.
If city's like New York are really serious about enlisting the help of citizens in spotting potential terrorist acts, they should create counter terrorism academies for civilians. There people who are interested in helping would be trained on how to properly identify suspicious activity and report it in order to get maximum efficiency from the police.
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/specialkrb/3260053107/
Afghanistan: More War, Fewer Jobs, Poor Excuses
By DAVID SWANSON
TomDispatch.com
Isn’t it time to call what Congress will soon vote on by its right name: war escalation funding?
Early in 2009, President Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan with 21,000 "combat" troops, 13,000 "support" troops, and at least 5,000 mercenaries, without any serious debate in Congress or the corporate media. The president sent the first 17,000 troops prior to developing any plan for Afghanistan, leaving the impression that escalation was, somehow, an end in itself. Certainly it didn't accomplish anything else, a conclusion evident in downbeat reports on the Afghan war situation issued this month by both the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon.
So it seemed like progress for our representative government when, last fall, the media began to engage in a debate over whether further escalation in Afghanistan made sense. Granted, this was largely a public debate between the commander-in-chief and his generals (who should probably have been punished with removal from office for insubordinate behavior), but members of Congress at least popped up in cameo roles.
In September, for instance, 57 members of Congress sent a letter to the president opposing an escalation of the war. In October, Rep. Barbara Lee D-CA) introduced a bill to prohibit the funding of any further escalation. In December, various groups of Congress members sent letters to the president and to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposing an escalation and asking for a chance to vote on it. Even as Congress voted overwhelmingly for a massive war and military budget in December, some representatives spoke out against further escalation and the funding needed for it.
While all sides in this debate agreed that such escalation funding would need to be voted on sometime in the first half of 2010, everyone knew something else as well: that the president would go ahead and escalate in Afghanistan even without funding in place - the money all being borrowed anyway - and that, once many or all of the new troops were there, he would get less resistance from Congress which would be voting on something that had already happened.
The corporate media went along with this bait-and-switch strategy, polling and reporting on the escalation debate in Washington until the president fell in line behind his generals (give or take 10,000 or so extra troops). The coming vote was then relabeled as a simple matter of "war funding." This was convenient, since Americans are far more likely to oppose escalating already unpopular wars than just keeping them going - and would be likely to oppose such funding even more strongly if the financial tradeoffs involved were made clear. However, a new poll shows a majority of Americans do not believe that this war is worth fighting at all.
Nonetheless, as in a tale foretold, Congress is expected to vote later this month on $33 billion in further “war funding” to pay for sending 30,000 troops (plus "support" troops, etc.) to Afghanistan - most of whom are already there or soon will be. In addition, an extra $2 billion is being requested for aid and “civilian” operations in Afghanistan (much of which may actually go to the Afghan military and police), $2.5 billion for the same in our almost forgotten war in Iraq, and another $2 billion for aid to (or is it a further military presence in?) Haiti.
This upcoming vote, of course, provides the opportunity that our representatives were asking for half a year ago. They can now vote the president’s escalation up or down in the only way that could possibly be enforced, by voting its funding up or down. Blocking the funding in the House of Representatives would mean turning those troops around and bringing them back home - and unlike the procedure for passing a bill, there would be no need for any action by the Senate or the president.
So, how much money are we talking about exactly? Well not enough, evidently, for the Tea Party enemies of reckless government spending to take notice. Clearly not enough for the labor movement or any other advocates of spending on jobs or health care or education or green energy to disturb their slumbers. God forbid! Yet it’s still a sizable number by a certain reckoning.
After all, 33 billion miles could take you to the sun 226 times. And $33 billion could radically alter any non-military program in existence. There's a bill in the Senate, for instance, that would prevent schools from laying off teachers in all 50 states for a mere $23 billion. Another $9.6 billion would quadruple the Department of Energy's budget for renewable energy. Now, what to do with that extra $0.4 billion?
And remember what this $33 billion actually involves: adding more troops, support troops, and private contractors, whose work, in turn, will mean ongoing higher costs to maintain the Afghan occupation, construct new bases there, fuel the machines of war, and provide the weaponry. Keep in mind as well that various other costs associated with the president’s most recent "surge" are hidden in the budgets of the CIA, the Department of State, and other parts of the government. Looking just at the military, however, this is $33 billion to be added to an unfathomable pile of waste. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has already approved $345 billion for war in Afghanistan, not to mention $708 billion in Iraq.
According to the National Priorities Project, for that same money we could have renewable energy in 1,083,271,391 homes for a year (or every home in the country for more than 10 years), or pay 17,188,969 elementary school teachers for a year. There may be 2.6 million elementary and middle school teachers in our country now. Assuming we could use 3 million teachers, we could hire them all for five years and employ that extra $13 billion or so to give them bonuses. Honor our brave teachers anyone?
Even these calculations, however, are misleading. As economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated in The Three Trillion Dollar War, their book on the cost of the Iraq war alone, adding in debt payments on moneys borrowed to fight that war, long-term care for veterans wounded in it, the war's impact on energy prices, and other macroeconomic impacts, the current tax bill for the Iraq War must be at least tripled and probably quadrupled or more to arrive at its real long-term cost. (Similarly, the cost in lives must be multiplied by all those lives that could have been saved through other, better uses of the same funding.) The same obviously applies to the Afghan War.
The fact is that military spending is destroying the U.S. economy. An excellent report from the National Priorities Project, “Security Spending Primer," provides a summary of research that supports these basic and well-documented facts:
*Investing public dollars in the military produces fewer jobs than cutting taxes.
*Cutting taxes produces fewer jobs than investing public dollars in any of these areas: health care, education, mass transit, or construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair.
*Investing public dollars in mass transit or education produces more than twice as many jobs as investing in the military.
*Investing public dollars in education produces better paying jobs than investing in the military or cutting taxes.
*Investing public dollars in any of these areas: health care, education, mass transit, construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair has a larger direct and indirect economic impact than investing in the military or cutting taxes.
Too broad a view? Then consider just the present proposed $33 billion escalation funding for the Afghan War. For that sum, we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000 per year here in the United States for every soldier sent to Afghanistan; a job, that is, for each of those former soldiers and 19 other Americans. We're spending on average $400 per gallon to transport gas over extended and difficult supply lines into Afghanistan where the U.S. military uses 27 million gallons a month. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bribe various small nations to be part of a “coalition” there. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join our side, an effort that has so far recruited only 646 Taliban guerrillas, many of whom seem to have taken the money and run back to the other side. Does all this sound like a wise investment - or the kind of work Wall Street would do?
A strong case can be made that the war in Afghanistan is illegal, immoral, against the public will, counterproductive on its own terms and an economic catastrophe. The present path of escalation there appears militarily hopeless. The most recent Pentagon assessment once again indicates that the Taliban’s strength is growing; according to polling, 94% of the inhabitants of Kandahar, the area where the next U.S. offensive is to take place this summer, want peace negotiations, not war, and a U.S. plan to seek local consent for the coming assault has been scrapped.
Many members of Congress will still tell you that our goal in Afghanistan is to win or to keep us safe or to get bin Laden. But those who opposed the escalation last year, and the 65 members of the House of Representatives who voted to end the war entirely on March 10th, seem to be offering remarkably insubstantial excuses for refusing to commit to a no-vote on the $33 billion in escalation funding.
I recently asked Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), for example, if he would vote no on that funding, and he replied that he absolutely would - unless the Democratic leadership put something so good into the bill that he wouldn’t want to vote against it. In just this way, aid for Hurricane Katrina victims, the extension of unemployment insurance and all sorts of other goodies have been added to war and escalation funding bills over the years.
Nadler claimed that the Haiti aid already in the bill wouldn't win his vote, but something else might. In other words, if there were any chance of the bill being in trouble, Nadler's vote could essentially be bought simply by adding some goody he likes. Never mind whether or not it outweighed $33 billion worth of damage; never mind if the benefit, whatever it might be, could pass separately. The point is that Nadler is not really committed to ending the war or even blocking its escalation in the way he would be if he committed himself now to a no vote and lobbied his colleagues to join him. Instead, he’s ready to pose as a war opponent only as long as his stance proves no threat to the war. And in this, he's typical.
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) gave me a unique excuse for not committing in advance to a no vote on the funding. He craved the attention, he said, that comes from not announcing how you will vote - as if such attention matters more than the lives he might fund the taking of. Radio host Nicole Sandler took up my question and asked Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) what he was planning to do. He responded by claiming that he hadn't yet been briefed about the war and so couldn't decide.
Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) gave me an excuse (now common among Democrats who evidently haven't read the Constitution in a while) guaranteed to lead to a yes vote: he must support his president and so plans to vote for what the president tells him to.
Some excuses can only be anticipated at this point. Many Congress members will, for instance, undoubtedly settle for voting for a relatively meaningless non-binding exit-timetable amendment to the bill, or at least co-sponsor a bill identical to that amendment, and some will likely use that as reasonable cover for casting their votes to fund the escalation.
Antiwar advocates for peace and justice are not taking all of this lying down. Cities are passing resolutions opposing any more war funding. People are holding vigils and sit-ins at local congressional offices - more than 100 of which are planned for May 19th. Congressional phones are ringing, newspaper editors are receiving letters, and an online whip list - a list of where every House member stands - is being constantly updated. In the end, though, the fundamental question is how many people will outgrow their partisan loyalties, of either variety, and tell their representative that they will vote for someone else if he or she votes for more war.
An extreme step? Well, what do you call wasting $33 billion on a hopeless, immoral, illegal war that a majority of Americans oppose, and denying those same dollars to job creation or any other decent purpose?
--
David Swanson is the author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union and blogs at his website, War Is a Crime.
Monday, May 10, 2010
News Talk Online May 10, 2010: Gordon Brown's 'Resignation' & The Latest On The Oil Spill
Paltalk News Network Correspondent Cassandra Wood reported the first segment of News Talk Online from the UK about Prime Minister Gordon Brown's resignation from the Labour Party - an attempt to keep the party in power as a result of the hung Parliament there.
The second segment featured a report from Washington correspondent Jeff Holtzman from the Talk Radio News Service about the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Then Paltalk News Network correspondent James Hickman told us about the latest, failed, efforts to stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Friday, May 7, 2010
New York's Quality Of Life About To Suffer
By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network
NEW YORK - Forget about terrorism. The real threat to New York City is a degrading of the quality of life. And no where will this decline be felt more than on the subway system.
The MTA says the cuts are necessary - due to a $400 million budget gap.
Where will the cuts occur?
Some subways will be cut. Resulting in more crowded rides.
Custodial workers will be laid off. Resulting in dirtier stations and trains.
And announcers will be pink slipped. So that people who feel stranded on station platforms won't be given any indication of how long they need to wait for a train to come.
The MTA is not alone in facing cuts. Thousands of teachers may be laid off. Senior centers may be closed. Fire protection could be reduced. All because Albany has failed to pass a state appropriations bill for New York.
As one politician said, this is like President Gerald Ford telling New York City to drop dead.
But the most obvious and immediate decline in the quality of life will be on the subways. Average subway ridership last year was more than 5 million daily. Those riders weren't just New Yorkers. Tourists rely on the subway system to get around as well.
Tourists returned to New York following the 9/11 attacks. They didn't miss a beat after Saturday's attempted car bombing. But if you really want to convince visitors to stay away, offer them an unpleasant, dirty, crowded subway system. Once the word about that gets out, you can count of tourism to decline.
--
Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anniemole/2867006903/
--
The report may be re-published but only in its entirety. Talk to Gary 5 PM weekdays on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network. Just go to www.paltalknewsnetwork.com and click on the Join the Chat button. There is no charge.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
News Talk Online May 6, 2010: DC's No. 1 Gadfly & The UK Elections
Les Kinsolving, who has been a thorn in the side of every president and every presidential press secretary since and including Richard Nixon and his daughter, Kathleen Kinsolving, were guest during the first segment of News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network today. They talked about their new book, Gadfly, The Life and Times of Les Kinsolving, White House Watchdog.
The second segment included a live report from Paltalk News Network UK correspondent Cassandra Wood about today's British parliamentary election.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
News Talk Online May 5, 2010: Latest Information On The Times Square Terror Probe
Among the issues tackled, how the suspect nearly got away, attempts to remove rights to protect us and the need for more homeland security funds for New York City.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Times Square Terrorism Suspect Sings: WithOUT Torture
Timer on failed explosive device
By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network
NEW YORK - There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the attempt to blow up a car bomb in Times Square Saturday evening. Some things in the investigation went right, some things went wrong. Mainly, because the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, was captured, they went right.
But there's one overriding lesson we should pay very close attention to. Shahzad is singing. And he wasn't even tortured.
Not only that, but to the horror of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY), he was actually read his Miranda rights before they questioned him.
We'll have no flashback images of Dick Cheney telling us that we got important information that saved American's lives through water boarding in this case. Nor will the case conjure up images of fictional federal counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer beating a suspect into confessing.
From what's been reported thus far, we know that Shahzad admitted his involvement. He said he acted alone (though the feds aren't necessarily taking his word on that one.) He said it was in retaliation for U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan. (Shahzad, a U.S. citizen, was born in Pakistan). And he told investigators that he received training in Pakistan.
Just like the case of the Christmas Eve airplane underwear bomber, shortly after the FBI admitted it followed the law and read Shahzad his rights, a chorus of protest was heard from politicians and pundits who thought that was just wrong. (The accused underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, sang, too, even after he was read his rights.)
These are folks who claim that it's necessary to violate the rights of terrorism suspects in order to protect us from those who would strip our rights away from us. And they can't even see the folly in their argument - one that they - not only proffer with straight faces - but with enhanced degrees of righteous indignation.
--
Talk to Gary at 5 PM New York time weekdays on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network. Just go to www.paltalknewsnetwork.com and click on the Join the Chat button. There is no charge.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
News Talk Online May 4, 2010: Times Square Bombing Attempt Probe, Plunder On Wall Street
Danny Schechter, director of the documentary Plunder The Crime Of Our Time was the guest during the second segment to discuss the investigation into Goldman Sachs.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Monday, May 3, 2010
News Talk Online May 3, 2010: Ahmadinejad At The UN
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the investigation into the attempted Times Square car bombing were also discussed during the show.
Join the chat on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network at 5 PM NY time weekdays at www.joinchatnow.com
Protesting Ahmadinejad At The UN
By GARY BAUMGARTEN
Paltalk News Network
As Iranian Pres. Mahmood Ahmadinejad prepared to address a UN conference on nuclear non-proliferation, members of Green Movement protested outside.
Bitta Mustofi of the group Where Is My Vote? wants to hold the international community accountable for not addressing the human rights violations in Iran, while focusing only on the threat of nuclear weapons development.
She argues that additional sanctions or military action would only hurt the average Iranian, not the regime.
We talk about issues like this weekdays at 5 PM New York time on News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network. Just go to http://www.paltalknewsnetwork.com and click on the Join the Chat button. There is no charge.






























