ATF in the news ...

... and it's not good:

• 
  ATF AGENTS IN CITIES across America reportedly used rogue tactics to go gun hunting, allegedly exploiting the mentally ill, buying up weapons for way more than they're worth — even letting minors smoke pot and drink.

 

I personally wonder if this story is on Fox News only because it can be linked to President Obama and the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking program. But whatever the reason, it is in the news, at least on Fox.

 

Interestingly, the story does not appear on CNN. Its lead story is about the ice storm.

Instead, they have these gyms:

• Officer kills student after traffic stop
• Campus cop fired 'multiple shots'  
• Ugly scene at Brazilian soccer match
• Fan fighting turns bloody  
• Terror threat spreads like 'wildfire'
• Cops: Teens let friend drive drunk   
• Cops: Couple lured man to thrill killing
• First on CNN: Fraud ring also spied
• Violent 'Sharkeisha' video goes viral  

 So, see, there is still a lot of crime there. Random, violent, street crime.

 

 

 

 

 

The bravest girl in the world ....

.... as some have called here, is telling President Obama that drones are 'fueling terrorism."

Wonder if he will listen to her?



This story is one you won't hear much about in the mainstream news. Same can be said for these, each with clear implications for crime and justice:

Five Totally Avoidable Tragedies Caused by the Shutdown

By Robin Marty, Care2 | Report

US Accused of Unprecedented Assault on Press Freedom

By Ramy Srour, Inter Press Service | Report

Report Finds Police Worldwide Criminalize Dissent, Assert New Powers in Crackdown on Protests

By Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview 

 

Officials in Arizona and Kansas Rig Ballots to Implement ALEC Voter Suppression Scheme

By Brendan Fischer, PR Watch | Report

Over 865,200 Gallons of Fracked Oil Spill in North Dakota, Public in Dark for Days Due to Government Shutdown

By Steve Horn, DeSmog Blog | Report 

 

All of this is just more evidence of why you must read independent media.

 

The LEAD story in the news right now is ...

... of course this ... a story about lawmakers:

One step closer to the brink

Gov't shutdown coming at midnight

The Democratic-led Senate rejects a proposal by the GOP-led House to derail Obamacare, sharply raising the chances of a government shutdown. FULL STORY

• LIVE: Senate   | Blog: The latest
• Zakaria: This is stupid | How to stop it
• Stocks spooked | Multibillion $$ hit
• Catch up | Agency list | The architect

DEJA VU? GOP crafts new ObamaCare delay after Senate snub

• AP
• Senate pulls page from Yogi Berra and sends House into 'deja vu all over again,' killing a GOP counter-proposal that would have delayed ObamaCare— and sending Boehner back to consider yet another proposal to stall implementation.
• Does gov't shut down at midnight?
• Delay in Spanish-language site launches
• Senate approves bill to pay military
• Impact of gov't shutdown on travelers
• Impact of shutdown for Americans
• Will Congress take down website?
• ObamaCare 'Much Ado About Nothing?'
• Wall Street rolls eyes at DC dysfunction

There is a lot of serious analysis of the issue of a government shutdown, what is behind it, who is to blame, who will take the blame, etc.

You can find this analysis on news websites, newspapers, magazines, even blogs.

As for me, all I have to say is, "Sweet Jesus, when will these people ever grow up and do their jobs?"

Let's remember these people are paid more than one hundred thousand dollars to do this "work" and many of them are multimillionaires. All of them are adults.

Isn't it time they finally grow up and do the people's business?

The grand drug policy experiment!

As someone who's been teaching and research drug policy for years, along with my great friend and colleague Renee Scherlen, I am pretty sure we've both said that no one knows for sure what would happen under a full legalization regime.

That is, if a drug like marijuana were to be legalized, we would not really be able to accurately predict what would happen to rates of drug use, drug abuse, illness, death, etc. But we suspect that use might go up in the short-term (as the drug is suddenly more available and thus easier to get), drug abuse would remain unchanged (because, in spite of government claims to the contrary, a drug like marijuana does not generally lead to abuse), and illness and death would decline (because people would be using a less dangerous drug than say, alcohol). We'd also expect use to eventually level off once the "newness" of legalization fades (but if it does not yet rates of alcohol use go down as people switch to pot, this would be a net gain since the former is much safer than the latter).

But the truth is, it would be an experiment. Call it the grand drug policy experiment.

We don't know what will happen.

And we told our students that this would probably not happen in the United States. And likely not in our lifetimes.

But now, finally, we're going to find out. In the United States, and in our lifetimes!

Because two states recently legalized marijuana. And now, finally, in spite of their claims that they oppose legalization of marijuana, ONDCP, President Obama, and the Justice Department will not interfere with this policy change.

Now legal and soon to be regulated and available to responsible adults ...

Just as you'd expect from a conservative president who respects states' rights as long as they don't deny people their Constitutional rights, Obama's Justice Department will only enforce federal law within the states that aim to reduce harm (including serious crime).

For example, DOJ will still prosecute individuals or entities to prevent:

• the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
• the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
• state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
• drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
• growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
• preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

But not for mere possession or use.

Just as it should be if you believe in liberty.

Now, let's see what happens in this grand experiment.

PS, it's all over the news!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html

Rarely is the political ideology of a news organization more clear

... than this:

CNN:

Al Qaeda on Egypt: 'I told you so'

Al-Zawahiri has seen it before, Bergen writes

Al Qaeda's Egyptian-born leader is surely seeing the unrest there as a chance to exploit, writes CNN's Peter Bergen.FULL STORY

• NEW Security Council to meet
• Obama urges calm | Watch
• Bloody fighting in streets | Photos

 

Fox:

 

Obama Under Fire as Egypt Erupts

• Reuters
• As death toll exceeds 500 in Egypt and no clear end-game in sight, Obama faces criticism for 'incoherent' policy insisting US stay neutral despite both aiding and condemning military-backed government.
• Egypt Authorizes Use of Deadly Force After Defiant Protesters Torch Buildings
• Coptic Christian Churches, Buildings Targeted in Egypt for Second Straight Day
• US Cancels Military Exercises With Egypt, Obama Condemns Crackdown
• PHOTOS: Deadly Clashes in Egypt

Now, read the stories and compare and contrast the "hook" used to grab your attention, the context provided (or not provided), and especially the main point each is trying to make.

I told you so, I did

Back in 2004, I wrote an 8-part series in the Watauga Democrat on the USA PATRIOT Act. I explained the good, the bad, and the ugly. Here it is.

Then I spoke everywhere I could get myself invited to speak about it, trying to build support for a resolution I was bringing to the Town of Boone. The resolution was supported by five other entities who passed support pieces. And we gathered about 500 signatures in support.

The resolution passed narrowly (3-2). Here it is.

This was a movement to call on Congress to modify the USA PATRIOT Act. Specific sections of the law were identified as serious threats to the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. More than 400 towns and counties and eight states passed these resolutions.

Yet, here we are, nine years later (and almost 12 years since the law was passed in the first place), and we're learning about how the law is being abused, as well as other federal data mining and spy programs being employed across the nation. And, thankfully, it's all over the news.

Here are some examples:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174696/its-worse-you-thought-nsa-spying-and-patriot-act

AP

Obama Administration Under Fire
Over 2nd Mass Surveillance Project

Director of National Intelligence Clapper defends administration's surveillance efforts after report says a secret program is allowing the government to mine nine American tech giants, including Facebook and Google, for user data, a day after report of a secret court order that allows NSA to seize millions of phone records for American Verizon customers.

Author of Patriot Act Says NSA Records Collection 'Never the Intent' | VIDEO: Misuse of Patriot Act?

Lawmakers Misled on Collection of Phone Records? | Verizon EVP Statement | VIDEO: Government Run Amok?

NY Times Editorial Board Says Administration Has 'Lost All Credibility' | VIDEO: McCain Says Explanation Needed

OPINION: Even New York Times Sounds Like Tea Party | OPINION: Records Grab May Be Legal, But Is It Wise?

I could say, "I told you so." But I won't

But I will say this: Thank God for the news media. I mean, this is why they exist, to operate as a check on power, to keep us informed, to make sure we are free. So this is a good reminder of why we need to make sure the corporations that own them don't dupe us or keep us in the dark.

My personal solution would be to wrestle control of the media from the corporations and give it back to the people.

And of course there are independent media organizations that cover these stories everyday, even when the mainstream media are not. Try Truthout and Common Dreams, just to name a couple!

The very definition of partisan ideology

... only this comes in the form of a "news organization."

As I write about in the book, we expect the news to be "neutral" and "objective" and to "tell both sides of the story" (even though I clearly show this is not possible and that there are almost always more than two sides to the story).

Many have written about bias in the news media. Some claim the media have a "liberal bias." Still others (like me) show the "corporate bias" in the news.

But almost no one thinks the media have a "conservative bias."

But check out the top stories on Fox News, a news organization owned and operated by prominent Republicans that still claims to be "fair and balanced" and following the motto of "We report, you decide." As of today, these are their top stories:

1) 'VERY TROUBLED': Lawmakers Rip Justice Dept. Over AP Records Grab

• AP/Reuters
• Lawmakers from both parties are sharply questioning the DOJ over its effort to secretly obtain phone records from Associated Press journalists, which one executive called an 'unprecedented intrusion' into how groups collect news.
• Justice Department Secretly Obtains Associated Press Phone Records
• VIDEO: Justice Department Makes 'Massive, Unprecedented' Intrusion on AP
• VIDEO: Feds Seize AP Phone Records

2) SUBPOENA ON HORIZON?
GOP Wants New Benghazi Testimony from Clinton

• Fact Check: Timeline Raises Questions On Obama's Libya Claims

Benghazi Emails Underscore State Department's Failure to Act

OPINION: Media Can't Ignore the IRS and Benghazi Scandals

VIDEO: More Benghazi Fallout

3)  IRS targeting went beyond Tea Party, conservatives
- Attorney for Tea Party group: IRS told me a year ago about 'secret working group'

Such stories are important to be sure. So I have no problem with them being covered in the news.

My problem is the partisan ideology behind covering them during one presidential administration while ignoring similar (and worse) stories during the previous presidential administration.

So, let's assume the worst about President Obama: A terrorist attack occurred on foreign soil (Benghazi, Libya)--a place known to be dangerous--killing four US diplomats. Let's assume he lied about it and covered it up.

Let's also assume he personally directed the Justice Department to spy on AP reporters and that he personally approved the IRS targeting of the Tea Party.

This would all be newsworthy.

But, if such stories are covered because they violate some principle deeply held by Americans, then they should be covered regardless of who engages in the behaviors. That is, shouldn't Fox News have covered such events (and worse) by the Bush Admininstration?

Like when President Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of American citizens, which had to be later approved by Congress (ex post facto) to avoid criminal prosecution.

Like when the IRS, under President Bush, targeted churches that promoted liberal messages about the coming Iraq war.

Like when President Bush approved torture, a practice that was far more widespread than he and his employees downplayed significantly.

Like when President Bush intentionally hyped and manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq war, a war that was unnecessary and illegal and that killed more Americans than the 9/11 attacks.

Oh, and like when President Bush ignored clear warnings of a forthcoming attack against the US homeland, which resulted in almost 3,000 Ameircan deaths (many more than the 4 killed in Benghazi), and then allegedly tried to cover up what he knew.

What I am saying is that I have no issue with Fox News covering the abuses of the Obama Administration. But they should not claim their stories to be based on some kind of high level principle that transcends party lines unless they covered such stories when "their guy" was in office.

Likewise, I don't blame normal citizens for being upset about abuses by President Obama. But they should not claim their concern is based on some kind of high level principle that has nothing to do with party unless they were also upset about abuses by "their guy."

In other words, if Fox and normal citizens only get upset about abuses of power when it occurs by Democrats, then what they are expressing is nothing but partisan ideology. A principled objection is stated at all times, whenever principles are violated and regardless of who violates them.

Here is an example: I wrote many letters to the editor during President Bush's time in office. I stated my objections to what I perceived to be illegal and/or wrong actions--things like targeting Americans for arrest or worse and then treating them as enemy combatants so that they have no right to trial. When Obama became President, I did not stop. In fact, I've written several letters expressing my disapproval of and serious reservations about Obama approving killing US citizens without trial. This is a principled objection based on the principle that Americans have the Constitutional right to due process, regardless of what actions of which they are accused.

Imagine if all the news organizations were like this ...

As is pointed out in the text, news organizations such as NPR and PBS (and other nonprofits) are found to do the best job at critical coverage of the powerful, what is referred to in the text as the Fourth Estate.

Recently, PBS featured a story on its Frontline program titled, "Top CIA Official: Obama Changed Virtually None of Bush’s Controversial Programs."

Here is the story with a promotion of the show:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them.” He promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror, which he criticized for compromising American values.
But FRONTLINE has learned from a former high-ranking CIA official that even before he took office, Obama’s team “signaled” they had no intention of rolling back secret programs begun under the Bush administration. In his first televised interview, for next Tuesday’s Top Secret America John Rizzo, a 34-year agency veteran described as “the most influential lawyer in CIA history,” tells FRONTLINE:

I was part of the transition briefings of the incoming Obama team, and they signaled fairly early on that the incoming president believed in a vigorous, aggressive, continuing counterterrorism effort. Although they never said it exactly, it was clear that the interrogation program was going away. We all knew that.
But his people were signaling to us, I think partly to try to assure us that they weren’t going to come in and dismantle the place, that they were going to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the Bush people.

Rizzo, who was forced to withdraw his nomination to become CIA general counsel because of controversy over his role in developing the CIA’s secret detention and interrogation policies, also told us:

With a notable exception of the enhanced interrogation program, the incoming Obama administration changed virtually nothing with respect to existing CIA programs and operations. Things continued. Authorities were continued that were originally granted by President Bush beginning shortly after 9/11. Those were all picked up, reviewed and endorsed by the Obama administration.

Look for more of our exclusive interview with Rizzo, where he talks about his role in approving enhanced interrogation techniques, and creating the CIA’s secret detention system, next week. Top Secret America airs Tuesday, Sept. 6 at 9 pm (check local listings).

So, imagine how much better of a country we' be if this type of reporting was common across all the news organizations. People would be more informed and politicians would be less likely to lie and do other devious things, even if supposedly in our collective interest.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/top-cia-official-obama-changed-virtually-none-of-bushs-controversial-programs/

Case closed

Fargin' idiots!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

When idiots determine the news

This is what we get.

On the front page of CNN.com no less:

Obama was born in the USA. Period.

It remains red meat for some critics of President Obama. But a CNN investigation confirms what most analysts have said since the "birther" controversy erupted in 2008: Obama was born in Hawaii. CNN's Gary Tuchman reports. FULL STORY

It is shocking that a group of conspiracy theorists who are a small minority of the population and who exist on the fringe, have driven this story to the front of a national news organization.

Shows you what money and power can do, because the "birthers" are not just made up of crazy right-wingers but also consist of some very powerful monied interests. Watch the film "The Billionaire's Tea Party" and you'll understand what I mean.

Your bow tie is too tight

Fox News' Tucker Carlson says:

"Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did it in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should have been executed for that. He won't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs?"

It's called a second chance, and credible media reports indicate that Obama actually called the team to discuss the team using alternative energy sources at the stadium. While on the phone he also expressed his support for Vick being given a second chance.

These people will take literally every opportunity to attack Obama, even about something this silly.

It's Obama's (drug) war now

For all the (necessary) talk about the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere), there is still this really expensive and massively failing drug war, too.

And now President Obama is the leader of it.

I have already documented elsewhere the positive changes that have happened in drug policy since Obama took office, and will say much more about that here shortly. See here: http://www.cjcj.org/files/toward_a.pdf

In the mean time, it's important to remember that, for the most part, the war wages on, mostly unchanged.

Here is a gread read about one major reason it should end -- MONEY.

From the article: "Could this be the beginning of the end of the drug war, a war that has reportedly cost more than $1 trillion in the past few decades, with little to show for it beyond millions who have been branded criminals and felons, ushered behind bars and then released into a permanent second-class status?"


http://www.thenation.com/article/156997/obamas-drug-war