Updated: 7/1/08; 9:56:50 AM.
Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog
        

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Government’s top energy forecaster: Offshore drilling won’t help at the pump..

Reuters reports that in a briefing today, Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration — the government’s “top energy forecaster” — said expanding offshore oil drilling would do little to lower gas prices:

“It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,” Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA’s new long-term international energy forecast. “It doesn’t affect prices that much.”

In 2007, the EIA also concluded that offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact” on oil prices. The remarks today come after both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President Bush endorsed plans to expand offshore oil drilling in response to record gas prices.

[Think Progress]
2:01:53 PM    comment []

Anthony Papa: Message to George Will:Racism Ignored is Justice Denied

Recently, Washington Post opinion writer, George Will, wrote a column about how racism is not a determining factor in who goes to prison in the United States. This particularly irked me.

Will's piece "More prisoners, Less Crime completely misinforms the public and purposely gives life to a pernicious theory that institutional racism does not taint the criminal justice system. What especially pisses (hat-tip to the late George Carlin) me off is how a respected journalist like Will cited politically-tinged statistics and manipulated the data to fit his worldview. He takes statistical information from a right-wing organization and manipulates it to fit his own preconceived notion that being black or Latino has nothing to do with winding up behind bars. In trying to prove his point, he cited Manhattan Institute fellow, Heather MacDonald and her article, "Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?"

This article posits that the high percentage of blacks and Latinos behind bars reflects crime rates, not bigotry. Well, I am sure that neither he nor she ever sat in a prison yard and witnessed first-hand the sea of black and brown faces locked up behind prison walls. I have. Will even denounces our future president Barack Obama's past comments that "more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities and we have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, nonviolent offenders for the better part of their lives." He then tries to negate this reality by citing more of MacDonald's argument.

George can cite all the nonsense he wants from skewed statistics in an attempt to negate the well-known fact that racism in the criminal justice system does indeed exist. African Americans and Latinos go to jail at an alarmingly disproportionate rate compared to whites. There is no denying this. This is especially true in regards to drug arrests.

The knee-jerk conclusion by some is that more black and brown people are in prison because the commit the majority of the crimes. But a closer inspection paints a vastly different picture.

According to numerous studies, including one from the Human Rights Watch African Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at 12 times the rates of white people despite similar rates of drug use. In New York, 91 percent of those incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are black or Latino.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Sentencing Commission addressed the racial impact of crack cocaine laws when they both made historic decisions to correct the racial disparities in drug sentencing.

Whether through targeted policing or ingrained racism in the judicial system which railroads defendants of color on a daily basis, institutional racism lives and thrives in the criminal justice system. It is a well-documented fact that routinely is ignored by Will and his ilk.

The longer "respected intellectuals" like George Will ignore the reality of institutional racism, the longer it will take for the problem to be addressed and resolved.


<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=eb752bd44e1bfcc811714a8e102808ab"; height="1" width="1"/> <img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=eb752bd44e1bfcc811714a8e102808ab"; style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> - Anthony Papa [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
1:55:29 PM    comment []

Robert Naiman: No Such Animal as an Israeli Attack on Iran

The Cheneyista faction in the Bush Administration and Congress is once again laboring mightily to place the idea of a U.S. attack on Iran before the Bush Administration leaves office back on the table. The American public and the Congress quite reasonably still have a very bad taste in their mouths from the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, so in recent weeks we've seen renewed Cheneyista efforts to re-package a U.S. attack on Iran as something more palatable.

In Congress, the Cheneyistas are promoting a resolution demanding that the President work to ban all gas exports to Iran, which could not be achieved without a blockade, an act of war. Such a blockade would surely provoke Iranian retaliation, providing a rationale for U.S. counter-retaliation, and who can say what the end result of that cycle of escalation would be?

And in the media, the Cheneyistas are recycling the theme that if we don't act, the Israelis will. The fatal flaw of this argument is that for all practical purposes, there is no such animal as an Israeli attack on Iran. There is no way Israel can attack Iran without U.S. approval, encouragement, and assistance, and everyone in the region knows this, so if Israel were to attack Iran, everyone in the region will assume, correctly, that the attack has been approved, encouraged, and assisted by the Bush Administration, and respond accordingly. The Iranians would surely retaliate against Israel and the U.S., and the Bush Administration would then surely retaliate against Iran; again we would be in a cycle of escalation whose outcome none can predict.

Therefore, if anyone speaks to you about an "Israeli attack on Iran," you should correct them: "you mean a U.S. attack on Iran." Because that's what they are talking about. They are talking about this:



<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=fc1ecacd7e7bdcd1abf391fc7d0b4d32"; height="1" width="1"/> <img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=fc1ecacd7e7bdcd1abf391fc7d0b4d32"; style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> - Robert Naiman [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
12:06:41 PM    comment []

Bruce Wilson: Dare To Discipline: How Obama-Critic, Focus On The Family Head James Dobson Whipped The Mini Weiner Dog Rebellion

Lately there's been a bit of a flap over Dr. James Dobson's public declaration that Barack Obama has "fruitcake ideas" about the US Constitution and church-state separation. Although he has no degree in Constitutional Law, in choosing to go head to head with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for twelve years, Dr. Dobson is at less of a disadvantage than it might seem at first. No intellectual lightweight, he is a pioneer and titan in the field of child-rearing. Dobson's blockbuster books "The Strong Willed Child", which sold over 1.75 million copies and "Dare To Discipline", which sold a whopping 3.5 million copies, have informed an entire generation of parents and empowered them with Dr. Dobson's core insight that, from a disciplinary standpoint, children are like dogs. But, Dobson's revolutionary "child-whisperer" child-rearing methods did not arise from floofy navel gazing. As described by Dr. Dobson, in "Dare To Discipline", his new theory was born in praxis and struggle, out of hard-won insights gained duiring an epic battle between Dobson and his 12 pound miniature Dachshund "Siggie" - to force the little Weiner Dog off its napping spot on a fuzzy toilet seat cover. For Dobson, the incident gave rise to a core insight into the need for parents, and society, to forcefully combat, overcome and whup those satanic urges which drive all rebellions and rebelliousness - against parental authority, against society, against President George W. Bush.

In "The Strong Willed Child" the nationally celebrated child-rearing expert and Christian family values champion James Dobson describes the titanic clash, between man and vicious, snarling miniature weiner dog - which led to Dobson's breathtaking, radical insight into core, basic behavioral similarities between human children and Dachshunds or, more generally, dogs:

"That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt."

From that description would seem that in a certain stage of the struggle the Dachshund had wrested control of the belt, to whip Dobson, but that is almost certainly a stylistic flourish on Dr. Dobson's part. The high pitch of the drama suggests the saga might be grist for a musical, even an opera, especially for the added complexity of the almost Oedipal cast of the narrative - which seems to concern what was, at base, a sexual and dominance struggle:

"The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain."

Who knows what that dog had been up to while Dobson was away ? To the those inclined toward such crude perspectives (which is to say almost anyone, at least on a subconscious level) Dachshunds are in effect mobile phallic symbols, on legs. Dr. James Dobson was thus compelled, forced to reassert his Biblical and God-given authority over wife and family, and over his suggestively elongated mini weiner dog:

"At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room [sounds like a doghouse]. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.

On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater. . ."

As any colonial power with staying power well knows, rebellions are to be put down with absolute, prejudicial brutality. In the movie "Burn!", about a Nineteenth-Century Caribbean Island slave revolt, British Colonial authorities were too timid to put down the rebellion and had to call in Marlin Brando to care of the mess. Which he did. But, by the time of the 1920's British occupation of Iraq, the British had learned better and showed the Iraqis "tough love" - by bombing and strafing Iraqi villages for non-payment of taxes. Had the British lacked such disciplinary resolve it's hard to even imagine what a mess Iraq might be in today.

As did Marlin Brando, Dr. James Dobson, faced with a similarly dire, even apocalyptic rebellion, rose to the challenge. Dobson, now head of the over $200 million dollar a year nonprofit behemoth, Focus On The Family, wisely made a tactical decision to integrate a force-multiplier (a belt that is) into his counterinsurgency battle plan:

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"

"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud."

James Dobson seems to have been concerned that his rebellious miniature Dachshund "Siggie" (short for "Sigmund Freud") might usurp Dobson's spot as head of the family and the household, and the sexual danger and threat of mini weiner dogs is legendary - as is their tenacity in battle. A relative of mine has a miniature wire-haired miniature Dachshund that obsessively fetches rocks, even fairly big ones, thrown into the pond in her backyard. I've seen firsthand how single mindedly tenacious and fierce these wee Dachshunds truly are. One wouldn't want to be on their bad side or allow them to get the upper hand - ever.

It was man against brute beast, touch and go:

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"

Dobson chose to showcase this gripping personal account in his book of child rearing advice, on how to cope with "strong-willed" children, and the saga fits perfectly - as many relevant experts, enlightened by Dobson's bold insights, have come to appreciate, Dachshunds are remarkably like human children. Both are bilaterally symmetrical chordates, mammals with four limbs and relatively large brains, both are more or less omnivorous, both are highly social and travel in packs, both engage in dominance struggles. Both respond to operant conditioning. The similarities would seem endless.

As a recent episode of 'South Park' has amply demonstrated, dog training techniques work marvelously well on troublesome children and James Dobson was an early pioneer and leader of this revolutionary, breakthrough school of child rearing:

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)"

Woof. Woof woof.

There's a religious, metaphysical component to this as well, and it is that textual, narrative richness which could lend the story to the musical/opera format - moving past the mere mechanics of human/Dachshund mortal combat and also the realm of canine/toddler psychology, Dobson brings the discussion into the realm of deep metaphysical, theological inquiry:

"Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of 'original sin' which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster."

As with the invention of the wheel, or fire, or the principles of geometry and basic math, many revolutionary human breakthrough discoveries seem transparently obvious in retrospect such that all look back, in astonishment, with the same question: "Why didn't I think of that ?"

But, no one had grasped it before James Dobson and the insight may well place Dr. Dobson in the pantheon of greats such as Einstein, Fermi, Leonardo, Tesla, Madam Curie and other such pioneers of human inquiry. Dobson's hypothesis, ventured in "The Strong Willed Child", places blame for human conflict, wars and strife, historical evils of all sorts, stemming from the breakdown of the core human social institution, the family, squarely where it truly belongs: on toddlers.

Dr. James Dobson's epiphany, his satori was the realization that because the family is the most basic, irreducible element and building block of the human social order, the very genesis of evil in human family life, the original sin, the first taint, has to therefore originate in the blasphemous refusal of very young children to toe the line and obey parental authority. That is why it is of such paramount importance to beat such inclinations out of children - with each and every mother and father who choose to mollycoddle their children rather than practice the discipline of tough love, the very social order and fate of the world as we know it are put at risk.

For James Dobson and a growing cadre of supporters armed with Dobson's breakthrough theory and insight, the only sane approach parents can take towards childhood rebellion is to beat it out of them. Otherwise chaos, socialism and Satan will prevail.

In truth it's the moral duty, the obligation of Christian parents who take their faith seriously, unlike those alleged Christians who merely mumble the tenets of their faith during their sporadic Sunday forays to degenerate liberal church services rife with pagan ritual and coded Satanic-sexual symbolism, to break the will of their children to resist and rebel much like torturers break the wills of prisoners to resist and rebel - in the end, it's for their own, and society's, best interest. The enterprise is, in a very real sense, the project of chasing out the devil, demonic spirits that otherwise can infest children and lead them into ruin, into future lives corrupted with iniquity and sin, drug and alcohol abuse, gayness and liberal political opinions, feminazi bigotry and eco-terrorism, into apartments in New York or San Fransisco and the wearing of sexually suggestive or sexually ambiguous clothing, into the consumption of tofu and tempeh rather than proper sirloin, proper bacon, into seductive lifestyles leading inexorably to eternal torment in the flaming pits of Hell.

That cosmic battle of Good versus Evil, writ small, is one in which one party alone, you the parents, must come out on top; so give no quarter; crush their resistance! - if you don't they'll take over and through them Satan will rule. The family, society even, will break down and devolve into a Hobbesian war of all against all. Chaos will rule. Cannibalism and Buddhism will flourish, as will gay marriage. Teletubbies will proliferate on Television and gays in Black Helicopters will swoop down to seize our guns, take our property, sodomize us and teach our women and wives to talk back to our authority. . .

So, Dr. James Dobson had to conquer the little weiner dog. Thus was The Family, and perhaps even Christianity itself, saved on that day.


<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=7210b3891c6446d99ade8215bf8bd513";><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=7210b3891c6446d99ade8215bf8bd513";/> <img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=7210b3891c6446d99ade8215bf8bd513"; style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> - Bruce Wilson [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
11:14:12 AM    comment []

Gitmo Detainee’s Lawyer ‘Not Allowed To Tell Him’ He’s No Longer An ‘Enemy Combatant’.

Nearly two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees held at Guant[radical]°namo Bay have the right to habeas corpus and can thus challenge their detention in civilian courts, a U.S. Court of Appeals dealt another blow to the Bush administration’s detention policy.

The appeals court ruled that the Pentagon improperly designated Huzaifa Parhat, an ethnic Uighur Chinese national, an “enemy combatant” after being swept up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan in 2001 and then sent to Guant[radical]°namo Bay, where he has been held since.

Despite the ruling, Parhat has yet to see any of its benefits. In fact, he doesn’t even know about it. Parhat’s lawyer told CBC radio’s As It Happens last night that Parhat is currently being held in solitary confinement and “has no idea” the appeals court ruled in his favor because, he added, “I’m not allowed to tell him”:

DEREK STOFFEL, CBC HOST: Mr. Willett, what’s your client’s reaction to this ruling?

SABIN WILLETT (PARHAT’S LAWYER): Boy what a great question that is because my client doesn’t know about this ruling because I’m not allowed to tell him. […] He’s sitting in solitary confinement today. He has no idea what’s happened as far as I know.

Listen here:

Indeed, it is unclear what the appeals court’s ruling actually means for Parhat. The New York Times noted that the U.S. “said it will not return Uighur detainees to China because of concerns about their treatment at the hands of the Chinese government, which views them as terrorists.” Thus, as another one of Parhat’s lawyers noted, the “court victory may not mean freedom for him.”

For now, Willett said that “we’re going to file a motion with a judge to order them to let us call him on the phone and take him out of solitary confinement.” He added, “We’ve got a man in solitary confinement that they’ve got no authority to hold at all. Its unbelievable.”

Transcript: (more…)

[Think Progress]
10:47:45 AM    comment []

What Your Doctor Really Thinks

I was told in school to put a patient in a gown when he isn't listening or cooperating. It casts him in a position of subservience.
--Chiropractor, Atlanta

Thank you for bringing in a sample of your (stool, urine, etc.) from home. I'll put it in my personal collection of things that really gross me out.
--Douglas Farrago, MD, editor, Placebo Journal


<a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=5c053fa2c58b21598aafb87cb2f6ecf1";><img alt="" style="border: 0;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?s=5c053fa2c58b21598aafb87cb2f6ecf1";/> <img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=5c053fa2c58b21598aafb87cb2f6ecf1"; style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> - The Huffington Post News Editors [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:34:31 AM    comment []

Robert Greenwald: Lieberman Must Go!

Joe Lieberman is a war hawk, plain and simple. He staunchly supports George Bush's War in Iraq and John McCain's plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years. But Lieberman's new alliance with the Republican Party runs even deeper. He has endorsed and stumped for McCain, wants to be the star of the Republican National Convention, and has even served on a 527 group that smeared Barack Obama with a nasty attack ad.

And yet Lieberman still holds a top rank within the Senate Democratic Caucus as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Senate Democratic Steering Committee needs to know just how much of a conflict of interest this is. That's why we created Lieberman Must Go.

Here's what you can do: Sign our petition today and tell the Senate Democratic Steering Committee to strip Lieberman of his leadership role in Congress. Then, e-mail this video to everyone you know and spread it on sites like Digg and elsewhere.

Recently in Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall suggested that the best way to limit Lieberman is by encouraging the Steering Committee to render him powerless in 2009. Lieberman must go, and you can make that happen by donating to Brave New Films today.


<img alt="" style="border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;" border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=8a6b8bfc1044dbc4e2f97334ed9e9c68"; height="1" width="1"/> <img src="http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=8a6b8bfc1044dbc4e2f97334ed9e9c68"; style="display: none;" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> - Robert Greenwald [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
10:33:30 AM    comment []

Rove Rips NYT For Outing CIA Agentâo[dot accent]s Identity And ‘Putting Our Country At Risk’.

On Sunday, the New York Times published an extensive article examining the CIA’s interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM). The article identified the name of the CIA agent who interrogated KSM, Deuce Martinez.

Yesterday, on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove slammed the New York Times for supposedly leaking the name of a CIA agent. “[T]hey’ve got a very callous view about our nation’s security and interests,” Rove charged:

ROVE: Well, I read their explanation. And basically, it sounded to me like they were saying we put his name out there because we decided we could. And I mean, they didn[base ']Äôt have a good explanation for it.

Rove claimed the United States is put at risk when a CIA agent’s identity is leaked. “Look, they put our country at risk when they reveal the details of a program that saved America from attacks.” Watch it:

How ironic that Karl Rove says that the country is put “at risk” when a CIA agent’s name is exposed. A quick recap of Rove’s role in leaking undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity for political retribution:

– Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper said, “Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame[base ']Äôs identity on July 11, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson [Plame[base ']Äôs husband] was in the news that week. I didn[base ']Äôt know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove.”

– A week prior to publishing his column which outed Plame, Robert Novak spoke with Rove. Novak brought up Plame[base ']Äôs role at the CIA, and Rove confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA: [base ']ÄúI heard that too,[base ']Äù said Rove.

In an addendum to the article, the Times explained its rationale: “Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and…others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books.”

As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan said recently, Rove is “pretty disingenuous” when he talks about the CIA leak scandal.

Transcript: (more…)

[Think Progress]
10:31:00 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Patricia Thurston.
 
June 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
May   Jul


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.