originally posted at Daily Kos

We will look back on the Bush years and find it incredible, and disgraceful, that individuals were captured in battle or “purchased” from self-interested tribal warlords, whisked to Guantanamo, classified as “enemy combatants” but not accorded the rights that that status should have accorded them, held for years without charges — and denied the right to prove that they were victims of mistaken identity and never should have been taken into custody.

Today Eugune Robinson offers us After the Torture Era.   It is, as is usually the case with Robinson, a well-written, even powerful, column on a subject of great importance.  But after reading the entire piece, which I suggest you do, I found myself return to the paragraph I have quoted and find myself disagreeing -  I won’t have to look back, and do not find it incredible, because many of us realized early on that there were problems inherent in the Bush administration’s approach to the so-called “Great War on Terror.”  

I will explore Robinson’s column, but this posting will more be my own thoughts.
Robinson begins by quoting the remarks Obama made on “60 Minutes,”, that he will close Guantanamo and that America does not condone torture.  Robinson notes pointedly that

it has been easy to lose sight of the terrorism-related “issues” that defined George W. Bush’s presidency and robbed America of so much honor, stature and goodwill.

 Easy for whom?  I cannot think of a time since the first intimations of what this administration has been doing were available that I have lost sight of such “issues.”  I know people like those at the Center for Constitutional Rights have never had it out of their minds.  

Robinson writes

I put the word issues in quotation marks because torture can never be a matter of debate. Yet the Bush administration sought to numb Americans to what has traditionally been seen as a clear moral and legal imperative: the requirement that individuals taken into custody by our government be treated fairly and humanely.

Yes, the Bushites sought to numb us.   They have since the very beginning to move us away from any commitment to basic human rights.  They lied, they obfuscated, they rushed through legislation that stripped away not only the rights of those accused of heinous acts, but all of us in the name of protecting us.  If the basic rights of Americans could be restricted in the name of providing security in a horrid piece of legislation mislabled the USA PATRIOT Act, where if at all would the line ever be drawn restricting the executive from doing anything it chose?

If things like the so-called Bybee memo (actually written by John Yoo) could be released and those responsible not immediately removed from office by the Congress of the United States as violating their oaths of office, what restriction is there on executive power?

If members of the Congress could look at the many pictures sent to authorities by Joseph Darby and been willing to accept the absurd contention that it was just people in one rogue unit, and not hold responsible the General Geoffrey Millers, the Assistant Secretaries Steve Cambone, the SecDef Donald Rumsfeld who as highers up in the chain of command at a minimum created the environment in which such actions occurred and under the doctrine of command responsibility were responsible for the actions of all subordinates - if they could be so willfully blind, are not they in part also culpable?   In refusing to release the pictures to all of us so we could see what was done, ostensibly in our name, did they deny us what we needed to know to do what we could to throw out of office anyone tainted by this stain on our honor?  Did they deny us the right to exercise our constitutional powers through the ballot box?

Robinson writes of a new report from Cal Berkeley. It may be interesting, but I do not think it really informs us of anything we did not already know - that the mistreatment began before the men got to Guantanamo, that many were innocent of anything except being people Afghan warlords could grab and sell to the Americans for bounties -  and think of the distortion that approach has created.  

Robinson continues with his theme of how we will look back:  

Years from now, we will be shocked to see those pictures of naked prisoners being humiliated and abused at Abu Ghraib — and we will be ashamed of a U.S. government that punished low-level troops for their sadism but exonerated the higher-ups who made such sadism possible.

Years from now, we will know the full truth of the clandestine, CIA-run prisons where “high-value” terrorism suspects were interrogated with techniques, including waterboarding, that both civilized norms and international law have long defined as torture. From what we already know, it’s hard to say which is more appalling — the torture itself or the tortured legal rationalizations that Bush administration lawyers came up with to “justify” making barbarity the official policy of the U.S. government.

Here again I find myself in disagreement.  We will not need to wait for years -  we are, or already, should be shocked.  And the full truth, including all pictures, executive orders, documentation, needs to be released immediately, as soon as the new administration takes over, lest there be those tempted to cover up and then perhaps themselves slide down the slippery slope of self-justification in the name of security.

Even we do not completely disclose, then maybe some of the words from the following quote will prove more applicable than we might want to admit:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because, deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.  Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled.

You don’t want the truth because, deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.    That is part of what this administration tried to convince us . . .  that we wanted them to be Nathan Jessup overseeing the fence-line at Gitmo.  

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you” and went on your way.   The current administration will argue - already has argued - that its actions, even if over the top, were appropriate steps taken to fulfill the president’s responsibility to keep the American people safe.

But the president does not swear an oath about the safety of the American people, but rather one in which he commits that he

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

     The Constitution, which if abandoned or abrogated undermines the very existence of the nation which this administration attempts to argue it is defending.  Are we back to Vietnam, that in order to save the village we had to destroy it?

TORTURE   that is the single word of my title.  And that is key.  As is the idea of the slippery slope.  When we begin to justify restricting rights guaranteed in the Constitution, when do we stop?  When we promulgate a doctrine that a president in the time of war can do anything he deems necessary to keep the nation secure, how is that chief executive still constitutionally restricted, other than a tyrant, at least in potential?  

Think of all we already know.   Unitary executive.  ”Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib.  John Walker Lindh denied counsel and kept naked in a shipping container.  USA PATRIOT Act.  The attempt at PATRIOT ACT II.  No Fly lists that are difficult if not impossible to challenge. Taking prisoners, cutting off all their clothes, using anal suppositories to sedate them, and entombing (yes, I use that word deliberately) in a cocoon of sensory deprivation -  and this is just to transport them to where the real torture will begin.  Waterboarding.  Threatening to rape one’s children.  Transporting children to Guantanamo and imprisoning them with no rights, no trial.  Allowing rapes of prisoners for whom we were responsible, male and female.  

If you are not already disgusted, why not?  Because they are “other” in some fashion, not like you and me?   Are you sure?  Perhaps if the administration decides you or I represent threats it will assert - as it already has - that our status as American citizens does not protect us from similar violations - of our persons as well as our rights.

Torture -  is it not the logical end at which we will arrive when we beginning loosening the strictures our Constitution deliberately places upon our government>  If we begin to justify unconstitutional actions, is there any line beyond which we can not go?

Here I think of words offered in a different context, in a different war.  The issue then was mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and the conflict was World War II.  I think one part of Robert Jackson’s opinion declaring such mandatory exercises unconstitutional is helpful in understanding the issue about which I am writing.  Let me offer only these words from that opinion:

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent.

Jackson is writing about something very basic - freedom of expression, the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Right prohibits forcing consent.  And if we have government of the people, the actions that government does, any action, must be within the consent granted by the American people.  And if we are denied the full facts, we cannot give informed consent.

We sit as judge and jury of our government officials each time we vote.  And in a court of law proper verdicts cannot be rendered absent complete information.  The Nathan Jessups -  and George Bushs and Donald Rumsfelds and Dick Cheneys and David Addingtons - are wrong.  We can handle the truth.   We do need to know what is done in our name.

Because if we do not insist upon knowing, if we willingly avert our eyes from the pictures of Abu Grhaib, if we accept the words of those in power that the images are too horrible for us to see, what then is there to shock our consciences into protesting, how are we going to insist that such things cease, that all responsible, no matter how high their positions, be held accountable?

I wish torture on no person.  Yet I cannot help but wonder how mind might be changed were we to watch as officials of some superior power (not, I did not say authority) came and grabbed, say Alberto Gonzales or David Addington or Jay Bybee or John Yoo, cut off all their clothes, placed a suppository sedative, and wrapped them in a sensory depriving cocoon, transported them to a distant place, and then waterboarded them.   Would we be shocked because we could see it?  Because they were well-educated?  Because they were not Arab or Muslim?  

If we were not shocked, then we have lost our own moral compass.

And if we can be shocked by such treatment of them, why are we not shocked, outraged, at such treatment of anyone?

If we accept the first denial of rights - to anyone, however loathsome we may believe them to be - then where do we draw the line?  At what point are we going to be willing, or able, to say “stop!”???  Or we have become so willfully blind and ignorant that we will be unable to speak, or no longer aware of what is being done?

Torture is wrong.  Except for the very few who argue about ticking bomb scenarios, we all espouse that simple principle.  But what happens with too many is that we begin to rationalize - we argue that something is not torture because it does not pose an imminent threat of death or organ failure.  But what about the loss of soul, of psyche, of trust if returned to one’s own community?  

In his final paragraph, Robinson writes

The new Obama administration has a duty to conduct its own investigation and tell us exactly what was done in our name. Realistically, some facts are going to be redacted. Realistically, some officials who may deserve to face criminal charges will not. But to restore our national honor and heal our national soul, we at least need to know.

Here again I disagree.  If we allow redaction of the facts, then we again start down that slippery slope.  What has been done is so horrible that it needs to be completely exposed, so that no future official, high or petty, will ever again be tempted to such abuses and rationalizations in the belief that his misdeeds may remain covered by secrecy in the name of national security.

I am a fierce defender, even an absolutist, on the notion of protecting individual rights.  That applies to those I find most loathsome.  And in that category I put many current and former officials of the Bush administration.

Let them face charges - in open courts, with all the rights that they have denied to others.  Let us begin to restore the idea that our government and its officials cannot abrograte on their own the strictures placed upon them  by We the people of the United States through our establishing document.

For if we do not so insist, if this too is allowed to go undisclosed in full, then the Nathan Jessups will have been proven right.

And there will be no point beyond which we will not be willing to go, or have gone in our name.

Torture -  one word.  We can not deny it was done, and is probably still being done.  We should have known that it was a logical outcome of the first steps at restricting liberty in the Patriot Act, in secret executive orders, in a Congress too willing to abandon its responsibilities of oversight on our behalf, and of a judiciary willing complicit in the unconstitutional expansion of executive authority.

If we do not now, once and for all, make clear how unacceptable this is, then we too become complicit.  In what?

Torture

Continue reading " Torture "

this is a slightly modified version of something posted at Daily Kos.  It does have a Virginia connection, which is why it is crossposted here

I am not going to offer many words of my own.  The sole purpose of this diary is to call your attention to a story about an event that should shock and motivate us all.

The cover story in today’s Washington Post Magazine is about an annual event in far SW Virginia, in Wise, home turf of our own “va dare.”.  It is entitled Hidden Hurt, and is subtitled “Desperate for medical care, the uninsured flock by the hundreds to a remote corner of Virginia for the chance to see a doctor.”  Let me offer the beginning:

Pain hides in these green mountains. Diseased hearts and clouded lungs, aching teeth and anxious minds.

But for three days a year, more than 800 volunteer doctors, dentists, nurses and other health-care workers come from all over Virginia and beyond to this isolated place in Appalachia to provide free medical care to those who cannot afford it. Sick and hurting people by the hundreds gather and wait for the gates of the Wise County Fairgrounds to swing open — their presence a testament to the country’s health-care crisis.

PLEASE KEEP READING
Some of you know that I am participating in a Political Leaders Program through the Sorensen Institute at the University of Virginia.  Our cohort comes from all over the Commonwealth, and we are a diverse group politically:  Dems, Independents, and Repubs.  This weekend we were in the Southwestern portion of the state, finishing up in Roanoke.  In this our penultimate get-together, we organized our class, election a class president and deciding about a class gift.  

But we did more.  Led by two of our members who participated in this event in Wise this summer, we committed as a class - all of us - to get together for a reunion volunteering for this event next summer.  

I am honored to be a part of a group of people willing to make such a commitment.  I am also chagrined that something like this is still necessary in this nation, a nation with untold riches so inequitably distributed that some cane spend thousands on vanity cosmetic surgery while others lack access to even the basic medical services.  

Even those who have access to health care find how limited it can be.  We do not yet provide parity for mental health, and in our discussions about health care we usually totally ignore dental health. We shouldn’t - remember  Deamonte Driver?  If you don’t, take a few moments to read For Want of a Dentist - the Washington Post story which raised this issue to national attention.  It begins simply enough:

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren’t so hard to find.

If his mother hadn’t been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte’s own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George’s County boy died.

As we were deciding to make our commitment yesterday, the class member who works on health care issues for the Kaine administration told us about a woman who flew across the country on her brother’s frequent flier miles, hitchhiked from Bristol (the nearest airport) to Wise to get all her teeth extracted, but then had no way to get home.  Untreated dental disease can not only lead to infections like that which killed Deamonte Driver, it can also lead to fatal heart disease.  

The Post Magazine article will tell you about Stan Brock, the former star of Mutual of Omaha’s “Wild Kingdom,” who organized RAMVC.  This event, a day’s drive from our nation’s Capitol, provides a bright light shining on the unmet needs of so many of our people.

Let me quote about Brock, and about this event:

Now in his 70s, Brock gained fame four decades ago as the anaconda-wrestling co-star of the popular television series “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.” But he has spent the last 23 years flying to some of the poorest places on the planet, bringing free medical care to those who desperately need it. And people rely on that care in rural Virginia, just a day’s drive from the U.S. Capitol, he says, just as much as they do in Africa or Latin America.

“The need is massive,” Brock says. “We pick up everything from brain tumors to lung cancer to cervical cancer to breast cancer.”

Brock takes great pride in the economy and efficiency of the Wise clinic, which costs just $26,000 this year because the doctors, dentists, optometrists, nurses and other workers donate their time. But even as the clinic saves lives and alleviates suffering, Brock knows it amounts to slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. There are approximately 47 million Americans who lack health insurance and another 25 million who are underinsured, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that supports research on health-care issues. Hospitals on county fairgrounds, Brock says, are not the answer.

slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping wound

think of the lives cut short or limited because of lack of basic health care.  Then please, explain to me how can place political ideology above the lives of these people, our fellow humans.  How can one argue that one is Christian or Jewish and ignore the words in Matthew 25 about the least of these or the commands in Tora about justice and leaving the corners of the field?  Hell, how can one be a sentient creature and not an unfeeling stone and not recognize that there are few needs more immediate than people in medical need, in crisis.

Obama did poorly in Appalachia, but this is not a partisan issues.  Consider this:

Because he lives in Tennessee, Brock has become increasingly focused on the plight of the poor in his own back yard — Appalachia — where many people in places such as Wise County go for years without seeing a doctor or dentist.

This is coal country, with an economy that has ridden a boom-and-bust cycle from the arrival of the railroads in the 1880s to the passage of the Clean Air Act almost a century later. The richest seams of coal have dwindled, and many of the remaining jobs have been replaced by mechanization. According to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the poverty rate in Wise County is 19.2 percent — more than twice that of the rest of Virginia. The per capita income is only about $14,000 a year.

And then consider the work of Sister Bernadette Kenny, a nun from the Medical Missionaries of St. Mary, a registered nurse whose mobile Health Wagon goes into the hollows and “treats more than 2,400 people a year with funding from private foundations and patient donations” -  

It was Kenny and a fellow Health Wagon nurse, Teresa Gardner, who persuaded Brock to bring his volunteer medical corps to Wise after helping him at a clinic in Tennessee in 2000. They told him how badly their patients needed access to specialists, dentists and eye doctors. From the early 1980s to 2000, the Harvard School of Public Health has found, life expectancies in Appalachia have dropped for both sexes.

In Wise County, “there are patients literally dying of diabetes,” says Gardner. The specialists who can help them are a two-hour drive away in Kingsport, Tenn., she says, “if you have insurance.”

a two-hour drive away

if you have insurance

I am not going to quote further.  I am going to urge you to take the time to read the Post article, to look at the video and pictures, and to pass this on as widely as possible.

We face many problems in this nation.  But no matter how great the problems before us, allowing so many people to wither and die young because they lack access to meet their basic medical needs is shameful and unacceptable.  It is why our entire approach to the funding and distribution of medical services needs to be rethought.

But we cannot wait for a total redesign or people will continue to suffer, there will be more Deamonte Drivers in our metropolitan areas, and far too many in the remote corners where their stories so often do not get told, where because they are out of sight their needs seem always to be ignored, as they are themselves marginalized except when some politician wants their votes or some movie maker want to portray them as backwards and somehow lesser than the rest of us, those of us who might be classified as “fortunate sons” and daughters.

There are many diaries here that are far better written than is this.  But I at least have never written about anything more important.  That is why I am sending out the link to this diary to as many people as I can.  I want the Post story as widely visible as possible.  If the best way I can help accomplish that is to promote this diary, so be it.

But it is not about this diary, and certainly it is not about me.  it is about our fellow Americans, and it is most assuredly about us.

Hubert Humphrey once laid down an important marker, which I often find relevant to repeat.  I believe it applicable here:  

It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

It is moral test not only of a government, but in a democracy of the people and society whom that government purports to represent.

We are now in a celebratory mood about the election.  In no way do I seek to dampen our enthusiasm.  But our celebrations should not keep us blind from the abject conditions to which so many of our fellow Americans are subject.  

Please, do what you can to help bring attention - and more - to this issue, to the needs of the people in places like Wise and elsewhere.

And perhaps then, my final salutation will be appropriate.

Peace.

UPDATE  - it was suggested in the comments at Daily Kos that I provide contact info, so here is the link for Remote Area Medical

And for those into Digg links

for this original Post story

Peace.

 

Continue reading " This may break your heart - and it should "

the results are in for Dixville Notch, and Obama won, 15-6.  

To put this in context, here are some previous general election results

1960 Nixon 9   Kennedy 0

1984 Reagan 29  Mondale 1

1988 Bush 34  Dukakis 3  Kemp 1

1992 Bush 15   Perot 8  Marrou 5  Clinton 2

1996  Dole 18  Clinton 8  Perot 1  Browne 1

2000  Bush 21   Gore 5  Nader 1

2004  Bush 19   Kerry 7

2008  Obama 15  McCain 6

We are ahead!

Continue reading " OBAMA IS AHEAD - OFFICIALLY "

And note what he says “it’s gonna be a bad night for John McCain”

(h/t TPM)

Continue reading " Roger Simon on MSNBC - why GOTV matters "

In what he calls THE LAST WORD–ALMOST, his penultimate prediction for the year, Virginia pundit Larry Sabato offers a presidential map in which Obama carries all Kerry states, as well as NM, CO, IA, FL, OH, MO, NV, NC and VA.  

He calls the Senate as +7-8.the House +26-35, and Governorships 0 or +1.

The link above will provide all the details. And he promises for his final prediction on Monday to revisit presidentially the states of AZ, FL, IN, MO, GA, MT, NV, NC, ND, OH, and VA.  

Imagine the worst - McCain takes every one of states above.  Obama still wins, 273-265.  In other words, all Kerry states including PA are safe, and IA, NM and CO are done deals.

Now imagine the best - adding AZ, IN, GA, MT, ND -  that would take Obama to 406.

Peace.

Continue reading " Sabato calls election for Obama 364-174 "

here it is, courtesy of  The New Yorker:

and let me remind you of some words spoken a bit more than four years ago, two snips here, the context below the fold

We worship an awesome God in the blue states

and most of all:

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Continue reading " Colin Powell mentioned a picture in his endorsement "

As I listened to Sen. McCain in that clip above I could not but think of the words of Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy:

You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

McCain has been destroying whatever credibility he had first by picking Palin, then by claiming she was qualified, an expert on energy, and all that.  

By now, even in his desperation, he should know he has little or no chance of winning, and that his tactics therefore merely damage the country he claims to love.  

So let me say again, to him, what Welch said to McCarthy:

You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Continue reading " … no sense of decency . . . "

for the first time in its history.  Col McCormick might come up out of his grave.

The endorsement is entitled Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president and went up at about 3:30 EDT.  

From the endorsement:

On Nov. 4 we’re going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

Yes, Obama is the home-town candidate.  And as the editorial notes,

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

  So in it sense it should not b earthshattering that they endorsed Obama.

Still, the endorsement is not only precedent setting, given the editorial history of the paper;  it is also powerful.

Consider:

We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

and also consider this:  

In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics

And consider this about McCain, whom they endorsed in the primary:

t is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush’s tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Read that again:McCain put his campaign before his country.

I urge you to read the entire editorial, and to pass it on to everyone.  Let me end as they do, knowing I am pushing fair use:

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren’t a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

WOW!

Continue reading " Hell freezes over - Chicago Tribune endorses Democrat for President "

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling that the Federal law requires the state to file any actions under the applicable Federal law. Thus, the Ohio Republican party lacked standing to file the suit which had resulted in the en banc ruling by the 6th Circuit requiring Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to set up BY TODAY an automated verification system that would have affected about 200,000 of the 660,000 new registrations in Ohio.  Brunner has argued that most of the discrepancies detected are probably the result of clerical error -  like that, say, of “Joe the Plumber,” whose name is wrong on his (Republican) voter records.

This probably locks down Ohio, and thus the election.

For details:  here are some links:

MSNBC

AP story on Yahoo

SCOTUS Blog

Peace.

Continue reading " SCOTUS rules for Dems in Ohio registrations dispute "

The video below was put together in response to the famous music video “Yes we can” by Will-i-am.  This was produced by Peggy Seegar, and a mutual friend passed it on to me.  Enjoy.

Continue reading " “Obama is the One for Me” "

Wait until it loads.  Watch McCain carefully, and listen.

Will the traditional media pick up on this clear example of how bad McCain’s temperament really is?  

Or should we simply say that McCain claiming he is prepared to be president is best described by the word he used:   “Horses#&t”  ??

Continue reading " So McCain thinks it is okay to curse on national tv? "

over the economy.  The full text of the proposed legislation is available on several websites, such as this

Let me offer several key snips:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

From Section 02:

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

    The current debt ceiling is, IIRC, several hundred billion below TEN trillion.   We are going to in a rush bill give the SecTreasury the sole authority for hundreds of billions more of indebtedness? With no oversight?  

Did the administration have this sitting on the shelf for yet another power grab, as they did USA Patriot Act?  Is this the next step in America’s equivalent of Hitler’s Enabling Act?

Read the bill. Contact Senators and House members and urge them NOT to be panicked into approving this horrible piece of proposed legislation.

Continue reading " Bush administration seeking dictatorial power "

Kagro X has a frontpage story up at the Great Orange Satan entitled “She just looooooves to lie!”, in which he quotes the following from an ABC news story:

   An internal government document obtained by ABC News appears to contradict Sarah Palin’s most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety chief, the move which prompted the now-contested state probe into “Troopergate.”

   Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a “rogue mentality” and was bucking her administration’s directives.

   ”The last straw,” her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

   The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin’s legal filing. “Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.,” the release stated.

   But the governor’s staff authorized the trip, according to an internal travel document from the Department of Public Safety, released Friday in response to an open records request.

please note

1) she made the claim in a legal filing, and put out a press release about it

2) official documents show her statement was untrue

Therefore, either she lied to the attorney who made the filing, which is unconscionable, or else the lawyer as an officer of the court may have just committed an offense for which he can be disbarred, knowingly filing a false legal document with the court.

In  either case, it sounds like the McBush-Quaylin ticket continues to make things ever worse for themselves.

Could this be the death of Rico Palin?

Continue reading " Might this be the death of Palin? "

is the title David Ignatius, formerly foreign editor and now co-host of PostGlobal for the Washington Post (and thus a significant member of The Village) has on his op-ed column today. Or if you prefer, one can consider how the column it titled when one goes to the online page for opinion, wherein one reads “So Much for McCain’s Principles.”  This is a column that is likely to be influential in shaping the view of others in The Village, not only because of Ignatius’s acknowledged expertise in matters of foreign relations and his many awards (he won the 2000 Gerald Loeb Award for Commentary, a 2005 Edward Weintal Special Citation, and the 1984 Edward Weintal Prize for Diplomatic Reporting) and his many important positions (including editing Outlook and the Business section for the Post, serving as Assistant Managing Editor for business news, and as executive editor of the Paris-based International Heradl Tribune), but because it frames things in terms of clearly understanding John McCain and the world from which he comes.
Consider how Ignatius starts.  He tells that in the military culture from which McCain derives so much of his valued, the most important responsibility is what promotion boards do in selecting people for command,writing

It’s a sacred trust in McCain’s world, because people’s lives are at stake.

He quotes McCain in his memoir that the officer’s responsibility for subordinates is that

“He does not risk their lives and welfare for his sake, but only to answer the shared duty they are called to answer.”

  Ignatius then turns to McCain’s most important command decision, his selection of Palin as his running mate, and after some brief words about how puzzling it is and how she is “unprepared by experience or interest” to assume the presidency, sticks in the knife:

No promotion board in history would have made such a decision.

Ignatius uses this decision as a lens to determine what we as a result now know about McCain.  He writes:

McCain is 72, and he has had a serious bout with a virulent form of cancer. Thus, he had a special responsibility to pick a running mate who could be, in effect, a deputy commander — someone who could take over for him if his health should fail. The country is at war, as McCain so often reminds us, and he was picking someone who might be responsible for the security of the nation.

 Please note those words he had a special responsibility given his health history and his age.

Ignatius refers to McCain’s history as a maverick, willing on occasion to challenge party Orthodoxy, and notes issues like ethics and the environment for which he has cared deeply.  But then, in the middle of the column, comes one paragraph that provides a explanation for a choice that in many ways defies logic:

But John McCain also likes to win. And he has an impulsive streak, sometimes bordering on recklessness, which is described by many of his friends and by McCain himself in his memoir, “Faith of My Fathers.” The desire to win, and the impulsiveness, converged in his decision to pick Palin — a bold move that has allowed McCain to regain his maverick identity.

Consider the multiple dimensions.  Impulsive bordering on reckless:  we know McCain likes to play craps, not poker.  Craps is a game that is strictly one of chance.  There is no opponent to scrutinize nor meaningful odds on the remaining cards as there is in poker.  He also likes to win, as do most who enter politics or other competitive endeavors.  But for most people there is a price they are not willing to pay.

I note that McCain has tried to convince the electorate that he’d rather lose an election and win the war.  Like many statements made by his campaign this cycle, that is not quite accurate.  He absolutely wants to win the election, and his actions have demonstrated that there is almost no price he is unwilling to pay in pursuit of that victory.  And he is also very stubborn, as is the man he seeks to succeed, so that, having made an impulsive decision, he will almost recklessly refuse to consider a change of course.

Ignatius is in as good a position as any commentator in the traditional media to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the top executive positions.  He notes of Palin her lack of experience and knowledge, and writes

no military leader would entrust command to someone so inexperienced or unprepared

and continues by noting that her performance with Gibson did little to allay concerns.  He constrasts this with Obama by noting that the Democrat has been subject to intense public scrutiny for four years and his selection of a genuine foreign policy expert, Joe Biden, as his running mate.  He looks forward to a vice-presidential debate in which, at least, now, Palin “seems a genuinely risky bet.”

IT is not just this choice that bothers Ignatius.  He uses the choice as an occasion to examine some other recent moves McCain has made in pursuit of the presidency.  For example, he notes McCain’s flip on the Bush tax cuts, then asks

Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?

  Using McCain’s greatest legislative achievement, campaign finance reform, he reminds us that McCain told Rick Warren of the four justices whom he would not have appointed (even though those paying attention note that he voted for confirmation for the three who came up during his tenure in the Senate).  Ignatius then writes

It happens that those are four of the five justices who voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold law.

Let me offer the end of the column, perhaps pushing fair use just a bit, then perhaps offer a few additional thoughts.  

In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. “I don’t want it that badly,” McCain answered. “I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can’t get the Republican nomination, fine. I’ve had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil.”

He was right.

That is, John McCain is in the eyes of David Ignatius, selling his soul to the devil.

I am reminded of John Kennedy’s inaugural address.  Kennedy took office as a liberal cold-warrior.  And until we had survived the Cuban Missile Crisis he perhaps did not realize the logical endpoint of a cold-war mentality.  Still, besides his words about the torch being passed to a new generation, perhaps the most cited words from that speech are these

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge — and more.

Even as he spoke those words in January of 1961, Kennedy was looking beyond himself and his role as president, to a broader vision of the world, one which included the Peace Corps, so important in raising the opinions of many around the world about this powerful nation in which we live.  Shortly after what I have quoted we saw the impact of the vision they contain, when he addressed people who lived in huts and villages and sought to escape mass misery:

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

I contrast those words, and their intent, with what I see from John McCain, who by his actions and those of his campaign has made clear that he is prepared to say any lie, distort any fact, kowtow to any special interest he previously opposed to ensure the survival and success of his campaign to become president.  And it gets worse than that.  Kennedy offered, as I have noted, a vision of where he wanted to take the country and the world.  McCain offers rhetoric about how he knows how to win wars.  Really?  Did we win Vietnam, the one war in which he participated?  Does he know how to “win” a war that his favorite General David Petraeus has made clear cannot be “won” in any conventional sense?  Does McCain have any reason for wanting to be president beyond wanting to be president?   If so, I have yet to hear it.  He claims to want to break the influence of special interests, so he populates the upper levels of his campaign with their representatives, the lobbyists.  At that is but one example that could be cited of how his campaign gives the lie to any vision he might purport to claim as the purpose of his running.

Perhaps that is why he is so ready to abandon anything that previously might have truly marked him as somewhat independent from the special interests of the Republican coalition.  

I have never viewed McCain as being presidential.  For too much of his public career I have seen a man whose temperament is such that it is downright scary to think that he might have his finger on the button, be in a position to make the ultimate decisions about war and peace.  Ignatius is, in my opinion, being too kind, far too generous, in merely describing this as

he has an impulsive streak, sometimes bordering on recklessness

- he left out that McCain is also petty and vindictive, as more than a few other Senators have experienced and which has been demonstrated by many incidents with others as well.

Perhaps the arrogance of the McCain campaign is finally liberating those in the traditional media to go beyond how McCain has for almost a decade been able to present himself, as a maverick, as one who is a man of principle.  As far as is demonstrated by this campaign, the only principle on which it is based would be the words of Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders, “Just win, baby!’  

So perhaps we should remind McCain, as does Ignatius, of what he himself told that journalist: The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil.

Senator McCain, it is unfortunate, but you made that Faustian bargain.  It was just about the worst thing you could do, yet you did it.  And maybe, just maybe, the media - having now seen how far you are willing to go in your lust for power - will call you on it.  

I think Ignatius deserves credit for this column, which I believe should be widely distributed.  He, like others in the TM (traditional media), and like other voices in The Village, may have been slow to recogize what has been happening.  When they get it right, we need to amplify their voices.

This election is too important, not only for this nation, but for the world.  

Peace

Continue reading " Stopping At Nothing To Win "

originally posted at Daily Kos

And in the seventh year after the fall, the dust and debris of the towers cleared. And it became plain at last what had been wrought.

For the wreckage begat greed; and it came to pass that while America’s young men and women fought, other Americans enriched themselves. Beguiling the innocent, they did backdate options, and they did package toxic mortgage securities and they did reprice risk on the basis that it no more existed than famine in a fertile land.

So beginneth the powerful word of the day, as expresseth by Roger Cohen in this column in today’s New York Times.

He use of pseudo-biblical methods of expression might seemeth corny, although he dost present it far more effectively than one perceiveth in my poor imitation to illustrate, which is why thou should read his words, and not mine.  Still, I beseech thee to keep reading.
Please allow me to offer a few brief snippets that illustrate why Cohen’s use of such a style of writing works, even if my own is more than awkward:

For Bush ruled over the whole nation and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did neglect husbandry.

And it came to pass that the nation fell into debt as boundless as the wickedness of Sodom. For everyone, Lehman not least, was maxed out.

So it was in the seventh year after the fall of the towers. And still Bush did raise his hands to the Lord and proclaim: “I will be proved right in the end!”

Wherefore the balance of power in the world was altered in grievous ways, and new centers of authority arose, and they were no more persuaded by democracy than was the Pharaoh.

The use of a biblical style of reference seems so very appropriate.  Even the metaphor of 7 years works - I think of the dream of the Pharoah that Joseph interpreted, the 7 fat years followed by the 7 leans year, only perhaps in our case we have seen the two inflated, for in our span of 7 under Bush the rich have indeed gotten much fatter economically while for most of the rest of uswe have been devouring our seed corn and soon may face incredible difficulties, for we have had no Joseph to whom Pharoah President Bush hath been willing to listen.

Perhaps you might findeth the expressions of Cohen somewhat offensive on this 7th anniversary.  Last night Keith Olbermann reminded us in his Special Comment about how some, especially in the “Republican” party would use the events we remember today not to heal, but to divide, not to remember but to scare and seek power.  Thus I find it not offensive when Cohen rights

Therefore, in the seventh year after the fall, with 1,126 of the slain still unidentified, their very beings rendered unto dust, their souls inhabiting the air of New York, it seemed that one nation had become two; and loss, far from unifying the people, had sundered the nation.

Today most of us will have more than one occasion during which we remember, we reflect.  In my school there will be a moment of silence during the morning announcements.  Perhaps I will take a few minutes in each class to ask my students what they recall, although since most are 15-16 years old their memories will not be a large a part of their lives as it will be for those of us who were adults.  Still, some of my students will know because of family members at the Pentagon, or who had trouble getting home because of the disruption, or because someone with whom they have connection was in one of the towers in NY.  

As a nation we are again confronted with a choice.  How we will govern ourselves, whom we will choose to lead us, why, and to what end.  For a moment today the politics may cease, even though some do not understand the importance of that.  Thus while McCain and Obama will come together for the Memorial in New York, Congressman Virgil Goode has a major fundraiser, despite what should be the near-sacredness of this occasion.  Not surprising given he is of the party of a President whose principal reactions to the events we commemorate this day were to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to restrict the liberties and freedoms he claimed were the reason we were attacked, and to tell us to go shopping.  

Each of us will respond to this day as we deem appropriate.  Some may find Cohen’s words offensive - I do not, because I think they remind us of the dimension of what we have lost, which one could appropriately describe as being of biblical proportion, whether in loss of liberty sy homr or of the respect towards our nation by other countries.  Having just taught the period that leads to the development of our government I cannot help but remember that Jefferson wrote in the Declaration about “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”  

I urge you to read Cohen’s entire piece.  If you deem it appropriate, perhaps offer some thoughts of your own in the thread below.

The prophet is often without honor in his own land: Cohen now lives overseas which makes me think of that phrase.  Perhaps he is merely a clear-sighted individual who can express cogently the thoughts we see only through a glass darkly.

But since he does this so much better than do I, let me end as he does:  

For Bush ruled over the whole nation and so sure was he of his righteousness that he did foster division until it raged like a plague. Each tribe sent pestilence on the other.

And in the seventh year after the fall, the dust and debris of the towers cleared. And it became plain at last what had been wrought - but not how the damage would be undone.

Peace?

Continue reading " In the Seventh Year - a powerful column by Roger Cohen "

Last night, Fred Thompson said that McCain turned down the offer of medical treatment in return for military information, when in fact McCain has several written that he in fact offered to trade when he realized he might die from his leg.

Tonight was Mike Huckabee’s turn.  In his remarks he offered the following statement:

Abraham Lincoln reminded us that a government that can do everything for us can also take everything from us.

  Lincoln never said it.  Nor, by the way, did Thomas Jefferson, to whom something similar is often attributed:

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have.

 Thanks to the wiki at Monticello we can ascertain that Jefferson never made any such statement, that the closest approximation was made by Gerald Ford in a oin Address to the Congress on August 12, 1974, just after he assumed the presidency upon the resignation of Richard Nixon, when he said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have

And I wonder if any of the Republicans in attendance tonight realized that context - in the wake of the abuses of office of a Republican president forced from office lest he be impeached and removed.  

Peace.

Continue reading " The Republicans keep making things up "

cross posted from Daily Kos

I had no intention of writing about the saga of the Palin pick, but when a column begins like this:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Has anyone noticed that Sarah Palin’s central claim to political fame is a fraud? She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the “Bridge to Nowhere” — a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost.

it is hard not to want to call attention to it.

Robinson’s Washington Post op ed today is entitled The Cynicism Express and that title indicates something important -  the veneer of straight-talking behind which McCain has been hiding for 8 years may now be peeling off.
Increasingly the choice of Palin is raising questions about McCain, and it is there the focus properly belongs.   And it is there that Robinson puts it.

Yes, I know Robinson is considered a liberal.  Even worse, he is a regular commentator for MS-NBC, which may incline the McCain campaign and Republicans in general to dismiss what he has to say.  But he is also the associate editor of the Post, that bastion of conventional thinking, and while he is certainly more liberal than the editorial page writers, the biting nature of this particular piece leads me to believe that the media worm may be turning.  On the Post Website, the title put on this is “Bridge to No Where Good.” and at the top of the list of op ed column is a piece by the usually worse than useless Richard Cohen labeled “Republicans Rush In” for which the teaser is “The Alaska National Guard and other foolish arguments for Sarah Palin.”  The teaser on Robinson’s piece is “McCain’s choice of running mate is alarmingly cynical or dangerously reckless.”  And were that not enough, in between Cohen and Robinson is Ruth Marcus, with a piece entitled “Palin Don’t Preach” highlighted with a teaser of “Talking about abstinence turns out to be easier than abstaining. ”

I of course urge you to read Robinson.  I have provided the links for Cohen and Marcus in case you feel impelled to take the risk of destroying your brain cells.  But since Robinson is my focus, allow me to whet your intellectual curiosity just a wee bit more.  The paragraph from which the tease comes reads like this:

We learned last week that John McCain is not who he is — not, at least, who he claims to be. The steady, straight-talking, country-first statesman his campaign has been selling is a fictional character. The real McCain is either alarmingly cynical or dangerously reckless.

 Robinson takes apart McCain’s ostensible claim about picking a running mate who is ready to be president, noting the emphasis The Arizonan placed upon the various crises facing this nation, then noting Palin’s palpable lack of relevant experience.  He also dismisses the idea that such a choice could in any way appeal to disgruntled former Clinton supporters and describes the political rationale for the Palin pick as obviously appealing to social conservatives.

In his penultimate paragraph, he says McCain is being cynical and doing what his party has always leveled as an accusation against Democrats:  

He selected a running mate based on her potential ability to appeal to targeted segments of the electorate rather than for her honestly assessed ability to lead the nation should the occasion arise.

This is a powerful piece.  It is unfortunate that Robinson does not have the kind of syndication Broder receives, since this is not only far more pointed than anything written recently by the Dean of the Village - it is also far more cogent.  But I suspect it will have an important impact.  When one combine this with the two other op eds above it, the Washington Post has now legitimized challenging this pick and challenging McCain for having made it.  

Or to put it in as blunt of terms as is possible, simply read Robinson ’s final paragraph:

The other thing we learned about McCain is that he is willing to take an enormous gamble based on limited information. He only met Palin once before summoning her for a final interview. He realized he needed to shake up the presidential race, and that’s what he did. But we are reminded, if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation’s interests above his own.

This is one worth passing on.

Peace.

Continue reading " Eugene Robinson gets Palin pick right "

the following video from tonight’s ABC news is must-see, and the perfect cap to the perfect storm today for the Republicans:

Continue reading " Hookers and Blow "

or can easily get there, a press release my wife sent on to me might be of interest.   The Library of Congress will be showing classic films in a new art deco theater in Culpeper, designed to look like the classic palaces of the early days of film.  

So forgive me for intruding something not quite political, but I think of some importance to those of us in Virginia, before we get totally inundated with the purely political.

I may try to get down to Culpeper for a couple of these - after all, in is not all that far from the People’s Republic of Northern Virginia.

Peace.

SPECIAL FILM SERIES TO OPEN NEW MOVIE PALACE

AT THE LIBRARY’S AUDIO-VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER

200-Seat Theater Showcases Unique Features

Starting Sept. 4, the Library of Congress will offer a picture-perfect dream for cinema buffs - classic movies shown three times a week in a new art deco theater, reminiscent of the movie palaces of the 1920s and 1930s.

“Rarely today are so many classic American films shown in 35mm in a single location under such ideal new conditions,” said Mike Mashon, head of the Moving Image Section of the Library’s Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division (MBRS).

The 200-seat theater is located in the Library’s state-of-the-art, recently opened Packard Campus of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center on Mount Pony near Culpeper, Va.  It is one of only five theaters in the country equipped to show original classic film prints on nitrate film stock as they would have been screened in theaters prior to 1950.

The Mount Pony theater also features a custom-made organ that can rise from a pit in the stage.  ”Watching silent films accompanied by live music will allow patrons a richer cinematic experience,” Mashon said.

Sponsored by MBRS, the film series will mark the first public showings at the Mount Pony theater.  The series, running from Sept. 4 through Nov. 22, will showcase selected short subjects and feature film classics such as “The Maltese Falcon,” “The Wizard of Oz,” “42nd Street” and “Gone With the Wind.”  All of the feature films are on the Library’s National Film Registry, a list of culturally, historically or aesthetically significant films that are preserved for all time.

Tickets for the film series are not required, but reservations may be made by calling (540) 827-1079, extension 79994, during business hours beginning one week before any given screening.  Reserved seats must be claimed at least 10 minutes before show time, after which standbys will be admitted.

The theater is located on the ground floor of the Packard Campus of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center, 19053 Mount Pony Rd., Culpeper, Va.  The program of films, which is subject to change without notice, is listed below.

The Packard Campus was made possible by the financial support from Packard Humanities Institute (PHI).  The facility, with a construction cost of more than $150 million, represents the largest-ever private gift to the Library of Congress and one of the largest ever to the federal government.  A public component of this 415,000-square-foot facility is the theater, which showcases state-of-the-art archival projection capability for nitrate film, 35mm, 70mm and modern digital cinema, featuring the highest sound quality.

“The creation of the theater was a labor of love for David Woodley Packard (president of PHI),” said Gregory Lukow, chief of MBRS.  ”He is a true believer in preserving the American cinema heritage and preserving the classic exhibition experience.”

The Packard Campus comprises three main areas: a collections building, where the Library’s moving images and recording sound collections of more than 5.7 million items will be housed under ideal conditions; a conservation building, where the collections will be acquired, managed and preserved; and a separate facility with 124 vaults, where nitrate films - which become more combustible as they age - will be stored safely.

The Library of Congress, founded in 1800, is the nation’s oldest federal cultural institution and the largest library in the world.  The Library serves the U.S. Congress and the nation both on-site, in its 22 reading rooms on Capitol Hill, and through its award-winning Web site at www.loc.gov.  Many of the Library’s rich resources and treasures may also be accessed via interactive exhibitions on a new, personalized Web site at www.myLOC.gov.

September

Sept. 4 — 7:30 p.m.                 The Maltese Falcon (Warner Bros, 1941)

Sept. 5 — 7:30 p.m.                 The Maltese Falcon (Warner Bros, 1941)

Sept. 6 — 2:00 p.m.                 The Wizard of Oz (MGM, 1939)

Sept. 9 — 7:00 p.m.                 Shane (Paramount, 1953)

Sept. 12 — 7:30 p.m.               King Kong (RKO, 1933)

Sept. 16 — 7:00 p.m.               Morocco (Paramount, 1930)

Sept. 19 — 7:30 p.m.               The Night of the Hunter (United Artists, 1955)

Sept. 20 — 2:00 p.m.               Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Walt Disney, 1937)

Sept. 23 — 7:00 p.m.               Bringing Up Baby (RKO, 1938)

Sept. 26 — 7:30 p.m.               Trouble in Paradise (Paramount, 1932)

Sept. 27 — 2:00 p.m.               Gunga Din (RKO, 1939)

Sept. 30 — 7:00 p.m.               Ninotchka (MGM, 1939)

October

Oct. 3 — 7:30 p.m.                   Shadow of a Doubt (Universal 1943)

Oct. 4 — 2:00 p.m.                   Duck Soup (Paramount, 1933)

Oct. 7 — 7:00 p.m.                   Out of the Past (RKO, 1947)

Oct. 10 — 7:30 p.m.                 Casablanca (Warner Bros, 1943)

Oct. 11 — 2:00 p.m.                 42nd Street (Warner Bros, 1933)

Oct. 14 — 7:00 p.m.                 Adam’s Rib (MGM, 1949)

Oct. 17 — 7:30 p.m.                 All About Eve (20th Century-Fox, 1950)

Oct. 18 — 2:00 p.m.                 Lassie Comes Home (MGM, 1943)

Oct. 21 — 7:00 p.m.                 High Noon (United Artists, 1952)

Oct. 24 — 7:30 p.m.                 The Bank Dick (Universal, 1940)

Oct. 25 — 2:00 p.m.                 Gone With the Wind (MGM, 1939)

Oct. 28 — 7:00 p.m.                 The Grapes of Wrath (20th Century-Fox, 1939)

Oct. 31 — 7:30 p.m.                 The Bride of Frankenstein (Universal, 1935)

November

Nov. 1 — 2:00 p.m.                 The Day the Earth Stood Still (20th Century-Fox, 1951)

Nov. 4 — 7:00 p.m.                 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Columbia, 1939)

Nov. 7 — 7:30 p.m.                 Love Me Tonight (Paramount, 1932)

Nov. 8 — 2:00 p.m.                 Pinocchio (Walt Disney - RKO, 1940)

Nov. 11 — 7:00 p.m.               All Quiet on the Western Front (Universal, 1930)

Nov. 14 — 7:30 p.m.               Letter From An Unknown Woman (Universal, 1948)

Nov. 15 — 2:00 p.m.               His Girl Friday (Columbia, 1939)

Nov. 18 — 7:00 p.m.               City Lights (United Artists, 1931)

Nov. 21 — 7:30 p.m.               Top Hat (RKO, 1935)

Nov. 22 — 2:00 p.m.               Yankee Doodle Dandy (Warners Bros, 1943)

Continue reading " If you love films, and are anywhere near Culpeper "

Nedra Pickler (ugh) has this AP story now appearing on Yahoo that has the details:

HONOLULU - Senate candidate and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is scheduled to deliver the Tuesday night keynote address at this year’s Democratic National Convention - the same role that launched Barack Obama to national prominence four years ago.

The source of the info is an email sent out by Mike Henry:

Henry’s e-mail, which was obtained by The Associated Press while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii, told Virginians, “we wanted you to be the first to know.” It included a quote from campaign manager David Plouffe.

Of course, part of this paragraph is ridiculous:

The focus on Warner could help boost his prospects in Virginia, where he is trying to win an open Senate seat and Obama is also campaigning hard. Virginia went to George W. Bush in the last two elections, and the Obama campaign considers it one of its best opportunities to turn a red state blue.

 Mark does not need help boosting his prospects, that is ridiculous.  But it can help with Obama carrying Virginia.

Now, what does this mean for the chances of Kaine being selected as VP?

Continue reading " Mark Warner to give convention’s Tuesday keynote address "