In Memoriam 20

"Tribute in Light" credit 2006 - Denise Gould / USAF

It’s truly hard to believe that it has already been 20 years. While there were without a doubt issues among we American citizens after 9/11/01, they are sadly nothing compared to what we face today. We have fallen so far from the hopeful ideal that this country should be.

Today I am hopeful that the sense of unity that this country showed after the 9/11 attacks will return someday very soon. We sorely need it so that we may defeat the growing authoritarian and fascistic elements that have caused our wide and painful divisions.

In Memoriam 14

"Tribute in Light" credit 2006 - Denise Gould / USAF

     As we all likely say every year since and will for some time to come: "It's hard to believe it's been so long already."  Fourteen years.  Myself and many of you will probably remember where we were this day in 2001 for the rest of our lives. We will indeed never forget.

Painfully Clueless 15-July-2015: Ed Mullins, President of the NYPD SBA

image credit: Rawstory.com original post [linked], no official source found for this image.

     On Tuesday July 7th, 2015 current President of the New York Police Department's Seargent's Benevolent Association wrote an editorial on the New York Post criticizing the civil award of $5.9 million to the family of Eric Garner.

     Swing and a miss, by a mile Mr. Mullins! Congratulations, you are officially the first of what will likely be numerous recipients of the "Painfully Clueless" award. Here's why you are this week's winner:

     Human lives MATTER, Mr. Mullins.  THIS is the lesson to take away from awarding Eric Garner's family such a large sum of money. Sure, it's probably true that Mr. Garner would not have earned this much money in his remaining years. The thing is, that is simply irrelevant. This amount is fair because it's meant to punish the guilty where the criminal justice system failed.

     Mr. Garner's remaining life was STOLEN from him by those that are supposed to be sworn to protect him and other citizens like him.  Over a misdemeanor with no day in court where the state had to prove an actual crime was committed. No jury, no chance to defend himself against the accusations.

     The real tragedy in this payout being given to the Garner family {aside from the obvious loss of Mr. Garner himself) is that the innocent people of New York have to foot the bill. Where this money SHOULD come from is from the paycheck and pension of Officers Daniel Pantaleo, Justin Damico, their Chief of Police, yourself and Patrolman's Benevolent Association Patrick Lynch!

** This commentary inspired by the linked Raw Story post & Mr. Mullins' own NY Post editorial which is NOT linked here so as not to give this clown any benefit of further web traffic to his garbage.

TED Talk by Steve Silberman: The forgotten history of autism

The TSA: Internal Investigations Reveal...what we expected.

View fullsize

{PHOTOGRAPH} Transportation security administration, 2015

(June 1, 2015) - Recently ABC News received information that the Transportation Security Administration "...failed 67 of 70 tests, where undercover agents tried to pass through security while carrying fake prohibited items."

The items in question were fake explosive devices to prohibited weapons concealed with the undercover agents. From ABC News, "An internal investigation of the Transportation Security Administration revealed security failures at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports, where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials...." As a response to the ABC News report, DHS gave a written response stating that, “Upon learning the initial findings of the Office of Inspector General's report, Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions, several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report,” 

View fullsize

{photograph} mike segar, reuters, corbis, 2015

This is always a reassuring moment, because as any traveler knows...this is not a comforting statistic. God only knows what has already passed through security by an ill-intentioned passenger. But I digress, as this is not the first time TSA has failed to catch prohibited items through the security check points. Never mind just general weaknesses in the screening processes, such as JFK in 2013. 

Former TSA employees, such as Jason Harrington, have come forward whistle-blowing on the poor practices and procedures of the security infrastructure within TSA. Harrington speaks to the improper use of the body scanners, never mind the obvious incertitude. In 2012, he began a controversial blog addressing the weaknesses and poor policies of the U.S. Transportation Security Agency. Below, in his own words, Harrington relays his accounts from the view of a former TSA agent.

View fullsize

{Video Capture} 2010, "A toddler in a wheelchair is stopped by the TSA at ORD (O’Hare Airport in Chicago)", Video by Matt DuBiel, 2010.

"In short, the full body scanners are inherently plagued by so many weaknesses that it would be in the public’s best interest for them to be removed from airports as a primary screening method. This is my opinion, and the opinion of many TSA employees whom I knew. EPIC’s lawsuit is correct in its statement:

“When the TSA deployed the body scanners, it initiated one of the most sweeping, most invasive and most unaccountable suspicion-less searches of American travelers in history.”

View fullsize

{Photograph} "TSA agent performs enhanced pat down on elderly traveler: A Transportation Security Administration agent performs an enhanced pat down on an elderly traveler at the Denver International Airport, Nov. 22, 2010 in Denver." John moore, getty images, 2010 

With this post I am merely voicing the opinion of many TSA employees who are too timid or complacent in their jobs to speak out about the gross mismanagement and abuse of public trust endemic to the TSA."

Although this new report has brought a raging red flag to the forefront of the main stream media, we shall see how it is managed. However, just as with the previous concerns of TSA's procedures and policies, very little has changed. If anything, the rights of U.S. law biding citizens will continue to come under fire with the absurdity of TSA's brand of safety in the name of national security. 

God Save Our Ship.

Pope Francis and the Palestinian state

(MAY 15, 2015) - This week Pope Francis visited Palestine and extended a very highly scrutinized treaty with the Palestinians. A treaty, recognizing Palestine as a state by the Catholic Church. An unusual move, for the most the obvious reasons- the political ramifications of said treaty upon the Catholic Church.

"The treaty, which was finalized Wednesday but still has to be signed, makes clear that the Holy See has switched its diplomatic relations from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. A bilateral commission is putting the final touches to the agreement, on the Catholic Church’s life and activities in Palestine, which then 'will be submitted to the respective authorities for approval ahead of setting a debate in the near future for the signing,' the Vatican said on Wednesday. Some observers speculated that the agreement could be signed during Abbas’s visit."[1]

{Photograph} "Pope Francis at the Vatican in 2014 with Presidents Shimon Peres of Israel, left, and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority." (2014)  Credit: Franco Origlia/Getty Images

As no surprise to this news, the backlash has been immediate and scathing. The Nation of Israel has rebuked the Pope’s actions, as detached and ignorant to say the least,

“Israel’s Foreign Ministry said it was “disappointed” by the Vatican’s decision, and that the recognition would “not advance the peace process.” That echoed similar statements after a wave of European Parliamentary resolutions on Palestinian statehood last fall, but some Israeli analysts said the Vatican’s step hurt more.

“Even this philo-Semitic pope, this pope who cares about the Jews, even he doesn’t get it,” said David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel news site. “Every time something like this happens, there’s this sense of anguish. Why don’t you understand? We want to separate from the Palestinians, but on terms that don’t threaten our security.”[2]

However, here at home…the voices of Republicans have called for the Pope to avoid political issues.

{photograph} "Pope Francis touches the wall that divides Israel from the West Bank" credit: Osservatore Romano/REUTERS

“After Pope Francis moved to recognize a Palestinian state, some gung-ho defenders of Israel suggested the pontiff should stick to preaching and stay out of politics.  

“It’s interesting how the Vatican has gotten so political when ultimately the Vatican ought to be working to lead people to Jesus Christ and salvation, and that’s what the Church is supposed to do,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), a hawkish defender of Israel.”[3]

I think this hilarious on a number of areas, as these are merely the Pots and Kettles dancing around like the little leprechauns they are. But I digress, because if you spend enough time reading the chaos it becomes clear that politicians usually love the Pope for justification of their own legislative processes or standings. Historically it’s been the Republican Party, but as we carry on…the tides have turned with Pope Francis.

Pope Francis has stated that Catholics should love and support their Gay children, however in the same breath agrees that Gay marriage should remained banned. Interestingly he has encouraged the Vatican, just as he has Catholics, to read the signs of the times. In addition, Pope Francis has addressed the downfalls of inequality, terrorism and poverty. And honestly, in his own words, his stance on single mothers speaks to the generations of children who were refused baptism or acceptance into society based on the “sins of the parent”.

{photograph} " Pope Francis was joined by a surprise guest during a speech at the Vatican on Oct. 26, 2013. A young boy walked up and hugged the pope, who let him hang out on stage."  Credit: L'Osservatore Romano/AP

“In our ecclesiastical region, there are priests who don’t baptize the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites. Those who clericalize the Church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it’s baptized!” — rebuke to Argentine priests.[4]

As a personal commentary to this part of Pope Francis, I like him. I am not a Catholic but I like his common sense on certain issues. I differentiate on several of his stances, perspectives such as Gay marriage, however he is opening the hearts of people. I would gladly accept that as an excellent first step towards static theological changes. (If one may assume the ‘Universal Church’ can. If they wish to stay relevant in an evolving world, mind you.)

As to the future of the Palestinian State, it will be interesting to watch this play out in the international stage. Interestingly, Pope Francis will be the first head of the Roman Catholic Church to address the United States Congress on September 24, 2015. This invitation was given by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), not in conjunction with the White House. However, I find it intriguing coming upon the footsteps of Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3, 2015 address to Congress. Netanyahu’s third address to a joint session of Congress, but in this case by the lone invitation of Boehner.

As this progresses with Palestine, Israel and the Catholic Church it will be exceptionally interesting.

---

[1] "After Recognizing Palestine, Pope Meets Abbas in Vatican." The Times of Israel. May 16, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2015. http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-recognizing-palestine-pope-meets-abbas-in-vatican/.

[2] Rudoren, Jodi, and Diaa Hadid. "Vatican to Recognize Palestinian State in New Treaty." The New York Times. May 13, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/middleeast/vatican-to-recognize-palestinian-state-in-new-treaty.html?_r=0.

[3]  Bade, Rachael. "Israel Hawks to Pope Francis: Stay out of Politics." POLITICO. May 14, 2015. Accessed May 16, 2015. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/israel-hawks-to-pop-francis-stay-out-of-politics-117929.html.

[4] De Souza, Father Raymond J. "Father Raymond J. De Souza: Pope Francis Surprises with New Take on Tradition." National Post. March 14, 2013. Accessed May 16, 2015. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/father-raymond-j-de-souza-pope-francis-surprises-with-new-take-on-tradition.

"Jeb" Bush and the Iraq Triple Blunder

(Photo: Tony Gutierrez, Associated Press- Jeb Bush)

     Monday (5/11/15) on FOX News' show "The Kelly File", host Megyn Kelly asked    presumed 2016 Republican Presidential candidate "Jeb" Bush if given the information that is currently available, would he still have authorized the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

   "Jeb" answered unequivocally on Monday that yes, he would.  He then tried to paint Hillary Clinton and others into the same corner he had just backed himself into, inferring that anyone would have also invaded with the same intelligence that was available at that time. [1]

     Naturally, this answer drew a range of skepticism from various sources from both sides of the isle. Both elected officials and media personalities questioned the level of negative impact this answer would have on Mr. Bush's 2016 potential candidacy. [2]

     Seeking to perform some damage control, "Jeb" made an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio show on Tuesday (5/12/15). In attempt to help "Jeb" amend his answer, Hannity asked the same question Megyn Kelly did regarding hindsight.  Rather than help his cause, "Jeb" dug himself even deeper. [3]

     Mr. Bush said, "I don't know what that decision would have been." and that "mistakes were made" due to "faulty intelligence". Something he also made mention of on Megyn Kelly's program. 

     This is a common misdirection used to gloss over the reality that has become clear as time has passed.  The evidence used to justify the Iraq invasion wasn't just faulty, it was falsified. It was, in fact, a goal of the Bush Administration prior to election in 2000 to find justification to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. [4]

     While speaking in Nevada on Wednesday 5/17, "Jeb" took a third stab at the Iraq invasion question, his initial answer to which had started to become a potential boat anchor on his presumed 2016 Presidential campaign.  Both an attempt to discredit the validity of and actually answer to the original question, Bush stated he felt that the hypothetical question "... does a disservice for a lot of people that sacrificed a lot." and that ".. we ought to be focusing on is what are the lessons learned."

     As it turns out, that's a very good point. Just not in the way that Mr. Bush probably intended. Given that the evidence that took us to Iraq was assembled from whole cloth by his brother George W Bush's administration to justify the invasion they had planned from the start [4], "Jeb" showing concern regarding a  presumed disservice to the sacrifices of the troops involved comes across as painfully tone deaf. Had G.W. Bush not lied, those Americans who were killed in the line of duty would not have been there in the first place.

     Mr. Bush continued on to say "Of course, given the power of looking back and having that, of course anybody would have made different decisions. There's no denying that. But to delve into that and not focus on the future is, I think, where I need to draw the line.."  The trouble with that is that "Jeb" is trying to set the narrative direction on this issue rather than the media doing so.  Something that is unfortunately not surprising given the state of corporate media.

     To Mr. Bush, asking someone with aspirations to the Presidency to admit the Iraq War was a colossal mistake is where the disservice to the people that lost their lives is quite the insult. The reality is that not asking this question would be a failure of any worthwhile journalist.  Of course the corporate media has, by and large, deemed Mr. Bush's third answer acceptable, given Mr. Bush a pass and moved on.  However, there is no reason to do so.  This incident should remain a reason to consider "Jeb" as unqualified for the Presidency.

     Mr. Bush's potential competitors for the 2016 Republican nomination have thankfully not dropped the issue.  While there are certainly numerous concerns with Rafael "Ted" Cruz, Jr. and Rand Paul's Presidential (and political) qualifications, they are absolutely correct to keep taking "Jeb" to task for his answer(s) regarding the Iraq War [5].  Hopefully this will remain an issue in the Republican Presidential debates and through the completion of the 2016 general election.

[1] "The Kelly File" trademark & copyright 2015 FOX News, NEWSCorp. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/10/exclusive-jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-would-have-backed-iraq-invasion/

[2] CNN article "Jeb Bush tries to move past Iraq questions" & video detailing multiple responses to Mr. Bush's answers, TM & Copyright 2015 Turner Broadcasting
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/politics/jeb-bush-iraq-election-2016-foreign-policy/

[3] The Sean Hannity Show from May 12th, 2015 TM & Copyright 2015 Sean Hannity / Hannity.com
http://www.hannity.com/articles/shows-472046/radio-show-recap-may-12th-13585654

[4] Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq by Johnathan Stein & Tim Dickinson, TM & Copyright 2006-2011 MotherJones & The Foundation for National Progress.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

[5] AP Big Story - Bush struggles to clarify stance on wisdom of invading Iraq by Julie Pace & Steve Peoples May 12th, 2015 TM & Copyright 2015 Associated Press
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3dcf0d6a33174f7f874baa2a9b5a2b1d/iraq-war-still-casts-shadow-over-gop-white-house-hopefuls