Disqus - Latest Comments for serena1313

Re: Police chiefs endorse anti-terror community watch

bigdog1271 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:23:59 -0000

The cops are just going to use this as an excuse to spy on potential drug dealers. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

Re: Police chiefs endorse anti-terror community watch

serena1313 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:32:42 -0000

I think we need to be very careful when the police start asking citizens to spy on their neighbours. Unless the guidelines are very explicit, the likelihood of this type of programme turning into a nightmare -- where citizens start turning on one another -- become a probability rather than a possibility.

Re: Attacks on Sunstein Frustrate Conservative Fans

oljw — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:18:50 -0000

Read my note above and please tell me why my objections are unreasonable?

Re: Attacks on Sunstein Frustrate Conservative Fans

serena1313 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:46:56 -0000

Sunstein is not the only one held-up, the Republicans have placed holds on as many as twenty or more others. It is ridiculous, however, they have thrown monkey wrenches in just about every nook and corner, from policy to confirmations, just to keep the administration from running smoothly. With the GOP and the far-right media attacking Obama 24/7/12 it is a wonder anything gets done.

One would think that Obama is the first to create the "czar" title -- and that's all it is, a title -- he isn't the first. Actually the "czar" concept originated with Nixon -- re_member the "drug czar." The reason Obama has more czars in his administration than his predecessors (Reagan, Clinton, Bush & Cheney who had czars for almost every conceivable post) is simply due to the many fires left burning from the last administration.

[Newsweek's satirist, Andy Borowitz, wrote in 2007, "the Bush WH needed a lying czar to oversee all distortions and misrepresentations..." ]

So all this hoopla is just noise, more distraction. Nevertheless it is infuriating to see the Republicans spend all their time thinking of ways to bring down Obama. Republicans need to reassess their priorities because if we are to be prepared for future challenges we need solutions, not monkey wrenches.

Re: Joe Barton: Republicans Will Repeal Health Care Reform If It Passes

serena1313 — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:53:51 -0000

During different times in history, when Social Security, Medicare (and other government-provided safety-net programmes) were introduced the opposition was fierce, but ultimately overcome. Now, decades later, Joe Barton and his colleagues are using the same rhetoric, the same unsubstantiated claims, the same tactics and the same fact-free arguments to defeat healthcare reform. Then as now, probably the same threats, too.

Although they managed to dismantle some safety-net programmes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a few others still remain in-tact, not that they didn't try, they did. And despite being wildly popular they will keep on trying.

It is surprising that healthcare reform is still supported by a majority of Americans considering the day-in and day-out, 24/7, propaganda. It goes without saying, Iam not sure which is more disturbing the lies or the people who are willing to believe them, at least for now, notwithstanding.

Threats to repeal healthcare reform may be a political winner in some districts, but in most other parts of the country, probably not. But if Republicans somehow manage to defeat healthcare reform, Barton and his colleagues will rue the day it comes back to haunt them.

Re: Obama Aide Declares End to War on Terrorism

batousghost — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:11:51 -0000

serena1313, right on! Why the past eight years have caused amnesia on the right, when clear evidence emerged for the ineffectiveness of the very routes that many here are advocating, is a mystery to me. No one put blame on Bush Sr for the WTC attack in '93, as Clinton had been president for a few days and he was in charge. Why then is Jr so blithely let off the hook for a calamity that it's clear he and others knew about and did not try to forestall, even though HE was in charge for several months by then? It's crazy stuff, better for a pulp novel but unfortunately really happened. There is a word for those who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and that word is children. When you grow up, and persist in shaping reality to fit your preconceptions, the word is sociopath. All the playground bullies need to get out, because their time is done. They failed. Sorry if you don't like the new approach, but your approach failed miserably. That's why the Dems now control the Congress and the White House, and the Reps control their little talk-radio crowd. The neocon approach did not work. Get it?

Re: Obama Aide Declares End to War on Terrorism

Anne — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:58:16 -0000

The 1990's Clinton administration brought frequent attacks on US establishments. The 2000s brought us 1 attack that was September 11. After that we took the fight to them. We have now gone 8 years without a successful attack on American installations. Spain and France saw increased attacks.
Now, in the 2010's you want to go back to the Clinton era of ignore them and they'll go away in spite of historical evidence to the contrary. Your pathological hatred of Bush aside, even you cannot deny the simple fact that the program worked.

Re: Obama Aide Declares End to War on Terrorism

serena1313 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:02:19 -0000

Bush's GWOT was part-n-parcel to an larger, but hidden agenda that allowed him to enact fundamental and profound changes -- changes that would have been soundly rejected had Americans known beforehand -- and used it to justify the unjustifiable.

After more than two-centuries, in one fell-swoop diplomacy, respect for international law, human rights, international co-operation, time-honoured treaties, etc... were cast-out, erased from US foreign policy and then replaced with unilateralism, pre-emptive war, bellicose rhetoric, torture, assassinations, renditions etc...

Shortly thereafter a lot of the country had become enveloped in fear and paranoia. And Bush was more than eager to exploit that. Whereby America's commitment to truth, justice, freedom, the law, equality, liberty faltered. We came within a hair of losing our cherished values because some were willing to give up freedom for security.

I have long argued that Bush elevated al-Qaeda's stature to one of prominence. His GWOT did more for "terrorist" recruitment than al_Qaeda ever dreamt. By eliminating "GWOT", "terrorism", "jihad" et al from the national discussion changes that dynamic.

Aside from (ugh!) leaving some of Bush's policies in-tact, Obama -- on-the-most-part -- has improved America's foreign policy agenda as well as America's image.

Brennan, on the other hand, gives me pause for the simple reason: his reluctance to renounce the Bush administration's actions suggests he may believe the GWOT justifies the unjustifiable.

That is unacceptable.

Re: Gitmo Detainee Claims U.S. Paid Prosecution Witnesses

serena1313 — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:25:49 -0000

I've read more than enough to believe Jawad is innocent. Which makes the government's motives suspect if they really do intend to pursue taking further criminal action against Jawad.

I think it is premature to draw any conclusions based mostly on conjecture and implication. What the government did or didn't say has no relevance without evidence. In order to determine whether witnesses were compensated then we need to know who, when, where and other details to substantiate that.

Does anyone believe compensating witnesses has any value other than an incentive to bear false witness. In fact it bears a close resemble to some of the worse policy elements Bush initiated.

The truth matters. The rule of law matters. If there is new evidence that merit criminal proceedings, then charge Jawad and be done with it.

Otherwise he has suffered long enough. To detain him any longer would be a travesty of justice.

Set Jawad free.

Insofar as the rest of it (compensated witnesses, etc.) the jury remains undecided until evidence proves one way or the other.

Re: Obama Criticism Crosses Racial Line -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

serena1313 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:25:07 -0000

Along with his brethren @ Fox News, Beck sounds like a lunatic ranting and raving on the air, egging people on night after night, day after day. But this time he has stepped way over the line. I've never heard anything quite like it. Fox News may have backed away from Beck's remarks, but he still works there. Even worse the station did not even disavow his remarks.

Beck (and others) give people the impression that it is okay to make racist comments. Potentially this could stir-up racial tensions and fears -- god forbid they escalate. That is irresponsible, shameful .

Crossing the line should not be tolerated, not for any reason, at any time whatsoever! But evidently Fox News disagrees: Beck is not only provided a national venue on cable TV and radio he is paid handsomely to say whatever he wants, unfettered, unburdened without fear or threat from his bosses. That is eerily disturbing and irresponsible.

Re: Obama Criticism Crosses Racial Line -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

serena1313 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:04:35 -0000

TEST

Re: Palin Wrap, Because MSNBC Didn’t Care

serena1313 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:50:25 -0000

It is a mystery why some Americans still have a propensity to take a person at their word and accept it as gospel without question. One would think after 8 years of Bush and Cheney's obfuscation, drama, mistruths, fabrication, propaganda people would have learned not to take anyone on face value alone, but always verify instead. Unfortunately that lesson went unheeded.

I would imagine Sarah is capable of discerning between frivolous and credible, but apparently her supporters take Sarah at face value, the facts be damned.

If Sarah says the ethics charges filed against her were frivolous, even though two investigations -- that we know about -- concluded the governor had abused her power, Sarah's supporters without question believe her.

If Sarah says she was cleared of all ethics charges, even though she had to reimburse the state for her children's travel expenses and per diem expenses -- which her supporters -- probably do not know or even if they did -- will unquestionably believe her. And little if anything will convince them otherwise.

Would someone please ask Sarah to define frivolous because using the ethics process to protect herself and spending public resources to obstruct investigations are hardly frivolous matters; they are by definition an abuse of power.

Perhaps someone ought to explain that to Palin's supporters, but then again it would probably be a waste of time ... because ... for them, Sarah can do no wrong, despite facts to the contrary.

A motto to learn to live by: Verify first; then, if warranted, trust.

Because in a nutshell: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Re: Government Abandons Effort to Use Tortured Evidence in Gitmo Habeas Case

serena1313 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:28:35 -0000

Evidence based on hearsay and/or obtained by coercion and torture cannot be used against any defendant in any court of law. Considering a military judge ruled Jawad's torture-induced confession inadmissible with the lead prosecutor's sworn affidavit validating that and the interrogator who testified as a defense witness the Justice Department was bound to lose.

This may be presumptuous of me, but perhaps the DoJ previous stance may have been more political than anything else. Bush spent years trying to convince us "enhanced" (torture) interrogation methods produced actionable intelligence. With Cheney's recent appearances on cable news and on the airwaves telling anyone and everyone who would listen that ending the "torture" programme and shutting down Guantanamo puts the country in grave danger, imagine the hell Cheney and Liz would raise if the Justice Department had announced it would not rely on Jawad's torture-induced confession to prosecute him. If true, it would be inexcusable.

How can the DoJ justify the unjustifiable, defend the indefensible, argue the inarguable and claim justice was served?

Re: Obama Defends Geithner on 60 Minutes -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

serena1313 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:36:46 -0000

While some may disagree and/or question Geithner's actions, however, after only 40-plus days on the job, Geithner deserves time, at the very least -- to do otherwise would be premature and ill-advised.

Furthermore there is plenty of blame to spread around. Mistakes were made by all concerned: Obama's administration, Tim Geithner, the Democrats in Congress, but it was the Republicans who fought tooth-and-nail against placing restrictions on compensation. Re_member, too, the GOP caucus supported and voted for the original TARP bill that permitted AIG to pay bonuses came from Bush's Treasury Department headed by then-Secretary Hank Paulson. They also voted against the stimulus bill that contained some restrictions -- albeit insufficient -- on executive pay.

The Republicans would like nothing more than see Geithner step-down -- imagine what a heyday they would have in stalling the next nominee for Treasury Secretary. After all they had no problem blocking Geithner's appointment for several weeks. Geithner is still waiting for his staff members to be approved -- some finally withdrew their names because it was taking so long.

Absent a Treasury Secretary to oversee an economy in crisis and right before the stimulus package kicks-in, axing Geithner would be political malpractice. So, Iam relieved Obama won't ask him to step-down.

When Washington politicians decide to get real and become active-participants in tackling and solving problems -- instead of throwing tantrums that are nothing but empty bluster or pointing fingers, blaming others in a show of hypocrisy at its finest -- it will be a welcomed relief.

But for those who chose not to, then ... please ... get out of the way because time is of the essence.

Re: Callie Shell: Obama - The Digital Journalist

serena1313 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:24:04 -0000

Callie while Obama and Michelle (and the kids, too) are quite photogenic, you've managed to capture something most other photographers have not. Perhaps it is due to your having more access combined with exceptional talent, however, the intimacy and sensitivity in your photographs depict the character of Obama and his family's authenticity. By adding the many faces filled with hope, young and old alike, accentuates the promise of better tomorrows.

Thank you Callie. It is obvious you love your work. Your photographs are stunning and remarkable. They speak to the heart. I look forward to more.

Re: Can McCain Come Back Again?

serena1313 — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:20:34 -0000

It is possible McCain might make a come back, but I do not trust the man and even less his running mate. Not only has McCain reversed himself on every position he has not been forthcoming with the public. McCain is no different than Bush -- they are both part and parcel of the Washington establishment.

How can we trust McCain to clean-up Washington when his campaign is run by lobbyists -- not to mention several were forced to resign for corruption charges and/or other altercations.

Repeatedly we hear McCain saying he puts country first, but it has become painfully clear he puts his own ambitions first. Choosing Sarah Palin is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette with the nation's security. After exploiting the Georgian crisis many wondered if McCain was not trying to start the second Cold War. Jumping into the middle of the bail-out negotiations McCain made the situation worse. Those are political stunts that could have serious consequences. Anyone prone to acting so recklessly disqualifies that individual.

For someone who "says" he has a plan and knows how to fix things, but has little to show for it does not inspire confidence. While in the midst of several crisis when America needs a steady, calm, no-drama, pragmatic leader -- one that we can trust and feel confident in -- McCain's temperament, erratic behaviour, anger and recklessness spells disaster.

Many say a tiger does not change its stripes, a leopard does not change its spot and humans do not change either. The way McCain has run his campaign which has been nothing short of dishonourable, dishonest and disgraceful perhaps is the real McCain.

Given McCain's voting record, showing he voted with Bush over 90% of the time and having been part of the Washington establishment for 26 years does not a maverick make. Like Bush, McCain is part of the problem, not the solution. At this point nothing will convince me otherwise.

If McCain did make a comeback, god help us all!

Re: Petraeus Talk Seems to Bolster Obama

Trex — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:19:49 -0000

I think he's listening to voices in his head.

Re: Petraeus Talk Seems to Bolster Obama

serena1313 — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:29:03 -0000

General Petraeus for some time was too partisan by repeating the Bush doctrine talking points. Not too long ago I read an article that said Petraeus believes applying words such as "victory" and "success" to Iraq was unhelpful. Apparently he was serious about that. And now that Petraeus is suggesting we talk to our adversaries and is sounding more reasonable will McCain follow suit?

The ability to understand complex issues and how everything is interconnected escapes McCain. He is pretty much a one-dimensional thinker in terms of either, or. Furthermore making snap decisions without considering the consequences especially in a fit of anger is a fundamental character flaw which is risky for the nation.

McCain makes up things all the time. He cannot stand it when anyone questions his judgment and/or authourity. McCain really believes he is right, even when fewer and fewer people are less inclined to agree, still does not phase him: It's my way or the highway attitude that gives voters reason for pause.

Therein one wonders if McCain is unaware of General Petraeus' testimony or is he ignoring it because it is inconvenient and does not fit into his talking points? If the latter that begs asking whether McCain would listen to Petraeus or would he fire the general if [god forbid] elected?

McCain talks about putting country first, but by all indications that is simply not the case. If so, he would listen to voices of reason rather than his ego.

Re: McCain Didn't Even Read Treasury Proposal -- Political Wire

serena1313 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:57:21 -0000

McCain has been all over the map on his positions. He has made 5 important decisions in haste this past year without considering the consequences. With everything as volatile as is, this is not the time for unpredictable, hasty decisions.

McCain repeats ad naseum "Country First."

Was threatening Russia putting country first? What did he have in mind, another Cold War?

What about choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate -- someone who is so obviously unprepared and unqualified ? He has tried to sell Palin as someone with experience, knowledgeable on foreign affairs and ready to step-in as President should something happen. However confident he claims to be in Palin's abilities those claims fall flat by denying the press access and now he is suggesting delaying the debates? Is that putting country first?

At a time of instability and uncertainty Americans are looking for reassurance and steady leadership. That is why the country is turning to Obama.

In contrast McCain is making the public nervous. Apparently rather than taking the critical issues of the day seriously, he is playing politics.

The general consensus: McCain is putting McCain first, not country first.

Re: As a First-Term Senator, McCain Railed Against His Own Pork

serena1313 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:59:58 -0000

Thankfully the media is reporting on McCain's lies and Palin's, too. However the word "lie" rarely used by the press is no longer the exception.

Practically every day, at the very least, the media catches McCain and/or Palin in at least one lie, but that does not stop either from repeating the lies ad naseum. Apparently they do not care about losing credibility and the public's confidence. But once gone it is next to if not impossible to regain either one back.

If we cannot trust what McCain and Palin say, now, what leads anyone to believe either one will start telling the truth (god forbid if elected) once in office?

For eight years we have been fed lie after lie after lie. We deserve better.

If we want change the only way to make that happen is for voters to reject McCain and Palin.

Otherwise rewarding them makes us absolute ignorant fools.

Re: Smart Tactical Pick? -- Political Wire

JanNH — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:55:16 -0000

re: "it seems to me that for her to take over if (god forbid) McCain dies or becomes incapacitated it would be disastrous for the nation."

God forbid?
Shit, that sounds unbelievably sincere.

Brand New Obama campaign slogan:

"Vote for ME!!!!!!!!!
I'm warning you:
HE'S going to DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

L.M.F.A.O.!

This is really a first.

Re: Smart Tactical Pick? -- Political Wire

serena1313 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:58:55 -0000

Jan, I think you went off the reservation here. You keep posting that Obama has never accomplished anything so you were wrong; he has.

Since Palin does not have any foreign policy experience nor national security experience it seems to me that for her to take over if (god forbid) McCain dies or becomes incapacitated it would be disastrous for the nation. Imagine her talking to Putin, al-Malaki or Sarkosky .... that does not make me feel confident.

What Iam saying Jan is that if you want a woman VP who is anti-everything most women treasure, then you should say so -- you can do that without tearing down Obama or making up fabrications about him. It hurts your credibility. And if you want to be taken seriously that is important.

And no John McCain does not get a "job well-done." Sure he got Obama's name out of the headlines, but that will not help McCain in the long-run because the 'after-Convention' bounce disappears anyhow. So McCain really did nothing for himself on that note. Moreover everyone I've spoken with said it looked like it was an act of desperation.

Re: Smart Tactical Pick? -- Political Wire

JanNH — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:31:29 -0000

Obama's successful campaign convinced me that he's a successful politician, nothing more.

So, comparing experience --

Obama was "the lead voice" on a bunch of legislation and "won approval" from his colleagues...

...and Sarah Palin won one beauty contest and finished runner-up in another?

That's a real fair assessment?
That's not sexist?
That's not blinded cult worship?

Okay.

And still the crack-up is...

You keep comparing your PRESIDENTIAL candidate's "experience" with the GOP VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate!

And, I'd say he did a damn good job of grabbing the headlines, wouldn't you?
What speech in a big football stadium where Oprah cried her eyelashes off?

According to your assessment of Obama's campaign ploys, you should be saying to Sen. McCain right now, "Job well done, my friend."

Re: Smart Tactical Pick? -- Political Wire

serena1313 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:13:48 -0000

Jan I have read your posts saying time and again that Obama has no executive experience: let's start with running a 50-state campaign. Having never run a national campaign he has done sao marvelously. That is traditionally considered a way to gage how the person will run the WH

Sarah Palin, as mayor, left Wasilla in financial ruin. She is also involved in an ethics investigation. Alaskans are not happy with her. Her colleagues are astonished that she was picked as VP. They say she is not even qualified to be mayor!

Palin is pro-life, pro-teaching creationism, pro-war, pro-oil and anti-environment, anti-stemcell research, anti-science, anti-endangered animal protection. That does not exactly fit Hillary's supporters. Palin dissed HRC as whiny.

What kind of advice can Palin give McCain on domestic and/or foreign policy? How does she enhance his ticket other than being a woman? And we all know what McCain thinks of women.

Obama's Accomplishments:
# President of Harvard Law Review.

# Was a chief co-sponsor of the bill to create the state of Illinois' Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

# Third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the United States Senate.

# In November of 2005 Obama called for a Phased Withdrawal from Iraq, a commitment to having No U.S. Bases in Iraq within a decade.

# First Federal law was a bipartisan measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.

# Obama passed the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act of 2005.

# Obama co-sponsored a bill to improve the national program to register and monitor individuals who commit crimes against children or sex offenses.

# Obama passed law to authorize The Violence Against Women Act Of 2005.

# In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation, later signed into law by the president, to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons which also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

# Lead voice in US Senate ethics reform that would root out corruption in Congress.

# Created and led a 50-state Presidential Campaign and managed this more than $200,000,000 business while recruiting over 2,000,000 contributors.

There are dozens more of accomplishments if you would do some research you'd find that out.

Palin's accomplishments:

# In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant, at which she won a college scholarship. In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and won "Miss Congeniality."

# Introduced economy to Alaska's government by selling state jet on E-Bay.

# Signed a controversial agreement with a Canadian company, TransCanada, allowing for Canadian construction of a Trans-Alaska pipeline.

# Won legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help pay for high energy prices.

The contrast is stark.

McCain chose a woman not because he is progressive -- he did because he needed something to grab headlines. And if women cannot see that then we will get the president we deserve. But if he had really wanted a woman VP, he would have chosen a qualified republican woman.

Re: Novak Hospitalized -- Political Wire

serena1313 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:11:41 -0000

I wish Novak a speedy recovery.