Later On

Chalmers Johnson was a Cold Warrior who worked with the CIA for years. He describes how his point of view changed—and why—in this fascinating movie (available to Watch Instantly). Highly recommended: it’s not an interview, it’s just him explaining what goes on, and he clearly knows what he’s talking about.

I can’t wait to start making Megs’s food. Take a look at this cool pictorial on making food for your cat(s).

Those that are low in iron. See this note.

From Climate Progress:

A recent poll by the National Wildlife Federation, which counts more than 420,000 members across 42 states, found that 66 percent of hunters and anglers surveyed believed that global warming was already occurring.

A Gallup poll in March 2009 found that only 53 percent of the general population shared the same view.

People who spend a lot of their time outdoors are more likely to see the obvious — the climate is changing and invasive species like the bark beetle are ravaging the West.  That’s a key point of this piece in the NYT blog, Green Inc:

More than 13,000 hunters and anglers from across the country joined a “virtual town hall” teleconference on Tuesday to hear a discussion of the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife populations, and to voice their support for federal action to limit carbon emissions.

The call was hosted by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, American Hunters and Shooters, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

“It’s very important in my opinion that we do pass the climate change bill,” said Ted Roosevelt IV, a prominent conservationist and the great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, during the phone call.

The virtual meeting is part of a recent wave of climate activism by national hunting and fishing groups, whose conservative-leaning membership has expressed growing concern with the impacts of climate change on wildlife.

It’s great to see a broader group of the population starting to engage in what will be the central issue of our time.  But then, for outdoorsmen and -women, the changes driven by human emissions are all-but-impossible to miss: …

Continue reading.

Some Republican politicians embrace government healthcare—but only for themselves. From an email from the Center for American Progress:

Yesterday, the office of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) released an internal study showing that 151 members of Congress "currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care — Medicare." Of those 151 members, 55 are Republicans who also happen to be "steadfastly opposed [to] other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen."

Included on Weiner’s list are anti-public option crusaders Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

Weiner explained that the purpose of this study is to "point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate." "Even in a town known for hypocrisy," Weiner said in a statement yesterday, "this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else."

Back in July, Weiner, an outspoken proponent of single-payer health care reform, offered an amendment that would have given these 55 people a chance to end their own public option by eliminating Medicare once and for all. According to Weiner, it was "put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’" Of course, no one voted for the measure. Yet now "you have members of Congress thumping their chest how they’re against government health care," Weiner noted, adding, "and yet when it’s time for them to accept Medicare, they’re like, ‘Sign me up!’"

Interesting column by David Sirota:

For better or worse, our American Idiocracy has come to rely on athletes as national pedagogues. Michael Jordan educated the country about commitment and just doing it. A.C. Green lectured us about sexual caution. Serena Williams and John McEnroe taught us what sportsmanship is — and is not. And Charles Barkley outlined how society should define role models.

So when a single week like this one sees both the Justice Department back states’ medical marijuana laws, and a Gallup poll show record-level support for pot legalization, we can look to two superjocks — Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps — for the key lesson about our absurd drug policy.

This Tale of Two Supermen began in February when Phelps, the gold-medal swimmer, was plastered all over national newspapers in a photo that showed him hitting a marijuana bong. Though he was smoking in private, the image ignited a public firestorm. USA Swimming suspended Phelps, Kellogg pulled its endorsement deal and the Associated Press sensationalized the incident as a national decision about whether heroes should "be perfect or flawed."

The alleged imperfection was Phelps’ decision to quietly consume a substance that "poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol," as a redacted World Health Organization report admits. That’s a finding confirmed by almost every objective science-based analysis, including a landmark University of California study in 2006 showing "no association at all" between marijuana use and cancer.

Alcohol, by contrast, causes roughly 1 in 30 of the world’s cancer cases, according to the International Journal of Cancer. And a new report by Cancer Epidemiology journal shows that even beer, seemingly the least potent drink, may increase the odds of developing tumors.

Which brings us to Armstrong. This month, the Tour de France champion who beat cancer inked a contract to hawk Anheuser-Busch’s alcohol.

That’s right, less than a year after Phelps was crucified for merely smoking weed in private, few noticed or protested the planet’s most famous cancer survivor becoming the public face of a possible carcinogen…

Continue reading.

Hint: it’s a photo made through a microscope.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rachel Slajda at TPM LiveWire:

When North Carolina state senator Phil Berger (R) trucked a wheelbarrow stacked with Republican surveys into the governor’s office, he thought he was delivering a neat blow to Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue.

According to The News & Observer, the 3,000 or so surveys, filled out by prospective Republican voters, included questions such as "Do you think death panels made up of government bureaucrats should decide if your loved ones live or die?"

But it seems Berger didn’t actually read the surveys before wheeling them in during a press conference in which he attacked Perdue’s tax policies, among other things. When Perdue’s staff skimmed 1,000 or so of the surveys, they found comments that may have given Berger second thoughts.

"I am embarrassed to be associated with this organization. Your tactics are disgusting and you’re going to lose a generation of voters," was one, Perdue spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson told the News.

"Stop wording questions so geared up to get the answers you want and start wording them to actually find out the people’s opinion, not just confirm your own," read another.

Pearson also said she found a $50 check among the surveys, a campaign contribution made out to Berger. The governor’s office will forward the check to him, she said…

Miss Megs, grabbing a nap this morning after her breakfast. Notice that she’s sleeping on her face.

This is worth reading:

David Rohde’s series on his time in Taliban captivity.

• Part 1: 7 Months, 10 Days
• Part 2: Inside the Islamic Emirate
• Part 3: World of Young Militants
• Part 4: Dwindling Hope
• Part 5: A Rope and a Prayer
• Q. & A.
• Interactive Feature

The Gillette English open-comb Aristocrat is once more a beauty. You will recall that in this photo (click twice to enlarge) the razor quite obviously needed a cleaning and polishing—which I did: two cycles through the ultrasonic cleaner with a solution of white vinegar and a bit of dishwasher detergent, then some silver polish. Click the above image twice and examine.

The beast is the Semogue 2000, which I’m still trying to tame. It’s coming along nicely, and soaking it while I shower certainly helps. I got a fine lather from the Vintage Blades triple-milled shaving soap—enough for two good passes, and then back to the soap for a bit more for the last pass.

The Astra Keramik Platinum blade did an excellent job, and Barbasol was a cooling finish.

The US, as Jane Mayer points out in this must-read article, has now established a policy of assassination of certain of its enemies, selected by unknown means and criteria. This is a BIG change, which is why Mayer’s article is so important. The article is not on-line except to subscribers, but this one would be worth buying the issue. Here’s the abstract:

THE POLITICAL SCENE about the C.I.A.’s covert drone program. On August 5th, officials at the C.I.A., in Langley, VA, watched a live video feed relaying closeup footage of one of the most wanted terrorists in Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, on the rooftop of his father-in-law’s house. The video was captured by the infrared camera of a Predator drone—a remotely controlled, unmanned plane that had been hovering, undetected, two miles or so above the house. The C.I.A. remotely launched two Hellfire missiles from the Predator, and Mehsud and eleven others died. There was no controversy when, a few days after the missile strike, CNN reported that President Barack Obama had authorized it. However, there was widespread anger after the Wall Street Journal revealed, at about the same time, that during the Bush Administration the C.I.A. had considered setting up hit squads to capture or kill Al Qaeda operatives around the world. Hina Shamsi, a human-rights lawyer at the New York University School of Law, was struck by the inconsistency of the public’s responses. She said of the Predator program, “These are targeted international killings by the state.” The Predator program, as it happens, also uses private contractors for a variety of tasks, including “flying” the drones. The U.S. government runs two drone programs. The military’s version, which is publicly acknowledged, operates in the recognized war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and targets combatants in support of U.S. troops stationed there. The C.I.A.’s program is aimed at terror suspects around the world, including in places where U.S. troops are not based. The program is classified as covert, and the C.I.A. declines to provide any information to the public about where it operates, how it selects targets, who is in charge, or how many people have been killed. Nevertheless, reports of fatal air strikes in Pakistan emerge every few days. According to a new study by the New America Foundation, the number of drone strikes has gone up dramatically since Obama became President. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the defense contractor that manufactures the Predator and its more heavily armed sibling, the Reaper, can barely keep up with the government’s demand. With public disenchantment mounting over the U.S. troop deployment in Afghanistan, many in Washington support an even greater reliance on Predator strikes. And because of the program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place. Peter W. Singer, the author of “Wired for War,” a recent book about the robotics revolution in modern combat, argues that the drone program is worryingly “seductive,” because it creates the perception that war can be “costless.” Cut off from the realities of the bombings in Pakistan, Americans have been insulated from the human toll, as well as the political and moral consequences. The advent of the Predator targeted-killing program “is really a sea change,” says Gary Solis. Before September 11th, the C.I.A. refused to deploy the Predator for anything other than surveillance. Eight years later, there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy. The Predator program is described by many in the intelligence world as America’s single most effective weapon against Al Qaeda. But the program has stirred deep ethical concerns. According to the New America Foundation’s study, only six of the forty-one C.I.A. drone strikes conducted by the Obama Administration in Pakistan have targeted Al Qaeda.

You can, however, read this interview with her:

In this week’s issue of the magazine, Jane Mayer writes about the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan—a program that the Obama Administration is relying upon more and more. (Subscribers can access the entire article; everyone else can buy access to this issue online.) Mayer spoke about the costs of a remote-controlled war, the C.I.A.’s lack of transparency, and the Pakistan’s complicated response.

How has the use of Predator drones by the United States changed the situation in Pakistan?

Read the rest of this entry »

John Cole at Balloon Juice:

This:

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.

Inouye’s office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.

“The defense contractors have been storming his office,” said a source with knowledge of the situation. “Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR’s (or other contractors’) own terms—with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely.”

A supermajority voted for the amendment, as it passed 68-30, but big business can come in and grease the palms of one Senator and the will of the people is thwarted. And politicians wonder why people have no faith in government or think the government isn’t looking out for the little guy.

Who needs Republicans with folks like this?

She’s a Democrat, but seems remarkably ignorant. Steve Benen notes:

The AP reports this morning on the Senate Democrats "who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party’s hierarchy," and who may stand in the way of health care reform.

Many of the usual suspects were mentioned, but one stood out.

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don’t have enough insurance choices.

But she told reporters, "I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be."

That is, except for Medicare, which is a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.

And Medicaid, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.

And the V.A. system, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.

And S-CHIP, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.

And the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports — and takes personal advantage of.

Yes, except for all the "government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plans" Landrieu already favors, she’s not for them and she never will be.

Good to know.

Maybe she’s not so much ignorant as stupid—or believes that her constituents are.

I loved the movie Ong Bak (available at the link as a Netflix Watch Instantly movie), and now the sequel is coming and it looks to be awesome:

Back in 2003, a little Thai movie called Ong Bak introduced the world to an elephant-herder-turned-martial-artist named Tony Jaa. Directed by Prachya Pinkaew, the movie became a global sensation and rocketed Pinkaew and Jaa into the international celeb-o-sphere. They quickly collaborated on a follow-up called Tom Yum Goong (aka The Protector) that became the most successful Thai film ever released in America. Two times lucky, the Thai studio Sahamongkol Films eagerly green-lighted Jaa’s dream project: Ong Bak 2 (Magnet Releasing), to be written, directed, produced, choreographed, and starred in by Jaa himself. What followed was a motion-picture meltdown, with Jaa disappearing into the jungle, Mr. Kurtz-style, as star and studio went to war.

With 70 percent of the film in the can, the massive production ground to a halt when, depending on whom you believe, either a) money promised by Sahamongkol never materialized, and Jaa went bankrupt, paying the crew out of his own pockets until even his electricity was cut off, or b) Tony Jaa went way over budget, and when Sahamongkol shut off the money faucet, he threw a snit fit.

Either way, Jaa disappeared for two months, abandoning one of the most expensive Thai movies ever made. When the press picked up the story, everyone went crying to the cameras, with Jaa claiming that he was being followed by men in safari suits who wanted to kidnap him and Sahamongkol claiming that Jaa was a disloyal family member who was out of control. Finally, the deputy commissioner-general of the police interceded and negotiated a truce. The result? Prachya Pinkaew, who had fallen out with Jaa, was brought in to oversee the remainder of the film; Jaa’s mentor, Panna Rittikrai came onboard as official co-director; Jaa was put in front of the cameras; the movie went three times over budget; and it became the top-grossing Thai film of the year. This week, it’s coming to America…

Continue reading.

I’ve been eating tempeh lately in my stir-fries. It does well if you fry it in the oil, perhaps along with onions, until it’s well fried, and then add the other stuff. For a quick meal, I use one of Trader Joe’s frozen rice dishes, but first cook onions, tempeh, and some leaves (e.g., chopped cabbage or radicchio) before adding the rice.

Tempeh cooked this way is quite tasty.

Bankruptcy from medical expenses—common in the US, unknown in advanced countries.

Al Giordano has an important post on this issue. From the post:

His post begins:

Monday’s memorandum by the Obama administration that the federal government will cease wasting law enforcement, prosecutorial (and correspondingly court) budgets on arresting and raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and patients came as the next logical step in what has primarily been a textbook organizing campaign from below.

The history is instructive on how small steps lead to big change, and is worth study by all who clamor for progress on many fronts: from bringing about national health care to ending the US embargo of Cuba to immigration reform to overhauling an entire economic system, to each and every “issue” one might advocate.

Much of my work as a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s was in the realm of reporting on US drug policy and the movements that sought to repeal or reform it. In that I had a front row seat to the debates and discussions – always passionate, often rancorous – between advocates and organizations that worked to change those laws. There were natural tensions between, for example, those who saw drug prohibition itself as the cause of so much harm, violence and injustice and concluded (as I do) that repeal of prohibitionist laws against all drugs – including those which are addictive or cause clear risks to their users – is a necessary step for any society that yearns to breathe authentically free. Others, representative of tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana recreationally or medically, simply wanted to establish their own right to do so in peace, without much regard to the related societal harms on people that were not demographically like them.

Conferences would be held and those matters of philosophy and strategy would be argued strenuously but meanwhile the drug war marched on as a literal war – with its own armaments, POWs and death toll – by the US government against its own people and against many in other lands.

In the mid-1990s, some forward-thinking advocates of drug policy reform concluded that the big, central matter – whether recreational drugs should be legalized or not – was simply too big and confusing a matter for so much of the public to tackle all at once. Even the matter of legalizing relatively harmless marijuana was overwhelming in terms of public opinion. As the Gallup poll graph above recounts, …

Continue reading.