jump to navigation

Banter 20 October 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, WAR!.
trackback

Nothing to do with the Tapper v Gibbs below, I just like to pop up these lovely photos of women riding in the far far back of the family automobile, as I land on them….

Gibbs carries on the brilliant weekend had by the WH emissaries… and the righties are loving it.  I have lost track of the outlets and voices who see this dumb fake media war as worth anything, much less a pretzel’s precious time.  Helen, The Nation, Ruth Marcus, even his old stand-by, NYT.

JAKE TAPPER AT THE WHITE HOUSE:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

****

Other than that… have to love the Pope to the Anglicans: come on over, we are ante-deluvian!! No “untidiness” here!! (oh no none at all!)

John Allen at National Catholic:

In a move with potentially sweeping implications for relations between the Catholic church and some 80 million Anglicans worldwide, the Vatican has announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to absorb disaffected Anglicans wishing to become Catholics. The structures will allow those Anglicans to hold onto their distinctive spiritual practices, including the ordination of married former Anglican clergy as Catholic priests. . . . the main American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. American Episcopalians are said to number some 2.2 million.

today’s move creates the possibility that bishops’ conferences around the world can create personal ordinariates, a special structure that’s tantamount to a non-territorial diocese, to accept Anglicans under the leadership of a former Anglican minister who would be designated a bishop.

. . .former Anglican clergy who are married may serve as priests in the new ordinariates, but they may not be ordained as bishops. Seminarians for the new ordinariates must be trained alongside other Catholic seminarians, though they may have separate houses of formation.

The details will be presented in a new apostolic constitution from Pope Benedict XVI, expected to be issued shortly. Popes issue apostolic constitutions in order to amend the church’s Code of Canon Law, in this case to create new legal structures.

The Vatican note described the new “personal ordinariates” as similar to the structures created throughout the world to provide pastoral care for members of the military and their families. The structures are in effect separate dioceses, presided over by a bishop and with their own priests, seminarians, and faithful.

Mergers and Acquisitions?  Leveraged Buy-Out?

I notice some of the righties think there will be wholesale evacuation to the Holy Roman Empire by African Anglican priests and congregations.

Good luck to all! May they all, evacuees and welcoming arms, trip over the Consecrated Host, the Body and Blood of Jeeesuhs!

What is left to say about much of anything that is going on?  It’s all about head counts…

About these ads

Comments»

1. Madman in the Marketplace - 20 October 2009
marisacat - 20 October 2009

oh i wondered about him the other day… Tiny Revolution linked to a piece of his from …late 2007 iirc on doings in Iran, US undercover activities… So how are you Sy?

Thanks for the link. I cannot think of a better pair to be at loggerheads than Clueless Crowd from Chicago and The Us Mil, all but a junta.

And so on

2. Madman in the Marketplace - 20 October 2009
3. Madman in the Marketplace - 20 October 2009

Report: One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians

The New America Foundation’s Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann have a new report out tallying how many civilians have died in the Pakistani tribal areas thanks to the CIA’s drone strikes. Their conclusion: the strikes have killed, since 2006, between 750 and 1000 people; 20 of them have been “leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and allied groups”; and “the real total of civilian deaths since 2006 appears to be in the range of 250 to 320, or between 31 and 33 percent.”

marisacat - 20 October 2009

Hail the Holy Drone. Military sorties that will continue no matter the numbers game in Af half of Af-Pak.

marisacat - 21 October 2009

The Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker – on Oblation’s expansion of the Pakistani drone attacks is not online, but Ben Smith offers this:

October 21, 2009
Categories:

* White House

Letting Pakistan pick the targets

Jane Mayer’s big New Yorker piece on Obama’s expansion of drone programs in Pakistan isn’t online, but this section from an interview with her is pretty striking:


What does Pakistan think of the drones?

Originally, the Pakistani people’s reaction to the U.S. drone strikes in their country was incredibly negative. Pakistanis rose up and complained that the program violated their sovereignty. So, to obtain Pakistani support—or at least the support of the Zardari government—the Obama Administration quietly decided last March to allow the Pakistani government to nominate some of its own targets. The U.S. has been and is involved in killing not just Al Qaeda figures, but Pakistani targets—people like Taliban leader Beitullah Mehsud who are enemies of the Pakistani state.

Are there any safeguards that prevent the U.S. from carrying out political vendettas for top Pakistani officials?

Well, the problem with this program is that it’s invisible; I would guess there must be all kinds of legal safeguards, and lawyers at the C.I.A. are discussing who we can kill and who we can’t, but none of that is available to the American people. It’s quite a contrast with the armed forces, because the use of lethal force in the military is a transparent process. There are after-action reports, and there’s a very obvious chain of command. We know where the responsibility runs, straight on up to the top of the government. This system keeps checks on abuses of power. There is no such transparency at the C.I.A.

Posted by Ben Smith 10:58 AM

* comments (9)
* post a comment
* permalink

All hail the CIA and its war front. Dragging us all along behind it.

One political story I will wait for, is that of these weeks.. during which one more fucking war monger in the Big Plantation House dithered.

What is really going on?

Cuz it si not tenderness about killing people.

******

PS a section of the interview that BS did not exerpt (and the core of why these damned wars will be endless):

How do these targeted killings not violate the U.S. ban on assassinations?

After 9/11, the Bush Administration declared that terrorism was no longer a crime; it was an extension of war. Soldiers are privileged to kill enemy combatants in a war, and America is legally allowed to defend itself. And these targeted killings became an extension of the global war on terror.

And another:

How long has there been drone activity in Pakistan? Is it new?

Toward the end of the Bush Administration, the drone program in Pakistan ramped up, but when Obama became President, he accelerated it even faster. It’s surprising [don't make me laugh TOO hard -- Mcat], but the Obama Administration has carried out as many unmanned drone strikes in its first ten months as the Bush Administration did in its final three years. It’s the favorite weapon of choice right now against Al Qaeda, and for good reason: It’s been effective in killing a lot of people the U.S. wants to see dead.

Just so people are clear, whatever the intention of the electorate, that was a vote for WAR, and will be again, in 2010 and 2012.

Carry on.

4. marisacat - 20 October 2009

hmmm speaking of banter. Don’t laugh TOO hard….

Oprah hopes Palin has the right stuff to win back viewers

By Lisa de Moraes
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Oprah Winfrey, on a campaign to climb back from last season’s ratings slump, will attempt to kiss and make up with conservative viewers on Nov. 16 when she has Sarah Palin on her syndicated talk show .

You may have noticed that the appearance by the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate is happening smack dab in the middle of the November ratings derby.

It’s also the day before Palin’s new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” is scheduled to hit bookstores.

Oprah’s production company, Harpo, claims it will be Palin’s first interview about the book. We’ll see about that. . . . . . . .

artemis54 - 21 October 2009

Uh say Jay-zuss-uh.

Second Samuel 1:27, Sister Oprah: “How the mighty have fallen”

5. marisacat - 20 October 2009

We’ve truly hit bottom. I turned up the sound on Nightline.. and it is about celebrity look alike sperm banks.

I suppose we can fall farther.

6. marisacat - 20 October 2009

Tariq Ali has a piece up in C Punch…

Karzai has been a total disaster but so has the occupation that implanted him in Kabul. Now with a war going badly wrong and the insurgents controlling large swathes of territory, Karzai is being scape-goated for sins for which he is not exclusively responsible. . . . .

Well he is an asshole, but he is ours. We put him there.

marisacat - 21 October 2009

The close of the Ali article:

[W]hile the farce plays out in Kabul, in neighbouring Pakistan the situation has become more deadly. The Zardari government (effectively run by the US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson) has ordered the Pakistan Army to wipe out the Taliban in South Waziristan near the Afghan border.

This, too, will fail. More innocents will die, more refugees will be created adding to the two million ‘internally displaced persons’ already living in camps. The result will be a bitter legacy, fuelling hatred and revenge attacks in the region and, ominously, creating further tensions inside the Pakistan Army.

Incapable of understanding that it is the Afghan war’s spill-over into Pakistan that has exacerbated the crisis in Pakistan, the Obama administration’s directives can only make it worse.

I read today, somewhere or other, that at the annual remembrance in Japan at the Atomic Museum… Obama was lauded in Hiroshima as the hope of the world. Here I found it.

GOOD LUCK!

[W]e sat in a booth and watched a video of Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba as he read the 2009 Hiroshima Peace Declaration to the crowd of citizens and global delegates attending the 64th anniversary of the dropping of the atom bomb on his city.

His August 6th, 2009 speech:

On the occasion of the Peace Memorial Ceremony commemorating the 64th anniversary of the atomic bombing, we offer our solemn, heartfelt condolence to the souls of the A-bomb victims, and, together with the city of Nagasaki and the majority of Earth’s people and nations, we pledge to strive with all our strength for a world free from nuclear weapons.

We have the power. We have the responsibility. And we are the Obamajority. Together, we can abolish nuclear weapons. Yes, we can.

Listening to these words all we could say was wow. The Obamajority. They are, and we are, the Obamajority.

This was a powerful revelation: That such people who have endured such history, who have struggled for decades to secure a remedy that includes never again, that such people see in the words and actions of the United States President Barack Obama that not only is a change in the course of human history possible, this change is truly underway.

Wow. What to say.

7. artemis54 - 21 October 2009

Wtf happened to Kathleen Sebelius? She’s tesifying before Senate Homeland bla blah. One eye is swollen shut, half the eyebrow missing, and a big bandage over the middle of her forehead. I hope it’s a bandage, it might be her flesh peeling off.

Did somebody beat the shit out of her? Is she a Cylon?

marisacat - 21 October 2009

Oh I don’t know… she smiled delivering bad news and someone took ti personally?

8. marisacat - 21 October 2009

We are so blessed. And don’t say we are not.

Perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.

By Jonathan Turley

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion. . . . . .

9. War mincing – election mincing – abuse mincing … all the same damned thing. « Marisacat - 21 October 2009

[...] Comments marisacat on Bantermarisacat on Bantermarisacat on Banterartemis54 on Banterartemis54 on Bantermarisacat on [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: