I painted it with light.
Yesterday I discovered that someone was playing a dirty political trick. I wish I could tell you what that trick was but I can't and I won't. You see, what makes this trick so heinous is that it is only effective if it is exposed. In other words, the trick doesn't work unless I tell you what it is.
I came across the nasty trick while researching a news story that had been posted on DU. While I also won't provide the news story or the post where I read it, I will tell you that the trick involves:
1) Democratic candidate A
2) Democratic candidate B
3) A third party
4) The Internet
The moment I discovered this rat-f*cking trick I was floored. I thought, "This is big. Maybe not lying-us-into-war big, but big enough to make candidate B look very bad". In fact, initially, I thought candidate B was responsible for the trick. I confess, I was severely tempted to tell you all everything I found. Thank goodness I resisted, because the more I researched, the more I became convinced that the true source of the dirty trick was a third party.
To further clarify, I will explain that on the surface, the trick appears as if candidate B is slurring candidate A in a despicable fashion. Unfortunately, this kind of trick involves a knowledge of the web that the average citizen does not possess. Even sadder, the average news reporter also lacks the ability to comprehend the finer details of how this trick can be instigated by a third party. If this trick comes to light, it will probably serve its purpose in hurting the campaign of candidate B - while the third party lurks laughing, unnoticed and unscathed.
I came to DU with my vague suspicions and asked for advice. I read that advice, took it to heart and then took a nap. When I awoke, I did what some had advised and I had already decided to do: I called the campaign office of candidate A.
I was worried that the people working for candidate A would not understand what I had discovered. I was prepared to give a lesson on how this sort of thing works. I was even ready for the candidate A's people to scoff at and discard my warnings. My worries were unfounded.
The campaign worker I spoke to already knew everything about this secret, dirty trick. The whole campaign knows. They even know that there is a third party responsible.
This is where I bow in reverence to the people working for candidate A, as well as the candidate. This person has knowledge of something that could be spun effectively to further their cause. Instead of spinning, they have chosen to stay quiet. Whereas I would hope that if the tables were turned, candidate B would choose to be so ethical, I am not so sure.
As to the third party, they are still a mystery. I will continue to research the information on my own but I have faith that the people working for candidate A are on top of this. They will get to the bottom of it and if this dirty trick is ever exposed, I am positive that they will do the honorable thing and name that third party.
In closing, I suspect that the third party is waiting for an opportune moment to release the information that I found. I will give the third party a fair warning:
They're on to you. They already know what you're trying to pull and you're not going to get away with it.
It is never the intention of a satyagrahi to embarrass the wrongdoer. The appeal is never to his fear; it is, must be, always to his heart. The satyagrahis object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrongdoer, He should avoid artificiality in all his doings. He acts naturally and from inward conviction. - Gandhi
The Rules of Satyagraha:
1. Harbour no anger
2. Suffer the anger of the opponent
3. Never retaliate to assaults or punishment; but do not submit, out of fear of punishment or assault, to an order given in anger
4. Voluntarily submit to arrest or confiscation of your own property
5. If you are a trustee of property, defend that property (non-violently) from confiscation with your life
6. Do not curse or swear
7. Do not insult the opponent
8. Neither salute nor insult the flag of your opponent or your opponent’s leaders
9. If anyone attempts to insult or assault your opponent, defend your opponent (non-violently) with your life
10. As a prisoner, behave courteously and obey prison regulations (except any that are contrary to self-respect)
11. As a prisoner, do not ask for special favourable treatment
12. As a prisoner, do not fast in an attempt to gain conveniences whose deprivation does not involve any injury to your self-respect
13. Joyfully obey the orders of the leaders of the civil disobedience action
14. Do not pick and choose amongst the orders you obey; if you find the action as a whole improper or immoral, sever your connection with the action entirely
15. Do not make your participation conditional on your comrades taking care of your dependents while you are engaging in the campaign or are in prison; do not expect them to provide such support
16. Do not become a cause of communal quarrels
17. Do not take sides in such quarrels, but assist only that party which is demonstrably in the right; in the case of inter-religious conflict, give your life to protect (non-violently) those in danger on either side
18. Avoid occasions that may give rise to communal quarrels
19. Do not take part in processions that would wound the religious sensibilities of any community
Last week, in a kpete thread concerning Palast's reportage on the Rove/Email/Caging/Vote scandal, another DUer (L. Coyote) posted a link to a YouTube video. The YouTube was film of double-bill speeches given by Palast and Robert Kennedy Jr. on May 1st. The YouTube was part one of eight parts. Being that I am lucky enough to have broadband, I decided to watch to the whole thing. That was, until I got to part three. That was when Greg Palast pissed me off.
To be more accurate, Mr. Palast didn't upset me. What he said upset me. His words upset me so much, I stopped the YouTube and left the computer. Here is what he said:
"A lot of people in this room think that George went in there to get the oil. Well, Exxon does not send in its exploration company with the 101st Airborne to find oil and bring it back so that Bobby can and fill up his yellow Hummer cheaply...(joke) Prius!
No. They send in the 101st to go in and find the oil and turn off the spigots. The lower the supply, the higher the price...So you think that the war is lost? Uh uh. The oil companies last year earned 120 billion dollars more profits than any set of corporations since the Pharoes. More profits than auto industries since the Model "T". When Bill Clinton was President the price of oil was $20 a barrel. Under George Bush, since the war tom toms started, the price has never gone below $50 a barrel. Twenty dollars a barrel...fifty dollars a barrel. Mission Accomplished."
I know the Iraq war was never about defense or terrorism. I knew it was about oil and money. The thing is, I always thought it was about getting the oil. It never occurred to me that it was about turning it off.
Many things about this administration upset me, but this...this is a whole new outrage for me.
Watch all 8 parts of the Palast/Kennedy speeches. Palast will infuriate you. Kennedy will inspire you.
Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du9QWpCWbbY...
I pay for membership at a site called domaintools.com. With my membership, I am able to perform a reverse IP lookup. What that means is that I am able to query a list of all the domains that share a particular web server.
You may have heard that some emails sent and received in the DOJ/USA scandal, came from an email account that points to the domain gwb43.org. When one performs a WHOIS lookup for gwb43.org, they find that the domain is registered to the RNC.
When I perform a reverse IP lookup for the RNC's main domain, rnc.org, the domain, gwb43.org will not appear. That is because currently, there is no website configured for the address.
The Republican National Committee has 123 domains listed on their server. For a while, I thought it best to keep this information to myself. I'm not really sure why anymore.
Here is a list of all the domains that share the same IP as rnc.org:
Ripley: Ash, can you hear me? ASH?
Ash: Yes, I can hear you.
Ripley: What was your special order?
Ash: You read it. I thought it was clear.
Ripley: What was it?
Ash: Bring back life form. Priority One. All other priorities rescinded.
When Bill Clinton won the presidential election in 1992, my friends and I danced, drank champagne and giggled like kids. The Reagan era was finally over. No more fearmongering. No more needless buildup of nuclear weapons. No more ignoring AIDS and the homeless. No more hate from the Moral Majority. No more pandering to greedy corporations. The people were in charge again. We felt like Ripley when she jettisoned that nasty Alien out of her spaceship.
"I got you"
And then we went to sleep. While we were sleeping they plotted and planned. They sent colonists out to inhabit our government, our media and our churches. The sent them out with one directive: Bring back control. All other priorities rescinded.
The didn't care who or what they sacrificed to obtain their objective. They paid no heed to honor or the rule of law. If an election was in question, fix the election. If an opposition candidate was too honest, make up a scandal. If a war is neither logical nor legal, lie about it. If a reporter gets too close to the truth, discredit him. If a former ambassador calls them on their bullshit, go after his wife. If a language translator uncovers treason, shut her up. If a warning comes of an imminent attack, pretend the warning never came. If dead soldiers don't play well on the TV, hide the bodies. If anything gets in their way, destroy it.
Take the religious fundamentalists. Much like poor crewmember Kane, they were drawn in, curious to the possibilities just beneath the surface of the shiny egg of political participation. Their leaders smacked them with the face-hugging monsters of homosexuality and abortion. They kept their believer's fears alive with promises to return America to an innocent 1950's utopia. All the while they fed off their money and faith. When G.W.
Then reality burst through the fundamentalist's collective stomach in the form of a bald-headed gay pretender by the name of Jeff Gannon. He was a hint of what lay ahead but he soon sped off into the bowels of the Internet, easily forgotten. The GOP continued to exploit the threat of monsters with assurances that they were on the side of God, the Christian God. They continued to profess their moral superiority while soldier after soldier died. They faulted God for their complete failure to conduct a proper response to hurricane Katrina. They boldly denied their corrupt purposes while their legislators came under investigation, were charged with crimes and sent to jail. And then, out of the shadows appeared a predator named Mark Foley. They claimed to chase him off but he came back, bigger and more horrendous and in the form of the Reverend Ted Haggard.
I won't pretend to be naive. Winning control of Congress for the Democrats won't slay the beast. I've seen the sequels. There will always be people that use whatever means possible to stay on top, be it terrorism or fascism or corporatism. Rogue countries possessing nuclear bombs don't frighten me nearly as much as the accepted practice of depleted uranium weapons. Terrorism is a real threat but global warming will end the human race. The real enemy is greed.
We are all Ellen Ripley. Forever destined to keep hunting monsters because "The Company" keeps letting them on the ship. We may never end them but as long as we are able, we must blow them out of the air lock because that's the only way, we the people, will survive.
Tuesday, November 7, is the big showdown. You may have no weapons and no training but you do have the power of numbers. Vote, damn you. VOTE
And to the GOP...BOO!
May all of these images burn in your brain for the rest of your lives:
More at the Memory Hole: WARNING (Images of Enemy Combatants in Abu Ghraib prison}
In 1942, the Supreme Court define as thus:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
Now, as we all know, every law is a double edge sword.
How will our supposed enemies define the enemy combatant?
What about those private contractors that PBS' Frontline referred to as:
As the Frontline program details:
"..."Private Warriors" also explores a very different kind of contractor -- the private world of security teams that work for firms like Blackwater, Aegis, and Erinys. They provide armed protection for U.S. government officials, government offices, military installations and even military commanders"
How will our enemies categorize these American men and women? Will they be capture and tortured? Will they be protected by the Geneva conventions?
***Link to Frontline story: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...
Hmmm, let's see...Nickanames. Sound bites. Cute little terms, easily remembered by one and all. The other side has been pretty good at coming up with frames for us: Flip-floppers. Cut-and-Runners. Traitors. Fascist Appeasers.
Maybe it's time we gave them a swell nickname. One that's memorable, funny and appropriate. Hmmm...what could it be?
Mickey Mouse President
Mickey Mouse Administration
Mickey Mouse Party
Bonus! Cheney gets to be Pluto!
Talk amongst yourselves...
This morning, Chertoff said:
"...there was no indication of any plotting in the United States but the United States was taking step to protect against unseen threats or copycat attacks. "We cannot assume that this threat has been completely thwarted," the secretary said..."
Now, I ask. Who are these copycats? How would they know to copy this if they hadn't heard it on TV first? The brits say the plot was foiled, yet there is still a threat. Who is the threat? Is it the copycats?
I've watched a few of these supposed "hearings". Everyone has seen Gonzo, Rummy and the rest explain and reason away rendition, torture and other prisoner atrocities. We've read their memos. We've watched them testify before our supposed legislators.
In all of that comment, opinion, testimony and explanation, I've never heard anyone ask them WHY they do it. I've heard plenty of talk about WHY they think torture is justified. Yet, I can't recall one Senator or Congressman ask them WHY.
Why do you do this? What benefit is there to this treament? Can you prove that this treatment of prisoners helps the war effort? Where is this proof?
Just read this on TPM Muckraker:
Update: The Lamont campaign is now hosting a Google-cached version of the joe2006.com site.
And here's the proof:
We’ve offered to send our tech guru over to fix their website problems. That was over an hour ago—no response.
UPDATE: Here’s the Google cache version of Joe’s campaign website. It’s not perfect, but it has all the content preserved.
Love that Ned. He's got good people
:: I Sell E Cigarettes ::
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.