Quote of the Day

Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country. - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

This quote's about 235 years old, but it has no expiration date. The only problem I have with it is that I don't know if Washington is only referring to the lowest ranks when he says "soldier". It seems apparent to me that this admonition against the abuse of prisoners should apply throughout the chain of command.

Quote of the Day-link

I could probably offer a quote by Glenn Greenwald every day that he posts, but anybody can just read his column, and I highly recommend that, so I'll just glean the ones that really jump out at me, like this one........

And, just as a general note: if you watch cable television news during the daytime, you can actually physiclly feel your brain shrinking.

Quote of the Day-link

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

These are the last two paragraphs from Krugman's column today, he drives a point that I've repeatedly emphasized for about the last eight years or so, all federal office holders take the same oath with respect to the Constitution. Aside from their nominal duties that is the only requirement they have to fulfill. Any talk of mandates is pure BS, the president is not your daddy and the laws of the land are what protects us, not an obstruction to our "protection". Great column, as always, go, read.

Quote of the Day-link

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945

I found this quote in Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com today (title-link). I highly recommend his recent posts dealing with the events unfolding in Gaza. The comments section of the blog offers many examples of the pathological mentality Orwell described. One needn't wade into those comments to see that kind of thinking on display, simply tune to any American news broadcast. American politicians of any stripe can be depended on to echo the exact same sentiments, as if that would give cover to their funding of the atrocities committed on their behalf. Of course the greatest offense in evidence here is that all the Palestinians in Gaza have been denied their humanity, they're less than human, barbarians, beasts that can only be dealt with by brute force. The last forty years has certainly taught us that!

Quote of the Day

It's not an actual quote for today, but a notable comment from Matt Groening's character Montgomery Burns, "I'd give it all away for just a little more".

That seems to be the credo of Henry Paulson and other gazillionaires driving the bailout of America's financial institutions. You may recall last year when progressive in Congress tried in vain to procure $8Billion for children's health care, that was shot down, can't panic the bond markets. Now the banks are in crisis, spare no expense, hundreds of billions of your dollars are being passed out like party favors with no guarantees that the money will be employed in the public interest.

Here's a question for you, if the failure of banks and various institutions is such a crisis, and may require a stimulus package of as much as $7 TRILLION ( about half the GNP ) to be thrown at it, why not just nationalize them and see if we can get some oversight for crying out loud!? The same goes for our critical industries such as the Big 3 automakers ( if they were nationalized maybe we'd see fuel efficient vehicles manufactured in this country someday ). Airlines are sure to fail, but other transportation modes are of more concern, specifically shipping. The railroads are more important than any of the institutions that are getting all the attention now, indeed, neglecting this vital linkage would be a serious national security risk.

I'm not saying that these businesses should be confiscated, government can and does seize or commandeer private property in emergencies from time to time, but public interest demands that any bailout funds must be administered responsibly. At this point I can't detect the transparency you'd like to have in this process. So, where is the money going?   

Quote of the day

" Today we're a nation of tattooed barbarian "consumers" with no impulse control, a swollen sense of entitlement, ruled by a set of authorities ranging from one G.W. Bush to the grifter-billionaire pantheon of Wall Street CEOs...."

Jim Kunstler   October 13, 2008

Quote of the day

" I’ve been pointing out that the dictatorial powers Paulson has sought would accrue to the next Treasury secretary, who might well be Phil Gramm. I’ve been trying to come up with a liberal-leaning name who might seem equally horrifying to Republicans, and the only one I’ve come up with is … me."

Paul Krugman  Sept. 23, 2008

Update: 10/16/08

I posted this quote just three weeks before Dr. Krugman received his Nobel award for his work in economics, makes this comment seem a bit less tongue in cheek. He has said that he doesn't have the temperament  for government work, though he's done it before, could he refuse to serve if tapped by Obama? Time will tell.