"Turn on, Tune in, Drop out." This was Timothy Leary's advice, which was very popular after Richard Nixon was elected president. The same might be advised for Trump's election. I did not take the last part of Leary's advice and it was a bumpy ride. That was nothing compared to the ride we will be on for Trump's presidency. Enjoy the music!
I sure am glad that I do not live in the America of 1776, or 1789.
I'm glad that women have the right to vote, slavery is illegal, and all
the other equal rights that our citizens have been given through the
legal process of either amending, or defining the Constitution.
Conservatives
and strict constructionists would like to go back in time, to the
original intent of the Constitution. Leaving millions of people without
the status of being an American citizen, with full rights and
opportunities. After all, the founding fathers intended to not give
women the vote, and intended that blacks should be slaves.
They
claim there is no more racism institutional, or otherwise. There is no
need for affirmative action, or special laws protecting minorities. The
motivation to kill a gay man, is no different a motivation to kill a
straight man, even if they are yelling fagot while they beat him to
death. It's not ancient History (just a few years ago) that a black man
was dragged behind a speeding truck until he was dead. How naive of
them. How uneducated of them.
Are whites
still the majority power holders in both business and politics? Are
minorities (especially blacks) still suffering the results of being
denied equal opportunity for centuries? Is there not (in almost all
categories) a deep gap of equality? Has this country recently paid for
the discrimination of the Japanese that we wrongfully imprisoned? How
are Native Americans doing in our society?
These acts are not
long ago acts by a less educated society. They are 21st century
discrimination and racism of the most violent kind. Prosecutors and
judges find the motivation for a crime most important in deciding
punishment.
Lets not look to the past for the meaning of what
rights an American has. Lets continue to enhance and include all
citizens in the full umbrella of rights and opportunities. Why would the
founding fathers include an amendment process, if they did not believe
we could do better in future generations?
We were wrong not to outlaw slavery in the original Constitution. We
were wrong to keep women as second class citizens for 150 years. We were
wrong on so many issues of individual rights and freedoms.
We
still try and progress today. It's a slow process, not of law, but of
people's beliefs. The law can say it's wrong to discriminate, but that
doesn't protect people from being discriminated against, it just allows
for justice to be sought.
Those who say the Constitution must be
read and applied as the founding fathers originally intended, must be
pro slavery, anti-women, and believe we should not, or cannot progress
and mature as a country, over the centuries.
The harm done to those minorities while we wait for "the majority" of Americans to embrace inclusion, is outrageous.
It
is a lesson we must learn again and again. Japanese were interned
during WW II. Nearly every ethnic group to come to America was at one
time discriminated against. Like a rite of passage, or a frat house
initiation, it always gets ugly.
The enemy, as usual, is within us.
It
is not the Muslim who seeks to be a good American while keeping their
faith and culture (as all immigrants have done for centuries) but the
fear. An irrational fear enhanced be the forces who seek political
power. That is evil.
Most disturbing, are my fellow countrymen who would discard the Constitution in favor of their own hate and prejudices.
In
1951, a 14-year-old Australian boy named James Harrison awoke from a
major chest operation. Doctors had removed one of his lungs in a
procedure that had taken several hours - and would keep him hospitalized
for three months.
But Harrison was alive, thanks in large part to a vast quantity of transfused blood he had received, his father explained.
"He
said that I had 13 units of blood and my life had been saved by unknown
people," Harrison told CNN's Sanjay Gupta decades later.
At the
time, Australia's laws required blood donors to be at least 18 years
old. It would be four years before Harrison was eligible, but he vowed
then that he too would become a blood donor when he was old enough.
After
turning 18, Harrison made good on his word, donating whole blood
regularly with the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. He disliked
needles, so he averted his eyes and tried to ignore the pain whenever
one was inserted into his arm.
Meanwhile, doctors in Australia
were struggling to figure out why thousands of births in the country
were resulting in miscarriages, stillbirths or brain defects for the
babies.
"In Australia, up until about 1967, there were literally
thousands of babies dying each year, doctors didn't know why, and it was
awful," Jemma Falkenmire, of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service,
told Gupta. "Women were having numerous miscarriages, and babies were
being born with brain damage."
The babies, it turned out, were
suffering from Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn, or HDN. The condition
most often arises when a woman with an Rh negative blood type becomes
pregnant with a baby who has Rh positive blood, and the incompatibility
causes the mother's body to reject the fetus's red blood cells.
Doctors
realized, however, that it might be possible to prevent HDN by
injecting the pregnant woman with a treatment made from donated plasma
with a rare antibody.
Researchers scoured blood banks to see whose
blood might contain this antibody - and found a donor in New South
Wales by the name of James Harrison.
By then, Harrison had been
donating whole blood regularly for more than a decade. He has said he
didn't think twice when scientists reached out to him to ask if he would
participate in what would become known as the Anti-D program.
"They asked me to be a guinea pig, and I've been donating ever since," Harrison told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Before
long, researchers had developed an injection called Anti-D using plasma
from Harrison's donated blood. The first dose was given to a pregnant
woman at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in 1967, according to Robyn
Barlow, the Rh program coordinator who found Harrison.
Harrison
continued donating for more than 60 years and his plasma has been used
to make millions of Anti-D injections, according to the Red Cross.
Because about 17 percent of pregnant women in Australia require the
anti-D injections, the blood service estimates Harrison has helped 2.4
million babies in the country.
"Every ampul of Anti-D ever made in
Australia has James in it," Barlow told the Sydney Morning Herald. "He
has saved millions of babies. I cry just thinking about it."
Scientists
still aren't sure why Harrison's body naturally produces the rare
antibody but believe it is related to the blood transfusions he received
as a teenager. And through the decades, Harrison has brushed off
excessive praise regarding his regular trips to the blood donation
center from his home in Umina Beach, on the Central Coast of New South
Wales.
He had "never" considered stopping, he told the Daily Mail in 2010.
"Probably
my only talent is that I can be a blood donor," Harrison remarked wryly
to CNN's Gupta in 2015, when the network followed him as he made his
1,101st donation that year.
At the blood donation center, he
greeted the nurses who had come to know him so well. As always, he
looked away when they inserted the needle and spent the duration of the
appointment gripping an orange stress ball in his right arm.
When a reporter asked if what he was doing was courageous, Harrison squeezed his eyes together and shook his head.
"That's
the other rare thing about James," Falkenmire told the network then.
"He thinks his donations are the same as anybody else's. He doesn't
think he's remarkable."
Countless others think Harrison is
remarkable, though. Somewhere along the way, he picked up the nickname
"The Man With the Golden Arm," along with accolades large and small,
from the Medal of the Order of Australia in 1999 to the cover of his
local yellow pages in 2013.
In 2003, he landed in the Guinness Book of World Records.
But
in interviews, Harrison has said by far the most fulfilling part of his
unwavering commitment to donate plasma has been the babies he has
helped save - including his own grandchildren.
"To say I am proud
of James (my dad) is an understatement," Harrison's daughter, Tracey
Mellowship, wrote on Facebook last month, noting she had needed an
Anti-D injection in 1992, after the birth of her first son. "Thanks to
dad I then gave birth to another healthy boy in 1995. . . . Thank you
dad for giving me the chance to have two healthy children - your
grandchildren. XXX"
On Friday, Harrison made his final trip to the
blood donation center. At age 81, he had already passed the age limit
allowed for donors, and the blood service had decided Harrison should
stop donating to protect his health, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.
As
Harrison sat in the donation chair, four silver mylar balloons - with
the numbers 1, 1, 7, 3 - bobbled above him, representing his 1,173 total
blood donations in his lifetime. Several parents had shown up at the
hospital to mark the occasion - holding some of the babies his donations
had helped save.
Barlow, the Rh program coordinator who had found Harrison decades ago, gave him a long, emotional hug.
"We'll
never see his kind again," Barlow told the Sydney Morning Herald. "That
he has been well and fit and his veins strong enough to continue to
donate for so long is very, very rare."
Blood service officials
said their hope is that more blood donors will step forward; perhaps
there will be another James Harrison among them. Currently only about
200 donors qualify for the Anti-D program.
Harrison told the Red Cross that he is eager for his legacy of 1,173 donations to be surpassed.
"I hope it's a record that somebody breaks, because it will mean they are dedicated to the cause," Harrison said.
The past year was rife with mass shootings and
attacks _ each incident perpetrated by men with a lot more in common
than just their gender.
The Secret Service
National Threat Assessment Center, in a study released Thursday,
examined all 28 mass attacks between January and December 2017. At least
three people were injured in each incident.
Every
act of violence was carried out by a man who "experienced at least one
significant stressor within the last five years," according to the
report.
Such stressors include family and romantic relationship
problems, personal issues, difficult school and work environment, and
previous contact with law enforcement that did not result in an arrest
or charges.
About half of the attackers, around 54 percent, had a
history of drug or substances abuse, and 20 of them -- about 71 percent
-- had histories of criminal charges beyond minor traffic violations.
Nearly
two-thirds of suspects experienced some sort of mental symptoms ahead
of their attacks, though only 25 percent had been hospitalized or
prescribed medication.
"The most common symptoms observed were
related to psychosis" -- including paranoia, hallucinations and
delusions -- "and suicidal thoughts," according to the report.
Stephen
Paddock, a reclusive gambler, staked out several outdoor concerts
before raining bullets down on a Las Vegas country music festival from
his 32nd floor hotel room in October. While his motive remains unclear,
his family has a history of mental health issues and he lost a
significant amount of wealth in the years leading up to his brutal
attack.
Devin Patrick Kelley killed 26 people and wounded more
than 20 during his November attack at First Baptist Church in Sutherland
Springs, Texas. Previously a member of the U.S. Air Force, Kelley in
2012 was court-martialed for an assault on his wife and stepson. The
same year, he escaped from a mental health clinic in New Mexico.
Both
of these incidents should have prevented him from purchasing a firearm,
but due to a reporting error he was able to obtain the weapon he used
in the shooting.
Kelley killed himself moments after he opened
fire into the Texas church. It's one of the many instances of mass
violence President Donald Trump has blamed on mental health. Trump has
also taken aim at the Islamic State terror group, or ISIS, following
events of mass violence.
"We must not allow ISIS to return, or
enter our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Enough!" he tweeted after Sayfullo Sapov mowed down pedestrians on a
Manhattan bike path.
Of the 28 men who committed acts of mass
violence in 2017, seven "subscribed to a particular belief system,"
according to the report. Only two of them were "self-radicalized
followers of ISIS."
Most of the incidents in 2017 were carried out
using a firearm -- 82 percent of attackers used a gun, 11 percent used a
vehicle and about 7 percent used knives, according to the report.
Of
the 23 who used firearms, at least 10 possessed those weapons
illegally. Two of them were minors and the others were either felons or
had some other factor that should have prohibited them from owning a
gun.
In the wake of the Parkland school shooting in February and
October's Las Vegas massacre -- the deadliest mass public shooting in
modern U.S. history -- political leaders have called for a focus on
mental health reform to curb similar attacks in the future.
Survivors
of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack, on the other hand,
have called for extensive background checks and gun reform following the
Valentine's day shooting.
While only 14 percent of the violent
attacks have unfolded at schools, politicians have also recently
suggested arming teachers so to protect young students. This stems from
the fact that most attacks occur over the span of just minutes.
Half
of the incidents unfolded in less than five minutes. Most them, 32
percent ended with law enforcement taking the attacker into custody
while 25 percent are apprehended at a different location. Another 29
percent committed suicide as part of the incident and the remaining 14
percent were killed by law enforcement.
Amidst all the passionate, vile, screaming denunciations of Trump and Republican actions the Democrats are giving the Republicans what they want and not even putting up a good fight. The newest bank bill passed with Democratic votes, but is not based on Democratic principles.
From Democrats voting for Bush's invasion of Iraq to Ms. Warren voting yes on Dr. Carson being the head of HUD these Democrats have not got the convictions of their oratory and they wonder why they find themselves in minority power in government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON ― The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill so friendly to banks that even a Republican worried it goes too far.
By a vote of 67-to-31, the Senate passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which is aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on struggling community banks ― even though most such banks are thriving. Supporters also argued that the bill would make it easier for Americans to buy a home by increasing their access to capital.
The
measure would also exempt 25 of America’s biggest banks from
regulations created in response to the financial crisis that contributed
to the Great Recession a decade ago. The Congressional Budget Office warned that the risk of another financial crisis “would be slightly greater under the legislation.”
In the same tweet he used to unceremoniously fire Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump announced the twin nominations of CIA Director Mike Pompeo as Tillerson’s replacement and CIA veteran Gina Haspel as the new head of the nation’s premier intelligence agency. Haspel, the CIA’s current deputy director, now stands to become the agency’s first female director, despite the fact that she previously supervised a CIA black site where detainees were tortured and was later implicated in the destruction of video evidence of those interrogations.
The news of her nomination was met with mild skepticism by some Democratic senators, but assuming she doesn’t get bottled up behind an impasse over Pompeo, nothing suggests her eventual confirmation is in serious doubt.
While Haspel might be preferable to some hackish alternatives ― either Pompeo’s continued tenure or the nomination of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) ― her confirmation would also represent the culmination of the Democrats’ failure to categorically oppose torture.
Back in 2002, Haspel oversaw the black site in Thailand, where Abu Zubaydah, the man incorrectly thought to have masterminded Sept. 11 attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was allegedly behind the USS Cole attack, were tortured. It was long unclear whether Haspel oversaw just the waterboarding of Nashiri or also the 83 waterboards that Abu Zubaydah endured, long beyond the time he had agreed to talk, though new reports from ProPublica and The New York Times say the latter man was tortured before her time at the helm.
What’s not in dispute is Haspel’s role in the cover-up: Once Abu Zubaydah and Nashiri were shipped to their next stop in a series of black sites, Haspel started her multiyear campaign to destroy the videos that showed their torture, which indisputably contradicted written authorizations and records. Defying the warnings of multiple Democrats, the director of national intelligence and several judges, Haspel in November 2005, as chief of staff for the director of clandestine services, sent a cable ordering officers to stick the tapes into an industrial-strength shredder.
At key moments, Democrats missed their chance to move the country beyond torture.
America continues to suffer the consequences of those twin acts, the torture and the cover-up. The torture program, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s massive torture report, provided little useful intelligence, and in notable cases sent officers chasing false leads for months. Numerous detainees (including both Abu Zubaydah and Nashiri) were tortured beyond their ability to provide reliable intelligence. The country’s embrace of torture inflamed the same Muslims we needed as allies to fight terrorism.
And because of both the torture and the cover-up, the U.S. has failed to achieve justice for either the USS Cole or for Sept. 11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah remains warehoused in Guantanamo Bay, and Nashiri’s own trial has ground to a halt after his defense team discovered their privileged conversations were being spied on.
But Haspel, who advanced from line manager overseeing the imposition of torture to chief of staff for the cover-up, continues to thrive, now poised to run the agency whose reputation she attempted to preserve by destroying evidence.
To be clear: Republicans bear the bulk of the blame for promoting torturers while those who objected were ousted. Former President George Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney instituted the program, and outspoken torture fan Trump is the guy sponsoring Haspel’s promotion to lead the agency (after she was denied a promotion during the Obama administration).
But at key moments, Democrats missed their chance to move the country beyond torture.
After all, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama was the first to elevate someone with involvement in the torture program. Even after political pressure about torture prevented Obama from naming veteran CIA officer John Brennan director in 2009, the career CIA official rehabilitated his reputation (in part by overseeing the drone killing program from the White House), and ultimately got the CIA director post in 2013.
President Barack Obama nominates John Brennan to direct the CIA on January 7, 2013.
That same year, Dianne Feinstein ― then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee ― nixed Brennan’s attempts to make Haspel director of the agency’s clandestine services. But Brennan got his revenge when he, with Obama’s backing, thwarted Feinstein’s efforts for a fulsome declassification of the torture report she fought to complete. Brennan didn’t even face consequences for having staffers from the Senate Intelligence Committee spied on.
Feinstein’s failure to declassify key details of the torture report ― notably, including the real names or even pseudonyms for the officers involved ― is one thing that prevented an airing of precisely what Haspel did when she was confirmed as deputy director last year. Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote a memo for colleagues describing Haspel’s role in the torture program, but the document remains classified, even as Haspel’s champions boast of her successes.
And now not even Feinstein herself is categorically opposed to Haspel’s nomination. “It’s no secret I’ve had concerns in the past with her connection to the CIA torture program and have spent time with her discussing this,” Feinstein said in a Tuesday statement. But she seems inclined to drop her past concerns about a torturer’s continued promotions in favor of competence leading the agency. “To the best of my knowledge she has been a good deputy director and I look forward to the opportunity to speak with her again.”
It may well be, as her supporters argue, that Haspel is the best, most competent, least politicized nominee we’re likely to get from Trump.
But that’s true as much because of what happened under Obama as under Trump. John Brennan’s success, even as critics were sidelined or imprisoned, paved the way for Gina Haspel.
This column has been updated to acknowledge new reporting about Haspel’s involvement with Abu Zubaydah’s torture.
Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog and is the author of “Anatomy of Deceit.” Follow her on Twitter at @emptywheel.
How many different vulgar words can the liberals think up to call president Trump? Is it the oppositions job to prove how nasty they can be inventing new vulgarities for petty, personal, childish attacks? It seems Democratic hate is at its height and action to actually stop a dangerous demagogue from damaging the country is losing the contest of moral leadership.
Who has been assigned the task of writing the articles of impeachment for president Trump? Where are the petitions with 10's of millions of signatures calling for Trump to resign? Why is there only one man (Mueller) investigating the 100's of accused crimes this president is involved in? When do we stop calling Trump Hitler and start legally proving he is just a simple crook? Where are the 24/7 protests surrounding the White House so vocal that Trump cannot sleep? When do we stop the name calling and start the court proceedings?
There is plenty a minority power can do to check presidential power, but all we seem to be doing is venting hate. The same lack of Democratic leadership that lost the election is allowing this president to bully the world much less the American people. Are we to be satisfied to calling him names instead of stopping his dictatorial behavior? Inaction is making us the laughing stock of the world and costing us our place of leader of the free world.
One wonders if the weak Democrats can win majority from such a corrupt opposition, or how the Democrats could lose to such a crook in the first place. Leadership is not about giving the people what they claim to want, but leading the people to where they should/must go. Are our people so corrupt that Trump is what they really need and want?
So listen to your favorite talking head spin their tale of presidential nincompoop stupidity and laugh yourself to sleep being satisfied with name calling in the extreme. Does that end give us our selfish satisfaction? Can we wait til the next presidential election to rid our country of this president? The Democrats are letting us down, yet again, and this time we will lose more than an election, or executive power. We will lose our status as the leader of the free world, or worse.
The members of the band were Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. The name of the band and the players in the band changed in the early days, but by 1962 the make up of the band members were the previous named players and remained so until they disbanded.
There is so much to be said and understood about the Beatles, the place to start is Wikipedia's page about the band.The output of material is overwhelming and people have spent their lives documenting the Beatles history and music.
I don't believe in, and it's hard to say one example of an art form is the best ever. On one level, it's a matter of personal taste. On multiple levels we can judge the facts and numbers. In the record business that usually means the number of records sold. The Beatles have smashed all of those records, except one. As I wrote under my Bing Crosby post, Bing holds the record for a single record sold at over 100 million copies for "White Christmas." And it's hard to rate, against others, those who create a new style within an art form.
The Beatles "rock and roll" may have started out as contemporary (for their time) music and they did cover songs in the early days, but the musical composition team of McCartney/Lennon created a whole new style of music. Great music! That makes them great and exempt from, and superior to comparisons of other bands of their time.
The Beatles were excellent, progressive musicians individually and perfection as a band together. Although, you would never be able to tell that watching the video below, which is the earliest video recording of the Beatles in 1962 at the Cavern Club, and they had been playing together for a while by then.
The Beatles first came to America in 1964, but they were huge stars by then. A conscience decision by the band to wait until they were successful before they appeared in America. The fanaticism surrounding the band was started in England and Europe and American teenagers were just copying and extending what became known as Beatlemania.
The phenomenon of the Beatlemania effect was not new to American audiences, or world audiences. Women used to scream and faint at Frank Sinatra concerts and similar reactions happened with Bing Crosby, Rudy Valli, Caruso, and other musical acts throughout history. Having said that, there was never anything like Beatlemania. It literally made personal appearances all but impossible for the band. The audience could barely hear the music over the screaming and going to one of their movies in a theater was the same. I personally experienced both. I was not one of the screamers and I was amazed by the audience reaction.
When listening to Beatles music, I prefer and advise, listening to studio cuts. There are plenty of live recorded cuts, but it's hard to hear all the quality music being played. The fads they started, the hair cuts, etc., etc.....are all things an adoring public has followed with other popular musical acts and personalities, but not to the same extreme.
Ed Sullivan Show February 1964.
"I Want To Hold Your Hand"
Three years later in 1967 this is, "Hello Goodby"
The last appearance as a band together. The rooftop of Apple studios.
January 30, 1969
.
In September 1969 John Lennon privately informed the other Beatles that he was leaving the group, there was no public acknowledgement of the break-up until Paul McCartney announced on 10 April 1970 he was leaving the Beatles.
There were sporadic collaborative recording efforts among the band members (Ringo Starr's 1973 album Ringo
was the only time that the four – albeit on separate tracks – appeared
on the same album post-break-up), although all four Beatles never
simultaneously collaborated as a recording or performing group again;
Starr's 1976 album Ringo's Rotogravure
is the last post-break-up album on which all four Beatles contribute
and are credited: besides Starr's drumming and songwriting
contributions, Lennon, McCartney and George Harrison all composed one track apiece. After Lennon's death in 1980, McCartney and Starr appeared on Harrison's single "All Those Years Ago", and the trio reunited for the Anthology project in 1994, using two unfinished Lennon demos – "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" – for what would be new songs to be recorded and released as the Beatles.
There are all sorts of stories about why the Beatles broke up including (and most importantly) from the Beatles themselves. There is a fine line between love and hate, which we see in our own families. The Beatles were best buddies, they were a family, they loved each other. If negative things were said, that happens sometimes. The love is still there.
John Lennon was assassinated outside his home in New York on December 8, 1980 by a nut with a gun. Unfortunately, a rather common happening in America.
George Harrison died November 29, 2001, after a long battle with cancer.
I think it's sad that McCartney does not own his own music. I thought he might get a chance to buy it all when Michael Jackson died, but I haven't heard anything about the issue.
The numbers tell us McCartney/Lennon were the greatest music composing collaboration ever. Their music tells us they were geniuses who sang about love in their own way. The music did not die for them when the Beatles broke up. They all were very popular and successful after the Beatles, creating great music. It all happened within ten years, which makes it even more amazing. If you wonder what it was all about, listen to the music.
Focusing primarily on instrumental composition and playing, Kottke also sings sporadically, in an unconventional yet expressive baritone described by himself as sounding like "geese farts on a muggy day".
This song is from his album "Mudlark" released in 1971. It's called "Eight Miles High" and is one of the songs he sings on. I don't agree with his description of his voice, but his voice is unique. Leo got started in Minneapolis playing the Scholar coffeehouse. I grew up in Minneapolis and have been a fan since his early days when I got a chance to get to know him. He is an excellent guitarist and composer.
