Oberst/James/Ward Album Confirmed
July 23, 2009
Travel with me to the recent past– yesterday, to be exact. Way back then, we published a story titled “Conor Oberst/Jim James/M. Ward Album Finally Coming Out?” Well, that question has been answered. And the answer is yes (thank god).
The Monsters of Folk supergroup– which also features producer/Bright Eyes member Mike Mogis– release their self-titled debut on September 22 via Shangri-La in North America, Rough Trade in Europe, Spunk in Australia, and P-Vine in Japan. A press release says so and everything.
According to the release, “all four members play every instrument on the album” and the music ranges from “road-worn” to “intimate” to “sun-soaked.” The sometime tourmates recorded the LP in Malibu, California and Omaha, Nebraska over a two-year period between other projects. Track titles include “Whole Lotta Losin’” (Zeppelin tribute?), “Temazcal” (named after an ancient sauna), and “Losin Yo Head” (“Yo”!). The rest of the song names are below:
Monsters of Folk:
01 Dear God (sincerely M.O.F.)
02 Say Please
03 Whole Lotta Losin’
04 Temazcal
05 The Right Place
06 Baby Boomer
07 Man Named Truth
08 Goodway
09 Ahead of the Curve
10 Slow Down Jo
11 Losin Yo Head
12 Magic Marker
13 Map of the World
14 The Sandman, the Brakeman and Me
15 His Master’s Voice
WTF???
July 23, 2009
Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools
State’s education board to consider adding Christianity’s role in American history to curriculum
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The Christian right is making a fresh push to force religion onto the school curriculum in Texas with the state’s education board about to consider recommendations that children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God.
Members of a panel of experts appointed by the board to revise the state’s history curriculum, who include a Christian fundamentalist preacher who says he is fighting a war for America’s moral soul, want lessons to emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US and that religion is a civic virtue.
Opponents have decried the move as an attempt to insert religious teachings in to the classroom by stealth, similar to the Christian right’s partially successful attempt to limit the teaching of evolution in biology lessons in Texas.
One of the panel, David Barton, founder of a Christian heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that “there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature”, that “there is a creator” and “government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual”.
Barton says children should be taught that Christianity is the key to “American exceptionalism” because the structure of its democratic system is a recognition that human beings are fallible, and that religion is at the heart of being a virtuous citizen.
Another of the experts is Reverend Peter Marshall, who heads his own Christian ministry and preaches that Hurricane Katrina and defeat in the Vietnam war were God’s punishment for sexual promiscuity and tolerance of homosexuals. Marshall recommended that children be taught about the “motivational role” of the Bible and Christianity in establishing the original colonies that later became the US.
“In light of the overwhelming historical evidence of the influence of the Christian faith in the founding of America, it is simply not up to acceptable academic standards that throughout the social studies (curriculum standards) I could only find one reference to the role of religion in America’s past,” Marshall wrote in his submission.
Marshall later told the Wall Street Journal that the struggle over the history curriculum is part of a wider battle. “We’re in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it,” he said.
Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself as a “counter to the religious right”, called the recommendations “troubling”.
“I don’t think anyone disputes that faith played a role in our history. But it’s a stretch to say that it played the role described by David Barton and Peter Marshall. They’re absurdly unqualified to be considered experts. It’s a very deceptive and devious way to distort the curriculum in our public schools,” he said.
Quinn says that the issue is likely to lead to a heated political battle similar to the one in which the religious right tried to force creationism onto the curriculum. While it wasn’t able to inject religious theories in to the classroom, the Texas school board did make changes to teaching designed to undermine lessons on evolution such as introducing views that the eye is so complex an organ it must have involved “intelligent design”.
“I think, as there was with science, there’s going to be a big political battle,” he said.
Social studies teachers will meet shortly to consider the panel’s views and make their own recommendations to the board of education which has the final say. The board is dominated by conservatives who appointed Barton and Marshall to the panel.
Other states will be watching what happens in Texas carefully as the religious right campaign seeks new ways to insert God in to the classroom after the courts limited the extent to which creationist theories could intrude on the teaching of biology. But religion is not kept out of schools entirely. Many children recite the pledge of allegiance in class each morning which includes a reference to the US as “one nation under God”.
The panel made other recommendations.
Barton, a former vice-chairman of the state’s Republican party, said that Texas children should no longer be taught about democratic values but republican ones. “We don’t pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands,” he said.
And while God may be in, some of those he influenced are out.
According to a draft of guidelines for the new curriculum, Washington, Lincoln and Stephen Fuller Austin, known as the Father of Texas after helping to lead it to independence from Mexico, have been removed from history lessons for younger children.
There’s no doubt that history education needs a boost in Texas.
According to test results, one-third of students think the Magna Carta was signed by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and 40% believe Lincoln’s 1863 emancipation proclamation was made nearly 90 years earlier at the constitutional convention.
Pestering John Yoo
July 23, 2009
War Made Easy by Norman Solomon
July 20, 2009
Who got da props?
July 19, 2009
Dear K and David,
I read the piece you wrote about me on your blog. Thank you for recounting my story accurately and eloquently. I assume you stumbled on my story after seeing the latest HBO film on free speech since you also write about Ward Churchill.
There is one minor item I want to bring to your attention and that is my son did not serve in Iraq. He was fortunate not to be sent there because he served at ground zero for six months. However, I should mention that 4 of my nephews did serve in Iraq as US Marines. One received the Purple Heart medal for his duty there. A couple of my nephews were featured in a New York Times article in 2006. It’s worth searching for and reading.
Thank you again, for doing what you do.
Debbie Almontaser
P.S. Two things about this should be noted.
1. She is correct about the HBO movie Shouting Fire inspiring me to post information about her story on Corrosivematerial. If you have not seen the movie it is very interesting and worth taking the time to watch.
2. Most of the info I put in the post should be credited to Wikipedia. Some people are not fully convinced of Wiki’s accuracy, but in this case considering the source we can safely assume its validity.
The truth of the matter: the emerging story of Cheney and the CIA
July 19, 2009
I’ve been following this particular story for a second now, and people’s takes on it become more and more interesting, as this goes along. It just seems to be mushrooming just beneath the surface. You look at all the questions: What exactly was/is the program(s) that Cheney (and Bush?) had in play? Who were the targets of these programs?
I read in one column from Jeremy Scahill on a site I frequent, Intelligence Daily:
“The current portrayal of what exactly this program entailed is, at best, very fishy on several levels. To me, this very much seems like some major league misdirection. There is no doubt that Cheney was running some nefarious programs and any orders from Cheney to the C.I.A. to conceal information on programs to which Congress has a right should be fully investigated. BUT, when compared with other information about Bush/Cheney illegal operations, the description of this one seems really small potatoes for the Intel Committees outside of the need for Pelosi to be vindicated. I guarantee you that there are much worse things that members of the Intelligence Committees are aware of than a program that never was activated, which Cheney told the C.I.A. not to mention to Congress. It bears repeating: this secret program, as it is currently being described, is very, very similar to the longstanding U.S. assassination program that the Intel Committees have known about for years predating 9/11 and Bush/Cheney’s time in power.”
You have to look at this from a lot of angles. I mean how was Cheney constitutionally able to direct the CIA? Why was is canceled only just now, seemingly in concert with the Iraq pull-outs, and a major overhaul in contractors, arenas of concentration (e.g. Iraq to Afghanistan..and reaching over to the Far East)?
Why did Penetta agree that the program should be concealed?
So many questions? Not many, or really any, answers….I’m sure there will be more (read: leaks from a suddenly courageous insider) to follow.
This is the real, real, real issue I have: All of this is operating under what is also a highly questionable, completely unproven, already debunked pretense: that there is an “Al Qaeda.” Al Qaeda is the name of a computer program, specifically a database of militant “muhjahideen”, not some super technically advanced terrorist group. There is basically nothing concrete at all that says this organization exists, except in the media/government’s mind’s eye.
So if there is no real “organization” to get at…..what’s really happening here?
Al Jazeera Journalist Imprisoned & Tortured at Gitmo to Sue Bush
July 18, 2009
The action may be brought in Europe using the Pinochet strategy.
By Jeremy Scahill
Sami al-Haj, the al Jazeera journalist who spent seven years at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo is preparing to file a lawsuit against former president George W Bush and other top Bush administration officials. al-Haj was repeatedly interrogated by U.S. operatives attempting to falsely link al Jazeera to al Qaeda. al-Haj was also tortured. From The Guardian: The case will be initiated by the Guantánamo Justice Centre, a new organisation open to former prisoners at the US base, which will set up its international headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, later this month. “The purpose of our organisation is to open a case against the Bush administration,” said co-founder Sami al-Haj, an al-Jazeera reporter from Sudan who was illegally detained by US authorities for over six years after being captured while he was working as a cameraman. He was freed in May 2008. “We need to start our organisation first and then we will prepare a whole case. We don’t want to do this case by case,” said the 40-year-old journalist during a recent visit to Oslo. “We are in the process of collecting information from all the people, such as medical evidence. It takes time,” he said. He added: “I need them to go to court … we don’t want [what happened to us] to be repeated again.” The legal action may be modelled on an action against General Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested in the UK in 1998 at the request of a Spanish prosecutor for the alleged murders of Spanish citizens in Chile under his dictatorship. Al-Haj said: “I spoke to my lawyer, who advises me to do this in Europe. The courts do not have the power to bring [US officials] by force, but at least they can’t visit European countries. If they do, [the authorities] would catch them and send them to court.” The Guantánamo Justice Centre, which will be led by British ex-detainee Moazzam Begg, will open a British-based branch this month in addition to its Geneva headquarters. Al-Haj, who is back at work for the Arabic satellite channel in Qatar, is in frequent contact with Guantánamo detainees, both past and present. “Torture is continuing in Guantánamo,” al-Haj said. “Obama needs to close Guantánamo immediately.” Al-Haj said he was questioned by British intelligence officers during his detention, once in Kandahar in March 2002, and another time at Guantánamo later that same year. He said: “They asked me questions about al-Jazeera, whether it had links with al-Qaeda. They asked me questions about the British detainees at Guantánamo. “They told me I should cooperate with the Americans and work as a spy,” upon his release. He said he was not mistreated by the British intelligence officers.
July 17, 2009
Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children
“A typical street whore.” “A bunch of ghetto thugs.” “Ghetto street trash.” “Wonder when she will get her first abortion.”
These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative ‘Free Republic’blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.
Pat Buchanan holding it down for the poor oppressed white man…
July 17, 2009 — 1 Comment
July 14, 2009
PJB: How to Handle Sonia
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Republicans have been given fair warning.
Should GOP senators treat Sonia Sotomayor as contemptuously as Democrats treated Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, they should expect Hispanic hostility for a generation.
The chutzpah of this Beltway crowd does not cease to amaze.
They archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described “affirmative action baby” from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin.
Pundits here gets hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a “wise Latina woman.” But, as no Republican who followed the script of the mainstream media ever won a national election, why should the party pay them mind?
The imperative of the GOP is not to appease a city that went 93-7 for Obama, but to win back its lost voters.
In 2008, Hispanics, according to the latest figures, were 7.4 percent of the total vote. White folks were 74 percent, 10 times as large. Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate’s Hispanic vote.
If John McCain, instead of getting 55 percent of the white vote, got the 58 percent George W. Bush got in 2004, that would have had the same impact as lifting his share of the Hispanic vote from 32 percent to 62 percent.
But even Ronald Reagan never got over 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Yet, he and Richard Nixon both got around 65 percent of the white vote.
When Republican identification is down to 20 percent, but 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, do Republicans need a GPS to tell them which way to go?
Why did McCain fail to win the white conservative Democrats Hillary Clinton swept in the primaries? He never addressed or cared about their issues.
These are the folks whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back.
Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled.
And McCain might be president.
McCain soared a dozen points when he picked Palin, who seemed to Reagan Democrats to be “one of us.” They came roaring back, but left for good when McCain declared the economy fundamentally sound and rushed to D.C. to persuade Republicans to vote for a huge bank bailout opposed by Americans 100 to 1.
How, then, to handle Sotomayor?
As Republicans have never brutalized a Supreme Court nominee — Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 96 votes and Stephen Breyer 87 — they need no lectures on decency or decorum.
What they must do is expose Sotomayor, as they did not in the case of Ginsburg, as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males to the degree necessary to bring about an equality of rewards in society.
Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.
Testifying to Democrats’ awareness that America does not want liberal justices for whom affirmative action is holy writ, Sotomayor is being promoted as a practitioner of judicial restraint who faithfully follows the Constitution and the law.
Yet here is a judge who ruled that New York state, by denying felons the vote, violated their civil rights.
How so? As there are disproportionately more blacks and Hispanics in prison, denying convicts the right to vote has a disparate impact on minorities.
The New York law does discriminate, but not on the basis of race, but whether or not you raped, robbed or murdered someone.
Even if Sotomayor is confirmed, making the nation aware she is a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an assignment worth pursuing. For America does not believe in preferences. Even in the blue states of California, Washington and Michigan, voters have tossed them out as naked discrimination against white males.
As Sotomayor would be a colorful personality in a bland liberal lineup of Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens, she would stand out, like the co-ed-chasing “Wild Bill” Douglas in the 1960s and 1970s.
And if Republicans, in 2010 and 2012, can point to the court and say Sotomayor is their kind of justice, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are our kind of justices, that will not be all bad.
Justice Douglas, Ramsey Clark and Jocelyn Elders, after all, did a whale of a lot of good for the Republican Party in days gone by.\
