Here is what he told the Washington Times today:

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession,” he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. “We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet.”

“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

Read More of the Story

Yes that 1% growth might have something to do with billions of dollars being funnelled into the friends of Bush & Cheney League For Continual War and Richness. Or BCLFCWR. Which I made up and doesnt mean anything but looks kind of Roman.

Meanwhile … in a press conference earlier today John McCain told Time Magazine that Phil Gramm was being sent to Belarus .. “although even they might not want him”. Ha Ha.

He is such a card that JMC. A war hero of course and we deeply respect him for his service. But a funny guy too. And a war hero who earned his stripes for President by being shot down several times.

What McCain is avoiding is answering the actual question put to him by Time which essentially boils down to: You know nothing about the economy. Phil Gramm is your go to economic advisor. And now you are pretending that all your economic policy ideas are your own?

What has been even more troubling to anyone who has paid attention to Phil Gramm’s economic record is that his policies have been disastrous for America. The Huffington Post, Mother Jones and Randi Rhodes, and others have been following this narrative for quite some time now, but it essentially includes these damning resume builders: 

Gramm has extensive ties to Enron

Gramm has been a lobbyist for international banking and subprime mortgage giant UBS

Gramm played a key role in the subprime mortgage meltdown which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars

Gramm is driving John McCains economic bus

Let’s see how our friends in the media deal with the latest John McCain debacle. And let us wonder if the response would have been the same if the top economic advisor for Barak Obama had said the same thing.

jxx

First of all, I HOPE NOT

Secondly, YES!, I want someone who is better than average (I dunno, say … elite?) to be running the United States of America. Look at the guy still in charge and tell me I am wrong.

Thirdly, can we really take a campaign that has been living off the candidate’s wife’s inherited fortune seriously?

So in WTF? this week let us remind you of something that may have slipped through your news cycle. Its called a credit card bill. 3 of them actually. You know, like the ones you have to pay off every month.

How much do you hate scrambling to find the money to make those minimum payments? Well Cindy (Lets-all-pretend-I-really-bake-my-own-cookies) McCain and kids racked up almost $800,000.00 in a single month earlier this year (Yes, I put the extra zero’s there to remind you what a LARGE number that is). The breakdown went a little something like this:

• Cindy McCain Amex Bill #1 = $500,000.00
• Cindy McCain Amex Bill #2 = $250,000.00
• Child of Cindy McCain Amex = $50,000.00
• TOTAL CREDIT CARD BILL FOR THIS AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY = $800,000.00

Yes, this is so darn average-working-family-I-feel-your-pain kind of heartbreaking stuff that it makes me want to donate my last food rations to orphans in Darfur.

Which isn’t something the McCain’s are doing much of because they have to save their money in order to buy American stuff later:

Cindy McCain said she favors suits made by the German designer Escada, which typically retail for around $3,000-a-pop. If she becomes first lady, she told Vogue she may switch to an American designer, possibly Carolina Herrera, whose suits are comparably pricey.

(A Bag Full of Health and Politics)

In summary:

1. Cindy has a lot of money
2. John likes to get her to pay for stuff
3. The McCain’s spend obscene amounts on their credit cards
4. Yet somehow the Obama’s are the snobby, country club going, out-of-touch elitists

God help us.

Oh, and in case you missed it:

     5. Cindy just loves American designers – but only if they come to hubby’s inauguration

Happy shopping kids

jxx

PS. See Politico’s take on the hypocrisy at work for the republicans and potential political fallout: Politico.com

The high profile catch included one Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian politician held for six years, and three American military contractors.

Does this remind you of one Ronald Reagan mysteriously pulling the rug out on Jimmy Carter with the release of the hostages in Iran?

Just saying?

I think it is great she and these folks have been safely rescued.

I think it stinks that the whole thing was timed with McCain’s visit.

Just saying.

… Meanwhile Campaign Implodes

OH DEAR.

Since securing the title of presumptive nominee on June 3, Barak Obama has made a string of baffling pronouncements that have taken the wind out of the sails of his democratic base.

Could all the assumptions about this fundraising juggernaut prove wrong?

Could the blank slate candidate prove a little more blank than slate?

Just consider these moves and you will see why so many Democrats have been feeling deflated:

• FISA – Obama fails to make good on a promise to fight telecom immunity
• Hand Guns – He seems to embrace this controversial Supreme Court decision
• Death penalty  – Joins conservatives in criticizing the Supreme Court ruling
• Campaign Finance – He takes the money (although many on the left will give him this one)

Many pundits and columnists think that this is smart political maneuvering by a candidate who proves he is in it to win it. But after a heavy dose of Bush fatigue gave over to excitement at the prospect of both winning office AND changing policies these latest moves have been discouraging.

One Democrat operative close to the campaign told me that these moves have left staff “a little stunned. We are being told to grin and bear it but the bounce has definitely gone out of our step”.

More troubling is the depressed rate of fundraising. Although still impressive Obama’s fundraising has not hit the highs of earlier in the year. And the news is about to get worse. The anticipated joint appearance by Clinton and Obama with large donors was seen by many as underwhelming, if not downright tense. watch for June’s fundraising results for both Obama and DNC and watch the blood drain from the faces of the O Camp.

Oh come on! You know what the result was! Deafening silence. OK – our friends on the left tried their best (kudos Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy) – but everywhere else it was pretty much Barak & Hillary. Oh, and a day later, a pretty feeble OpEd from Bob Herbert.

When something as foul as torture is on the table, there is a tendency to avert one’s eyes from the most painful truths. It’s a tendency we should resist.

Really? Resist Mr Herbert? Like we should resist our tendency to go “mmm” when we see a nice piece of chocolate cake?

Now I don’t claim to know much, but I have heard there are these things called international treaties and the US has unilaterally run roughshod over too many of them in the past seven years, causing incalculable damage to it’s reputation, those treaties, and life on this planet.

So David Addington, (now Dick Cheney’s chief of staff) and John Yoo, (now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley – seriously Berkley what were you thinking??) spent the afternoon stalling for time and merrily avoiding answering any questions and probably chuckling to themselves about how clever they were. And, of course, wondering what kind of treat Dick might give them later.

John Conyers (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Artur Davis (D-Ala.) tried their damndest though but it was a VERY frustrating experience for all concerned.  Here’s the ACLU trying to find a sliver of a lining:

[Rep. Davis] pointed out that at the time the torture memos were authored, during the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, the Legislative branch was busily rubber-stamping every national security request President Bush made, from the FISA expansion to the Patriot Act. “If you had come to this Congress and asked, you would’ve gotten what you wanted,” Davis said. So why couldn’t the White House consult Congress on how to amend its interrogation policies, especially with Republican friends chairing the House and Senate Judiciary Committees?

Why, Indeed.

So, here’s your New York Minute challenge: Click on any of the videos below and try to watch a minute without yelling at your computer. OK, maybe do it in private. (I mean when you think nobody is watching/listening/spying on you).

Now pick which of the following things these two clowns have NO interest in:

The truth

The Law

The Constitution

Respecting the United States Congress

Respecting the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Upsetting Dick. 

(Talk amongst yourselves)

Ah yes, another day passes and the slithering meandering time-wasting non-answers of this Administration and its surrogates continues to ensure that a little thing called accountability remains as elusive as it ever was.

Just don’t forget, George W. Bush apparently can order you “Buried Alive”.

jxx

Enjoy…

YouTube : video link

YouTube : video link

Thanks to: The Brilliant and Provocative Randi Rhodes: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=3513

Democrats Angry & Bewildered by Failed Leadership on FISA Bill

Today in the Senate, Democrats are debating the merits of a deeply flawed FISA Amendments Act that should probably have never seen the light of day.

At issue are reduced powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to independently assess probable cause of domestic spying. But what really rankles are provisions that provide apparent immunity for telecommunication giants from dozens of lawsuits against them.

For netroots democrats these provisions strike at the heart of the cherished Fourth Amendment that against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution.

For Senator Obama this may be a turning point in the level of enthusiasm that has propelled his campaign thus far. Talk radio today (from NPR to Air America) was filled with callers dismayed at his decision to support the FISA legislation. So were the blogs.

(See the Huffington Post’s review of this issue).

For students of George Orwell’s masterpiece 1984 the comparisons are even more troubling.

1984 tells the ordeals of Winston Smith in the mythical land of Oceania.  Although it was written almost 60 years ago, Orwells vision of an autocratic state ruled by fear through perpetual war and constant surveillance has been eerily prescient of our very own Bush Administration. But wait, there’s more. Look at some of the other themes from 1984 and tell me which ones don’t apply to the last 7 years?

• Big Brother – the supreme ruler of this mythical state – rules by fear through a perpetual war against an elusive enemy and constant surveillance
• The enemy are a bunch of terrorists called Eurasia. Sometimes the government decides the enemy is really Eastasia. Eastasia? Yes, it’s always been Eastasia.
• The purpose of war is not victory but an opportunity to transfer enormous wealth to an elite minority – wealth that could otherwise have improved the standard of living of everyone
• Fear, torture and brainwashing are sanctioned as ways to enforce loyalty and love of Big Brother
• People in the upper rungs of government willfully ignore facts, truth and reason in the service of their own interests … and this willful ignorance is met with compliance by the media
• Controlling the message is paramount: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past
• The government controls and confuses its people with a bewildering barrage of doublespeak: simultaneously holding and believing two contradictory beliefs (doublethink) while using politically correct language to “encourage” unthinking conformity (Newspeak)

Many Democrats are dismayed how their own leadership continues to acquiesce to this Orwellian Administration.

What does the Fourth Amendment Actually Say?

As is so often the case Dennis Kucinich (in the House last week) and Russ Feingold (today) spoke truth to the 1984 themes of the FISA Act:

This legislation has been billed as a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. We are asked to support it because it is a supposedly reasonable accommodation of opposing views. Let me respond as clearly as possible: This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. This bill will effectively and unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program – a program that more than 70 members of this body still know virtually nothing about. And this bill will grant the Bush Administration – the same administration that developed and operated this illegal program for more than five years – expansive new authorities to spy on Americans’ international communications . . . There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the losing end of this backroom deal. (Watch Feingold’s speech: )

Last week, Dennis Kucinich put it just as bluntly.

Under this bill, large corporations and big government can work together to violate the United States Constitution, use massive databases to spy, to wiretap, to invade the privacy of the American People. There’s no requirement for the Government to seek a warrant for any intercepted communication that includes a US citizen as long as the program in general is directed towards foreign targets. This Congress must not allow the names of innocent US citizens to be placed on secret intelligence lists. Under this bill, violations of Fourth Amendment rights and blanket wiretaps will be permissible for the next four years. Massive and untargeted collection of communications will continue with the enactment of this bill. Furthermore it allows the type of surveillance to be applied to all communications entering and exiting the United States. These blanket wiretaps make it impossible for to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency. Let’s stand up for the Fourth Amendment. Let’s remember when this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither”.

Dennis Kucinich, on the FISA Amendments Act, Friday Jun 20 2008

YouTube : video link

Your move Senator Obama. 

By DAVID STOUT

 Published: June 27, 2008

In his statement today, Mr. Obama said the Supreme Court has endorsed his view that “that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.
But the court held that the individual right to possess a gun “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.
The ruling does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside. Furthermore, Justice Scalia wrote, “The court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The decision upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the District of Columbia’s gun law, one of the strictest in the country, went beyond constitutional limits. Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the District, but it spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns.
Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” Joining him were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The high court’s ruling was the first since 1939 to deal with the scope of the Second Amendment, and the first ever to directly address the meaning of the amendment’s ambiguous, comma-laden text: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens differed on the clarity (or lack thereof) of the Second Amendment. “The amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second clause,” wrote Justice Scalia. “The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Not at all, Justice Stevens countered, asserting that the majority “stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the amendment’s text.” Justice Stevens read his dissent from the bench, an unmistakable signal that he deeply disagreed with the majority.
The court concluded that the amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but it also said that the right is not absolute, opening the door for more fights in the future. Lawmakers across the country may look to the decision as a blueprint for writing new legislation to satisfy the demands of constituents who say there is too much regulation of firearms now, or too little, depending on the sentiments in their regions. In March 2007, Washington city officials expressed disappointment and outrage when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the city ordinance. The Supreme Court ruling is sure to prompt work on a new ordinance that can withstand high court scrutiny.
The last time the Supreme Court weighed a case involving the Second Amendment, in 1939, it decided a narrower question, finding that the Constitution did not protect any right to possess a specific type of firearm, the sawed-off shotgun.
By contrast, the issues in the District of Columbia case seemed much more “mainstream,” if that term can be used in reference to gun-control issues. When the justices announced on Nov. 20 that they were accepting the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, they indicated that they would go to the heart of the long debate.
The question, they said, is whether the district’s restrictions on firearms “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”
Dick Anthony Heller, a security guard who carries a handgun for his job protecting federal judiciary offices, challenged the District of Columbia’s law after his request for a license to keep his gun at home was rejected.
When the case was argued before the justices on March 18, Mr. Heller’s lawyer, Alan Gura, did not assert that the Second Amendment precluded any kind of ban related to gun possession. He said that a ban on the shipment of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns would be acceptable, and in answer to a question from the justices, so, too, might be a prohibition on guns in schools. Some of the justices signaled during arguments that they thought the District’s near-total ban on handguns went too far.
A legislature “has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms,” Mr. Gura argued, but not to the extent of virtually banning them in homes.
The Washington law not only established high barriers to the private possession of handguns, it also required that rifles and shotguns be kept either in a disassembled state or under a trigger lock.
Walter Dellinger, the lawyer who argued for the district on March 18, asserted that “the people” and “the militia” were essentially the same, and that the Second Amendment gave people the right to bear arms only in connection with their militia service.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the federal government, argued on behalf of the individual-rights position, which has been the Bush administration’s policy. But he said that the appeals court had also gone too far in overturning the ordinance and that the right to bear arms was always subject to “reasonable regulations.”

Karl Rove was impressed with Barack Obama when he first met him. But now he sees him as a “coolly arrogant” elitist. This was Rove’s take on Obama to Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club Monday, according to Christianne Klein of ABC News:

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

Actually, that sounds more like W.

Maureen Dowd got it right in her column today

(Although I guess Obama does own a suit)

This Country Club was used by which guy to raise money?

More Phony Myths

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp

• Why? How did we get here from there?

• Who benefits from these high prices?

• What can we practically do about it now? 5 Years? 15 Years?

• What do Senators Obama and McCain plan to do about it and will it help anytime soon?

• What is the “Enron Loophole” and why should we care?

• Isn’t Phil Gramm from the McCain Campaign directly linked to the “Enron Loophole”?

• Is the media doing their job and investigating all of the dots here?

First – Some Visual Stimulus.

The networks are slowly drilling into the real forces behind high oil prices:

YouTube : video link

MSNBC – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25217169#25217169

CBS       – http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/broadcasts/main4188620.shtml

Randi Rhodes has kindly put togther an amazing summary of how we got here from there

(http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=2570)

ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS WHY OIL IS THROUGH THE ROOF
Lay, DeLay, Gramm, Gramm & Clinton

PART ONE
http://www.star-telegram.com/104/story/651928.html

PART TWO
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/659081.html

Republicans offer the same old tired slogans that they have touted throughout the Bush years and that haven’t done anything to combat the increase in gas prices

- More Drilling: Domestic drilling has not led to lower prices. Since 2000, drilling has increased dramatically – climbing about 66 percent– while gas prices continue to increase. and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of drilling permits that the federal government is handing out – over the past 4 years they have received and are sitting on nearly 10,000 permits that they aren’t using to increase domestic production. Since 1999, drilling permits for oil and gas development on public lands increased more than 361 percent.

- OCS: The vast majority of federal oil and gas resources located on the OCS are already open for development – of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the OCS, nearly 80% of oil and 82% of natural gas is located in areas already open for leasing. In 2006, the federal government opened 8.3 million new acres in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, yet gasoline prices have increased by $1.69 per gallon. Only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased offshore acres are actually producing oil or gas.

- Open ANWR: EIA estimates that if we open ANWR today, twenty years down the road, at peak production, gas prices would be lowered at the maximum by $1.44 per barrel, which translates to only a few cents a gallon. Increased conservation and the use of alternative technologies in the last three years have cut the projected need for imported oil between now and 2050 by more than 100 billion barrels (EIA) – ten times more benefit than what we might be able to get a decade from now from ANWR.

- More Refineries: We have excess refining capacity. Last week, our refineries were running at 89% capacity – well below the 95-98% capacity use rates we’ve seen this time of year for the last decade. Republicans argue that environmental regulations are preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery, which was approved. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.

Republicans and Democrats have a fundamentally different approach to tackling high gas prices. Democrats are being aggressive today to lower prices and reduce dependence on foreign oil while thinking ahead to tomorrow

- Working to Address Rising Gas Prices

- Enacted legislation to increase oil supply by temporarily suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the nation’s crude oil stockpile. (H.R. 6022)

- Gave the FTC new authority to crack down on those manipulating wholesale energy markets to keep prices high in the Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6)

- Approved the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act (H.R. 6074) to hold the OPEC monopoly accountable for price fixing that flouts the free market and artificially drives up the cost of crude oil.

- Passed the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 1252) to investigate price gouging by retailers who may be using the cover of high prices to unfairly inflate their rates even further.

- Investing in a Sustainable, Energy Independent America

- Enacted the landmark Energy Independence and Security Act (H.R. 6) that raised vehicle fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years and increased the renewable fuels standard.

- Passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act (H.R. 5351) to end unnecessary subsidies to oil companies making record profits and invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

- Approved the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act (H.R. 6049) to renew and expand tax incentives for renewable energy.

- Passed the Food and Energy Security Act (H.R. 2419) that promotes the development of biofuels, including those from non-corn sources.

If costs go up then of course prices go up. But why then would profits go up? Shouldn’t it be a wash? YEP

But here’s another wrinkle…the cost for Middle East oil producers hasn’t gone up!

FACT

Oil executives and speculators are getting rich on the backs of American consumers. Indeed, on average, it costs a company such as ExxonMobil about $20 to extract a barrel of oil, which in turn is sold for more than $115 a barrel. Refiner profit margins have also been soaring at vertically integrated oil companies, which helps explain how the largest five oil companies in America have posted more than $550 billion in profits since 2001
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2650

John McCain doesn’t think it’s “too important” when and if our troops ever come home. Just as long as they stop getting themselves killed over there!

Iraq and Iran have met and agree the Number One impediment to progress there is the presence of US Troops. Whose out of touch now Grandpa?

New polling shows Obama beating McCain in the General Election, but remember it’s just a snapshot in time. We have work to do. Right wing Talk Shows are smearing Obama everyday with lies and even allegations of “terrorist hand signals”. Sheesh. Desperate men do desperate things. Obama has set up a website for you to report any smears and to fact check the ones that are already out there.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

Grandpa
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw…8938.triviaquiz

Obama
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic…5895.triviaquiz

HOMEWORK

Head ot the FTC was an Exxon Mobil lawyer until 2005
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/09/bush-ha…er-head-up.html

Currently the Head of the FTC is William E. Kovacic who has done nothing with the new authority Congress gave him in 2007
http://www.examiner.com/p-154031~Pelosi__H…Gas_Prices.html

jxx

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan was elected to his second term as President of the United States entrenching a series of conservative doctrines in poltics, economics and foreign policy, not to mention a new kind politico/entertainment speak, that reverberates to this day. Reaganomics effectively persuaded the average American that most things government were bad (you know, taxation, social programs, regulation, oversight). Meanwhile the Heritage Foundation persuaded Reagan that overt and covert aid to anti-communist groups was good. American interventions in Iran, Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Libya, Nicaragua and Vietnam may have helped undermine the Soviet Union, but at what cost?

1984 was also the celebrated title of George Orwell’s seminal work. Written almost 60 years ago , I was reminded how powerful and prophetic a work this was at last night’s opening of  The Actors Gang production of 1984 at the Redcat Theatre in Los Angeles. (Full Disclosure: I am a member of The Actors Gang).

Set in London in the mythical land of Oceania, much of the description of 1984’s “world” comes through the diary of Winston Smith. Ironic in the extreme because Winston, the book’s hero, works in the Ministry of Truth rewriting and falsifying history. What do we believe?

Of course, what exactly Orwell is trying to say lies very much in the eye of the beholder. Go see the play, or have another peek at the book. Heck, save time, Google it and start connecting your own dots.

But for some thought food, here are some themes to chew on …

• Big Brother – the supreme ruler of this mythical state – rules by fear through a perpetual war against an elusive enemy and constant surveillance
• The enemy are a bunch of terrorists called Eurasia. Sometimes the government decides the enemy is really Eastasia. Eastasia? Yes, it’s always been Eastasia.
• The purpose of war is not victory but an opportunity to transfer enormous wealth to an elite minority – wealth that could otherwise have improved the standard of living of everyone
• Fear, torture and brainwashing are sanctioned as ways to enforce loyalty and love of Big Brother
• People in the upper rungs of government willfully ignore facts, truth and reason in the service of their own interests … and this willful ignorance is met with compliance by the media
• Controlling the message is paramount: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past
• Sex is bad. Very bad. Run away. Run away.
• The government controls and confuses its people with a bewildering barrage of doublespeak: simultaneously holding and believing two contradictory beliefs (doublethink) while using politically correct language to “encourage” unthinking conformity (Newspeak)

Norman Soloman has this provocative take on doublespeak:

• When terrorists attack, they’re terrorizing. When we attack, we’re retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they’re terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we’re retaliating again.
• When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they’re aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.
• At all times, we must be kept fully informed about who to hate and fear. When the United States found Osama bin Laden useful during the 1980s because of his tenacious violence against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, he was good, or at least not bad. Now he’s really bad.

Meanwhile Republican loyalists, hoping for those heady days of Reagan’s 1984 have been quietly dreading that Bush (43) and McCain (TBD) have shown more affinity with Orwell’s 1984. What has been the defining characteristic of this Administration? A permanent campaign and a docile media, so inconveniently proclaimed from multiple podiums by recalcitrant former officers? An unending war in which bringing the troops home is not that important? A staggering rise in income inequality that has pushed record numbers of Americans into poverty or bankruptcy? Missed opportunities for global leadership on global warming? The tripling and quadrupling of oil prices? The virulent gutting of government regulation and oversight? Or a simple lack of accountability and disregard of consequences as the power brokers from all sides continue their strange dance for control.

This past week the Democrats in the house struggled with their own Big Brother demons and passed H.R. 6304 – the FISA Amendments Act. Civil libertarians are not amused. At issue are reduced powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to independently assess probable cause of domestic spying. But what really rankles are provisions that provide apparent immunity for telecommunication giants from dozens of lawsuits against them. Your move Senator Obama.

Oh, and one final morsel of 1984 trivia before you take a sip of that double mint chocolate frappuccino:

• In 1984, President Reagan sent special envoy Donald H. Rumsfeld to Iraq to persuade them that the United States was eager to improve ties with Saddam Hussein. This despite his use of chemical weapons against Iran
• On March 20, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld stood with President George W Bush as he ordered the start of war with Iraq.

What had changed? Well the logic of that, my friends, is lost in revolving explanations so confounding we might as well call ourselves Oceania.

Yours in Doublespeak

jxxx