More dispatches from the mythological superpatriotic tea party progressives:
MAR
7
ACLU on Rand Paul
ACLU Comment on John Brennan’s Confirmation to CIA Director
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 07, 2013
WASHINGTON – The Senate today voted 63-34 to confirm John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan’s confirmation came after a bipartisan coalition objected to the secrecy surrounding President Obama’s targeted killing program and began to assert congressional oversight over this unlawful White House policy. The effort was capped off by a nearly 13-hour filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“As a result of Sen. Paul’s historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins: the Obama administration disclaimed authority to use an armed drone within the United States in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-style attack, but more importantly, Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration’s vast killing program,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office. “There is now a truly bipartisan coalition in Congress and among the public demanding that President Obama turn over the legal opinions claiming the authority to kill people far from a battlefield, including American citizens. We are not a country of secret rules, particularly when the rules unilaterally justify the killing of as many as 4,700 people, including four American citizens.”
During the past six weeks, steps towards transparency have included the President’s State of the Union commitment to disclose more information on the killing program, several of the eleven Justice Department legal opinions released to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, a disavowal of authority to use armed drones domestically, and two congressional oversight hearings. There also have been new promises of a public explanation of the killing program by President Obama, possible subpoenas for the legal memos from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and expanded efforts by key members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees to obtain the legal opinions and exercise greater oversight over the killing program.
“We’re glad to hear commitments from Congress to provide meaningful oversight over the killing program as well as a new promise from President Obama to provide a fuller explanation of it to the public,” Murphy said. “However, there is no substitute for providing the legal opinions to both Congress and the American people, and no one should accept anything less than being able to read for ourselves what the government is claiming it can do.”
The ACLU currently has two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits pending before federal appeals courts in Washington and New York seeking the release of Office of Legal Counsel memos and other records concerning the targeted killing program.
More information is at: www.aclu.org/national-security/targeted-killings
Last edited by Bourne; March-10th-2013 at 05:46 PM.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
A common complaint right-wingers themselves make about conservative journalism is that there’s too much opinion and not enough news. That comes through in remarks from Tucker Carlson (“It’s really expensive to cover the news and it’s much cheaper to opine on the news”) and Robert Costa in this Michael Calderone report (in which I’m credited with some vivid metaphors for the state of things—my saltier analogy was inspired by thisWashington Free Beacon headline). I heard much the same thing back in the ’90s when I attended student journalism workshops put on by right-leaning groups like the Leadership Institute. They drove home a fair-minded and important distinction between reporting and opinionizing and urged students to focus on the latter.
But the the problem with conservative journalism today is not that it’s producing too many George Wills or wannabe George Wills. There’s plenty of reporting—it’s just dishonest or partial reporting. It’s imitation journalism, and I’m not sure its consumers even know how it differs from the real thing. Look at this reaction to Calderone’s piece from Matthew Sheffield at NewsBusters. In particular:
During the campaign, about the only thing Romney ever talked about was the economy and how bad things were. None of his rhetoric really mattered, though, because the media simply did not inform Americans about how gas prices were much higher under Obama than ever before or that Obama and his team actually want energy costs to go upward so as to make their “green” solutions more economically competitive.
You didn’t know that gas prices were higher than usual because the New York Times didn’t tell you. That’s how Americans find out whether the price at the pump is painful or not: they wait for the media to explain whether they should be outraged.
There’s a place for in-depth looks at gas prices—which would show that prices fluctuated quite high under the last Republican president as well—but Sheffield isn’t asking for more depth, he wants what’s basically a Republican spin on gas prices to be reported as fact, along with the “fact” that Obama and his people “want” those prices to be high. Now, one can make a good-faith case that Obama does indeed want prices to be high, but “making a case” and “reporting the news” are two quite different things. That the mainstream media doesn’t always observe the distinction doesn’t license right-wingers to ignore as well.
Within an avowedly political outlet, reporting is going to have some bias, and that’s a feature not a bug. But one can be fair-minded even while taking a side: it’s like playing a sport and insisting that the rules be observed even when a breach would favor your team. That spirit of fair play is missing from the reporting that one finds among many well-funded right-wing websites. I’d have a degree of respect for the Washington Free Beacon if its opposition to Hagel had been couched in well-written polemical essays of the sort once produced by Norman Podhoretz. Those kinds of essay can also be dishonest in the particulars, but the genre itself indicates some degree of good-faith self-awareness—awareness of the difference between playing the role of a prosecutor and that of a judge, juror, or bailiff.
The problem with right-wing journalism today isn’t that it features too much opinion but that its reporting is all slant. It wasn’t enough for the Free Beacon (or Sen. Ted Cruz, for that matter) to argue that Chuck Hagel was insufficiently supportive of Israel to be U.S. secretary of defense, instead a series of overblown “gotchas” and insinuations about undisclosed interests were deployed as manufactured news. Never mind the distinction between reporting and opinion—what’s at stake here is the difference between factitious propaganda and good-faith writing of all kinds.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
John Bolton offers this comment from the parallel universe in which he apparently resides:
I think the entire Republican party has spent four years making a huge mistake really retreating from its historic role as the main advocate of sound national security policies [bold mine-DL]. And in that sense the campaign’s unwillingness to take on Obama’s failed foreign and defense policies was symptomatic of the problem of the party as a whole.
Granted, I don’t expect John Bolton to offer a lot of solid policy or political analysis, but this is an extraordinary thing to say all the same. Activists and ideologues normally believe that a party would always do much better if it adopted their preferred tactics and ideas. On its own, that isn’t surprising or remarkable. It’s a given that a national security hard-liner such as Bolton thinks that Republicans should spend more time talking about national security. What makes the statement so strange is that it’s so completely divorced from what’s actually been happening over the last four years.
It’s quite clear that Republican hawks have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to throw everything they could come up with at Obama in the hope that something would stick to him, and their efforts were in vain. They haven’t been in “retreat” on these issues, except in the sense that most Americans don’t trust them on national security and foreign policy. It’s not that they have been retreating on these policies. They continue to support the same bad policies, and most of the public has been running away from them. Republican hawks didn’t realize that they were at a disadvantage on national security and foreign policy for the last four years, and they spent that time railing against virtually every Obama decision for being too slow, too “weak,” too accommodating to authoritarian governments, and not supportive enough of U.S. allies and clients. For the most part, these hawkish complaints were bogus and fell flat. That didn’t stop Republican politicians and especially their presidential nominee from frequently repeating them. Needless to say, John Bolton and hard-liners like him were among the only people in the world that thought that the Romney campaign failed in part because it was insufficiently aggressive and combative on foreign policy.
It was precisely the aggressiveness and the ignorance that went with it that made Romney’s difficult task of unseating an incumbent president that much harder, since voters had good reason to fear what a Romney administration might do once in power (including the remote but frighteningly plausible possibility of appointing Bolton to a government position). Romney also inflicted a number of unnecessary injuries on himself during the campaign because he thought it was to his advantage to press the attack on these issues. We saw this with his ridiculous remarks about Russia as our top geopolitical foe, his ham-fisted reaction to the handling of the Chen Guangcheng case, and his overeager readiness to exploit the protests in Cairo and the attack on the mission in Benghazi. A less aggressive candidate might not have won because the odds were already against him for many other reasons, but he wouldn’t have made so many avoidable errors that hastened defeat.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Uh-oh. Conor Friedersdorf feeling the tipping point, as Rush is feeling the heat to turn tail and run:
Rush Limbaugh Stands With Rand Paul: 'The Neocons Are Paranoid'
The most popular conservative demagogue in America signals that hawkish foreign-policy dogma may be losing its hold on the GOP.
Reuters
In the spring of 2011, I wrote a widely ignored article arguing that the Republican Party's presidential nominee would be hard pressed to successfully run to President Obama's right on national security, given Obama's aggressive approach to counterterrorism and the country's war weariness, but that pushing back against his War on Terror excesses would be good politics and policy:
"Imagine a nominee who a) issued a biting, accurate take-down of security theater, and inflamed voter passions by becoming a demagogue on naked airport scanners and intrusive pat-downs; b) Insisted that Libya was an imprudent, unaffordable war that had nothing to do with American interests, and was illegally launched; c) Tore into Obama for asserting the power to assassinate American citizens in secret, hammering on the obvious imprudence and frightening potential for abuse; d) pointed out that we'd be a lot safer if we redirected money now spent on nation-building in Afghanistan to almost any halfway effective, achievable counter-terrorism measure); e) picked one or two of the most egregious civil liberties abuses going on and pinned them on Obama."
What I described sure resembles the approach that Rand Paul has taken. Amazingly, several Tea Party-aligned senators now seem to be playing along. And most surprising of all? Rush Limbaugh, the demagogue most attuned to the rank-and-file, is now celebrating Paul's approach.
"The neocons are paranoid.The neocons are paranoid because Rand Paul comes from his father's gene pool. This isolationist wing is worried about maybe there's something more going on here than simply opposing drone strikes. There's all kinds of ramifications. Well, they might think he's a kook, but they're worried that he's a kook that nobody thinks is a kook, and so they'll follow him. He's a stealth kook," Limbaugh explains to his listeners. "It's their thinking. I don't think this." [emphasis added]
The program breaks. Upon its return, a caller comes on the air:
Hello, Rush. I'm calling about Lindsey Graham and John McCain. I am really ticked off as a veteran the way John McCain and Lindsey Graham have basically sold out somebody that they should have supporting. They went and had a nice party with Obama, then they come back down to the floor of the Senate and act like his attack dogs. They may be calling it bipartisan, but in the old days -- John McCain will be well aware of this term -- it's called being a collaborator. They need to quit straddling the fence, land on one side or the other, 'cause the people are sick and tired of it. You know, it's getting to be too much. They are not working for us. They really need to go back to the floor of the Senate, maybe make a public apology to Rand Paul. They need to make an apology to Marco Rubio, to Cruz, and I can't remember the name of the Democrat that also came out and supported, 'cause this is just back-stabbing gone way beyond the pale.
Senator McCain really did Paul a favor by attacking him. The conservative base has no love for the interventionist Arizonan. Neither does Limbaugh.
"This incident, the Rand Paul filibuster, has turned things upside down in Washington. And McCain's behavior is Exhibit A in this. What happened? McCain and a bunch of other Republicans decide to go to dinner with Obama on Tuesday night," Limbaugh said. "Now, I don't pretend to know why the Republicans did it, but I know why Obama did it. He wanted the photo op and he wants to make it look like he's cooperating, because the people are not buying this sequester argument of his. It's not working."
For Paul fans, the fact that he filibustered on the same night of the Obama dinner is a lucky stroke.
What follows is some typical Limbaugh bloviating about how Obama is "intentionally inflicting pain on the American people via his sequester" and a nonsensical but obligatory Benghazi reference. It's only when he circles back to Paul and the filibuster that things get really interesting. There's a tantalizing tidbit about Congressional Republicans afraid of being seen as unsupportive of Paul's filibuster:
There has been such an upside down turning of the power structure. Our office is getting phone calls begging us not to lump certain Republicans in with the ones we're criticizing. "Hey, don't talk about me. I wasn't at that dinner. Don't talk about me. I came out and I stood up with Rand Paul." There has been a major, major shift here. There's more to it than you can see inside the power structure in Washington, inside the Republican Party. And for McCain now to come call these guys kooks and wackos illustrates exactly what's wrong.
Limbaugh states outright that this is about foreign policy, not just drones, and that the neocons are scared:
Here's the substance of this. There is a fear among McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others who favor an interventionist foreign policy. Think of the neocons.Think of going into Iraq and not just securing Iraq, but building a democracy. Nation building, if you will. Think of the outbreak of the Arab Spring and the people on our side who thought, "Wow, this is wonderful. This is the outbreak of American democracy," when it wasn't. It was the exact opposite. Rand Paul, they're asking themselves, is he his father's son or is he on his own here? They're worried that he's his father's son. They're worried that Rand Paul is an isolationist. They're worried that Rand Paul's diatribe on drones really means that Rand Paul wants to bring the military home and not use it unless we're attacked. He doesn't like it being used in an intervention. This is what they fear. And as he succeeds in making a connection with the American people, they are worried, the neocons are worried that they are being undermined by this.
The talk radio host seems to think the neocons are right to be scared:
I'll tell you why. Rand Paul made a connection with the American people. These other people do not. He made a connection. Therefore, he has the ability to influence and motivate people. I'm telling you what their fears are. They thought that Ron Paul was absolute nutcase, wacko. That's why they're calling Rand Paul a wacko, 'cause that's what they thought of Ron Paul. Libertarian, fruitcake, nutcase, isolationist, shut down the US military, speak positively about Islamists, all this kind of stuff. They are afraid that's who Rand Paul is, and they're afraid that what Rand Paul was doing with this filibuster was not just speaking out against the use of drones on American citizens on American soil. They're afraid that Rand Paul is actually setting the stage for building up public support to stop the interventionist usage of American military might and foreign policy all over the world. It's a fear that they've got.
He isn't entirely complimentary about neocon motives:
It's also the whole notion of jealousy in power politics. Let me put it this way. They, I think, are worried that Rand Paul might be skillful enough to move the Republican mainstream away from the McCain, Kristol, neoconservatism view of the world and toward a position that is not as extreme as his father's, but is suspicious of interventionism, suspicious of Islamic democracy building, suspicious of financial and military support for dubious regimes.
So what does Limbaugh think? Is Rand Paul a kook, like McCain says?
He's now a national figure. He wasn't wild-eyed and screaming and pounding. He was very rational and very reasonable. He was asking a very simple, easily explained and understood question... So it was easily understood. It was a very simple question he was posing, and all this was going on while our guys are out dining with Obama, dining with the architect of this current nationwide mess. Rand Paul was standing up opposing this while these guys were out yukking it up with the architect of it all. You know it was a great example of the ruling class and the country class, and the ruling class not liking what this country class senator was doing. It's no more complicated than that, but a lot of people are ticked off about this, too.
This is just one radio segment. Limbaugh is always liable to contradict himself. But if the neocons were to lose their grip on the Rush Limbaugh right, this is exactly what it would look like. So is this:
I want you to imagine the scene. That was their big night! The guys at dinner with Obama, that was their big night. The next day there'd be pictures, news stories, accounts on cable news of Republicans dining with Obama. It's a big, big bipartisan evening. It's major progress! They're gonna finally everything working together, getting things done. Now, imagine you're sitting at dinner. You're at that table wherever they were, and you've got your iPhone. You're a Republican senator or whoever else was there.
You've got your iPad Mini, maybe, or your iPhone, your smartphone, and all of a sudden they start going nuts and you pull out your iPad or you pull out your phone and you look at it, and you see Rand Paul has the nation captivated back in the Senate chamber with a filibuster -- while you're sitting there with Obama and nobody's noticing. You look this, and you start beating your head against the table, 'cause Rand Paul's getting everything that you intended to gain from that dinner.
And he's a freshman.
And he's a wacko!
"Ron Paul's his dad. He's an absolute nutcase Libertarian, and he's talking about drones? Nobody wants to drop a drone on the American people. What the hell is this?" But he has the nation captivated. It's caused a real reversal. Not a reversal, but the whole structure of things has now been upset, and it's got a lot of people concerned, and it has legs. It does have legs. So I think it's fascinating to behold, and once again it illustrates that these guys going to dinner with Obama, they were not challenging him.
They were not. People think this country is falling apart. People think that this country's on its last legs as they know it, as it was founded. People in this country are really scared. There is a despondency among the population, a majority of the population. This isn't just politics-as-usual. As far as the population the country's concerned, the opposition party still doesn't get it to the point that they're not even the opposition party! Well, Rand Paul appeared to be the opposition, and he had the guts and the courage to stand up and demand that they explain something to him. And not only is he alive to tell about it, he's not being called names.
He's a hero to people.
So there you go.
Given its track record since 9/11, the Rush Limbaugh right is obviously totally unreliable when it comes to civil liberties, executive power, and foreign-policy realism. At the same time, its capacity for cognitive dissonance, hatred of Democrats, mistrust of Obama, war-weariness, paranoia about tyrannical government, and ideological predisposition to Constitution-citing rhetoric makes the block as suited to following Rand Paul as John McCain or Bill Kristol, especially if the latter men are ultimately arguing -- as they must if they want to be coherent -- that Obama should be trusted to wield extreme power, in secret, with good judgment and moral rectitude.
The best thing about partisan demagoguery is that the powerful have automatic adversaries to challenge them. On foreign policy, there hasn't been any coherent challenge to Obama from the right.
Hopefully that's changing.
I don't want to exaggerate the size of the Rush Limbaugh right, which seems to end up every four years with the GOP presidential nominee they least desire. The behavior of moderate Republicans matters more. What I do want to make is the modest claim that Limbaugh giving this treatment to the "Paul vs. McCain" divide -- even highlighting rather than glossing over the larger foreign-policy divisions at play -- shows that the whole GOP is already in a very different place than it was prior to Election 2012, when every primary candidate with any chance of ultimately leading the party competed to stake out the most bellicose, hawkish positions possible, led by Mitt Romney, the eventual victor. I can't help but wonder how events might've unfolded if the GOP hadn't wasted four years on the wrong critique of Obama's foreign policy.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
I cam't stand these rightwing and other phonies anymore. Acting like this is the first time that America is involved in x-tra judicial killings. It's time to brush up CIA history a bit. Reagan sfar as I remember even bankrolled the original Al-Q.
I cam't stand these rightwing and other phonies anymore. Acting like this is the first time that America is involved in x-tra judicial killings. It's time to brush up CIA history a bit. Reagan sfar as I remember even bankrolled the original Al-Q.
This is the first time it has been publicly endorsed by the POTUS.
Not to mention the fact that we are setting some incredibly dangerous rules as to how other nations can carry out their own "drone wars" in the future.
As for Reagan funding al-Qaeda, that's true in a roundabout way. We clearly funded radical elements in Afghanistan in their war against the Soviets (that's pretty much how the Soviet Union fell despite Bubbles' idiotic Sputnik rhetoric). I don't believe they were actually known as al-Qaeda at that time, though. I'm pretty sure al-Qaeda didn't truly form until the Gulf War when the Saudi king allowed our military to stage from his country. But, it was certainly many of the same folks we funded and trained.
More blowback from our government using the Middle East as their own personal sandbox.
Last edited by Bourne; March-13th-2013 at 03:49 PM.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Movement Conservative Reactions to Paul’s Filibuster
By DANIEL LARISON • March 12, 2013, 12:05 PM
Jim Antle reviews the reactions on the right to Rand Paul’s filibuster last week:
Shortly after Rand Paul’s talking filibuster unexpectedly seized national attention, Bill Kristol came back with his normal comedy routine. The junior senator from Kentucky was dismissed as an emblem of “kookiness” and “fearmongering,” “waxing semihysterical” as a “spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party.”
John McCain and Lindsey Graham were Kristol’s opening act. McCain grumbled about “wacko birds” and the dang libertarian kids who need to get off his lawn. Graham dismissed Paul’s questions about the limits of presidential power as undeserving of a response, in keeping with his now-infamous quotation, “Shut up, you don’t get a lawyer!”
But for the first time in a long time, the GOP rank-and-file wasn’t laughing along. Redstate.com editor and conservative commentator Erick Erickson asked if McCain and Graham simply resented Paul and his Republican allies for generating more media attention.
The reaction to the filibuster among movement conservatives appears to have broken down along fairly predictable lines of partisans and opportunists on one side and committed ideologues on the other. Partisans viewed the filibuster as a great episode in anti-Obama criticism and opposition, and therefore perceived anyone attacking the filibuster as a bad “team player” that was trying to give Obama political cover. This is also why so many otherwise hawkish senators joined Sen. Paul on the floor. The others may or may not share Sen. Paul’s concerns, but they saw a chance to score points against Obama and naturally took it. Opportunists such as Limbaugh know a popular sensation when they see one, and they don’t want to be identified with McCain and Graham, since they know that most conservatives view them with distrust and loathing. As we’ve seen before with Rubio, radio hosts will go out of their way to praise the conservative folk hero of the hour, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are celebrating the substance of his views.
For their part, Kristol and McCain have never liked or trusted Sen. Paul, and they are fiercely opposed to virtually everything he represents. They were bound to denounce Paul and his filibuster. Part of their reaction is fear that Paul may be gaining a broader following, but mostly it is contempt for what Paul stands for. Likewise, Michael Gerson predictably takes the anti-Paul line in his column this morning, but then there was never the slightest chance that he wouldn’t. Gerson has been a reliable apologist for Bush-era foreign policy, he was responsible for writing some of Bush’s most absurd public statements regarding foreign policy when he worked for him as a speechwriter. On top of all that, Gerson has a visceral, almost allergic reaction to anything resembling small-government conservatism or libertarianism, and considers both the bane of his ideas for the party, which they are. Any success for Paul is a setback for these people, and that compels them to go on the attack.
Kristol, Gerson, et al. may feel free to ignore the “conservative street” because they are wagering that the mood of the “street” is changeable and won’t necessarily be against them during the next debate. I’m guessing that they also assume that enough movement conservatives still follow their lead on foreign policy and national security that it ultimately won’t matter if they have to face a few days’ criticism from movement activists and radio hosts. The partisans and opportunists will probably forget about this episode in a few months or years, and the ideologues will still be dictating the limits of foreign policy debate on the right as they have for the last twelve years.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
I think the GOP is a long ways away from "imploding." They control the House. They have more than 40 votes in the Senate. They got 47 percent of the vote in the last presidential election. In short, their current brand of politics remains competitive. The implosion won't occur until they suffer a total wipeout. As things stand now, people in the party are convinced they can win if they just tweak their message in a couple places. I think they're probably right about that. And I think that any Republican who is able to gain the party's nomination in 2016 or for that matter in 2020 will support the use of drones in the manner Obama has used them. The problem here is not a Democratic or Republican problem, it's an executive power problem, and it's an expression of an institutional ideology that is ingrained in both parties. Fuck, I'm not even sure Rand Paul wouldn't use drones in the same manner Obama has. The temptations to do so are very apparent and the pressure to use them in this way would be intense on any occupant of the White House.
I'm still not sure, though, why we ought to be more upset about the killing of a small number of American citizens versus the killing of a large number of Iraqis or Pakistanis or Afghanis, etc. Personally I think it would probably be productive if Obama started blowing people away with drones inside the United States. If real American blood, by which I mean white American blood, was being shed in this manner, it would lead to major changes. So long as it's dark-skinned people or Muslims getting killed in this way, no one is going to give a shit.
Also, I want to add that on this issue I think people are too focused on the political leadership, and not enough focus is being put on the institutional forces driving the drone warfare program. This is a problem that is primarily about the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department. Yes the political leadership in theory controls these departments, but I think we all too often underestimate the role of institutional thinking in shaping these kinds of policies.
Last edited by crawjo; March-16th-2013 at 06:06 PM.
Where did anybody sat we should be more upset over the killing of a few Americans versus the deaths of thousands of others?
And no, of course the party isn't imploding. It was a use of hyperbole. But, there is some major turmoil going on inside of the party which could lead to significant change.
And just the other day Rob Portman opened the door for them to possibly make accepting gay marriage OK.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Well, Rand Paul didn't use the filibuster to demand that Obama stop killing people in Pakistan or Yemen. He used the filibuster to protest the president's right to kill Americans on American soil. It's a real issue, I'm not doubting it, but from a human rights perspective it's a much less important issue than the way in which drones are actually being used.
Last edited by crawjo; March-17th-2013 at 09:30 AM.
No, he used it to shine light on the program and attempt to get a national conversation started about it. As one Middle Eastern author put it, it doesn't matter how it starts, it just needs to start.
Simply talking about the killing of brown-skinned foreigners is unfortunately not an effective way to engage the American public.
Last edited by Bourne; March-17th-2013 at 09:34 AM.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Uli
