20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

You ain’t thinking ’bout me

by susie

Sonia Dada:

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

That time is gone

by susie

The dBs:

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Where will you be

by susie

Sara Watkins:

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Dancin’ in the light

by susie

Love, love, LOVE this song. Entrain:

20 June 2012 ~ 1 Comment

Reasons why

by susie

Nickle Creek:

20 June 2012 ~ 3 Comments

The new doctor

by susie

She’s very nice, the first visit took an hour. I talked to her about my thyroid and asked if she’d feel comfortable taking over the monitoring. She said yes, and asked why. “Well, you know that personality type that endos have?” I said.

She snickered and said, “You mean ‘asshole’?”

She was actually more current on the newest thyroid range than the endocrinologist, is open to alternative treatments and has been in practice for 20 years. I told her I really don’t like to take medicine, and I avoid radiation as much as I can, so if she wants me to take something or have a test, she needs to convince me there’s a really good reason. She didn’t seem to have a problem with that; I think I’m going to like her.

Turns out the practice has been open for almost two years, but the hospital system refuses to advertise it. (Which is why I never heard of it before.)

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Occupy National Gathering

by susie

Here in Philadelphia, June 30-July 4th. For info, click here.

20 June 2012 ~ 5 Comments

New CIA docs show Bush ignored 9/11 warnings

by susie

Sure does make you wonder, doesn’t it?

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.


The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.


[...] Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2011, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “(redacted) expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”


[...] One last thing is worth mentioning from the documents published today: Anyone with any doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous to the United States is contradicting U.S. intelligence. “Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests,” the CIA wrote in February 2001. It is not the only piece of information revealed by the new documents that will be deeply uncomfortable for the Bush administration and hawks across the country.

Interestingly enough, these seven warnings dovetail with the descriptions by former CIA intelligence asset Susan Lindauer, who was held under the PATRIOT act for a year and publicly smeared in the New York Times (itself a publication known to be historically cooperative with the CIA) as mentally unstable. Lindauer says there were not only warnings, she believes there was controlled demolition of the WTC buildings to make sure the attacks were big enough to justify going to war. Again, it really makes you wonder.

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

When ALEC takes over your town

by susie

Woonsocket, Rhode Island takes it in the teethks to two wingnut legislators.

20 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Life’s a Tripp

by susie

The impossible burden of being Bristol Palin, now a reality show.

19 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Human

by susie

I put this song on and dance around the room when I’m having a bad day. It always does the trick! The Killers:

19 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Men’s needs

by susie

The Cribs:

19 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Tainted love

by susie

Gloria Jones:

19 June 2012 ~ 1 Comment

The difference

by susie

How can these U.N. troublemakers not see the difference? In other countries, they’re protesting against unemployment, political corruption and control by an oligarchy, and their goverment is repressing them with military tactics. Here, they’re… just malcontents! Yeah, that’s it:

WASHINGTON — Federal officials have yet to respond to two United Nations human rights envoys who formally requested that the U.S. government protect Occupy protesters against excessive force by law enforcement officials.


In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the two envoys called on U.S. officials to “explain the behavior of police departments that violently disbanded some Occupy protests last fall” and expressed concern that excessive use of force “could have been related to [the protesters'] dissenting views, criticisms of economic policies, and their legitimate work in the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”


The envoys also reminded the U.S. government of its international obligations to “take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of all peaceful protesters be respected.”


The letter, from Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. special rapporteur for the protection of free expression, and Maina Kiai, the special rapporteur for freedom of peaceful assembly, was sent in December 2011.


It was publicly released last week in connection with the 20th annual U.N. Human Rights Council meeting, which started Monday and at which both rapporteurs — independent experts sent out to investigate human rights problems around the world — will make their annual reports.


The U.S. government has not answered the letter. A State Department spokeswoman told HuffPost that “the U.S. will be replying,” but she couldn’t say when or how. “We do not comment on the substance of diplomatic correspondence,” she said.

19 June 2012 ~ 0 Comments

Heart of gold

by susie

The Polyphonic Spree covers Neil Young:


The Polyphonic Spree covers Neil Young