Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.

Robert F. Kennedy on what GNP means.

Below is a quote from Bobby Kennedy on what the Gross National Product means and more importantly what it does not mean. He would have a made a fine economist...

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968

Big Oil and Racism take out Van Jones

Well the news was disheartening. A local (and international) hero of the sustainability and human rights issues was unfairly taken out by the right wing political machine.
Van Jones, co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For All and author of the best seller The Green Collar Economy, had been tapped by the Obama administration to be an advisor on green jobs and sustainable energy. Time magazine had named Van one of the world's 100 most influential people (see their write up about him HERE)

Unfortunately the first time most of the nation has heard his name in main stream media was recently when he was forced to resign. Americans For Prosperity (a fake grass roots organization funded by big oil) began the witch hunt for Van Jones. It was brought to a wider audience when Glenn Beck took towards smearing Van as a communist, black nationalist, crazy.

This is upsetting on so many levels.

First Van Jones is an amazing guy who has dedicated himself to bettering this country like few have. Glenn Beck is a lying racist pig who should be locked up, not in a position of influence over information or politics. After saying Obama has a deep hatred for white people, Glen Beck's program lost some of its advertising sponsorship. This happened after an organization Van Jones helped to start, called on advertisers to boycott his show. Walmart among others pulled their ads. Glenn beck continually railed against Van as an example of the crazy black guys that Obama surrounds himself with. The message: THEY are taking your country away and we have to stop them!

His evidence was a petition Van signed which called for an investigation into 9/11 to see if high officials of our government were responsible. This petition was signed by many progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Thomm Hartman as well as many families of the victims of the September 11 attacks. Van and others say they did not agree with the final wording of the petition and that it did not reflect their personal views on the issue.

The other evidence thrown around were statements taken out of context where Van said Republicans are assholes. He went on to say he too can sometimes be an asshole. He also apologized for the statement, unlike President Bush who called members of the press assholes and said he regretted people heard him say that but refused to apologize.

If calling someone an asshole is enough to keep you out of Washington I doubt many would be there.

After Fox "News" and Glenn Beck's hammering and the pushing from dirty energy companies, some Republicans actually called for a hearing into Van Jones' past behaviour.

So he resigned rather than draw negative attention to Obama or the issue of Green Jobs.

Troubling point number two. A strong, positive voice for change goes to Washington and the racist conservative talk show hosts and the crooked politicians who's pockets are lined with oil and blood drenched money have the power to take them down. And the Democrats, who are supposed to be the alternative to the Republican party, can't even stand up and defend that voice. It may be true that politically it was the best move to let Van go, but morally?

If anything is to change we need Democrats in the white house and leadership that will take on the Glenn Becks and the Americans for Prosperity of this world and expose them for what they are. Lying, racist, extremists who are promoting dangerous hatred and are only harming this country. Their actions should be considered treason. With free speech comes responsibility and when that responsibility is abused at least their microphone should be taken away. And the Obama administration, following a long trend, allowed the target of the right to be thrown under the bus, rather than to stand up and defend what he knows is right. This weakness may not serve him in the end as the conservatives have walked all over his attempt to reform health care.

Troubling point number three: Money has such influence in Washington that true health care reform, energy reform, you name it, can not happen as long as politicians are concerned with raising money for their campaigns. We see this in the current failure to get any real health care reform. What the politicians finally call reform will be drafted carefully as not to piss off the Insurance Industry as they are the ones who pay for the politicians re-election campaigns.

Solutions:

Get the money out of politics before we can fix this country.

Fight the racist conservative backlash to Obama's presidency any way you can.

Read the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights' comment on Van Jones resignation HERE and sign their petition regarding green collar jobs HERE

recent letter the editor of Sac Bee

I had to cut a third of this letter out to get it down to 200 words but here is a letter I whipped out last night so I could sleep after reading an idiotic commentary.

Dear Editor,
I just received the viewpoints page from Saturday August 15th in the mail from my grandfather who has subscribed to the Bee for years. I was blown away by the commentary by Rich Lowry regarding what he calls a grass roots populist movement against ‘Obamacare’.
I would like to thank Rich for making a very accurate comparison between the political right and left in this country. He said, “The same distrust of power that had the left-wing activists spinning feverish theories about George W. Bush’s eavesdropping has the right agitated about Obama’s death panels.”
This illustrates the difference between the left and right extremely well. The left protested when Bush spied on Americans. It was a real policy, which the left had serious intellectual issues with (like the fact that it was illegal and against our Bill of Rights). Now the right is making a fuss at town hall meetings over death panels, which do not exist. The idea of death panels is a complete lie invented by the right wing to control the uneducated in this country, using their old stand by: fear. (They used fear to explain why they had to eavesdrop on Americans as well).
The idea of death panels grew out of an amendment to include end of life counseling for people that was introduced by a Republican senator in fact. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Steel have all supported this lie.
So the left was upset for things the Republicans actually did and the right is upset over what the Republicans untruthfully say the Democrats are doing.
Thank you Rich for pointing out the difference between the activists at either end of the political spectrum. Now if only the rest of what you said had a grain of truth in it.

Danny Boyer
Half Moon Bay, CA

the insane fight over health care

I wrote this blog a few weeks ago and did not feel finished as I wanted to continue my rant. As it happens I just moved and am starting a new job so I no longer have time to continue this rant so I will leave it as is. Recent developments of course have me even more crazy over this issue, to be super brief:

The Republicans will go to any length to make Obama fail and health care is the current battle ground. They could care less for this country. They are using lies and scare tactics (like Obama's death councils that are going to kill granny) and doing it boldly and proudly. Without a real main stream media they get away with it. They care only about politics, their own power, and profits for the uber rich corporate class.

Obama needs to stand up to these tyrants and bully's. Call him and tell him what you think! (202) 456-1111. Tell him you want a public option. Medicare for anyone who wants it. Call your members of congress as well at: (202) 224-3121.

check these websites: patriotmajority.com and sickforprofit.com

The CEO for United Health care gets a $3.2 million salary and has 3/4 of a billion dollars in stock options! This is the problem with our system.

This fight goes far beyond health care, it addresses the underlying ideological fight of progressives vs conservatives: Should the government work for individuals or corporations? We could get into this on many levels but the fact is our system breeds poverty and what the conservatives call socialism is what actually allows a vibrant middle class to flourish.

ok I will just let you read my original blog as I must now go..

So the Health Care debate continues and it drives me crazy. We are not likely to get a true reform of our health care industry but it is a very interesting study of the power of the Republicans and corporate lobbyists and will show us just how weak Obama is as a President. The world health organization rates the US health care system 37th in the world, at least 75% of Americans want a public option to compete with the private insurance companies, one of the main topics during the campaign for President was health care reform, the Democratic party (the ones in charge supposedly) has adopted universal health care as a party platform, over 60% of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills (and many of those people had health insurance), and health care costs are crippling businesses and individuals alike. Yet it seems there is not the political will to make the changes needed.

I am already on the record as saying the only real solution is a single payer solution such as Canada and Europe has. Payed for by everyone through taxes. Private insurance companies can still exist to sell additional insurance as they do in Canada. Unfortunately this option is off the table so the next best thing is a public option of some sort.

The Republicans are united against a public option. They have stated on the record that they want to stop health care reform for political reasons. They want Obama to fail and will do anything they can to make that happen. They are also firm believers that the government cannot do anything right and we should let private industry do it all. This of course should disqualify them from working int he government! If someone wanted to work for a company and they said they believe that that company could not do anything right, would they get hired? They not only want a public option to fail, they want Obama to fail in everything he does. And to get their way they are offering lies, lies, and more lies. They say they "do not do policy" when asked for their alternative plan, only that they want to set a tone the will defeat health care reform. The whole argument of having a bureaucrat between you and your doctor is crazy. All the senators and congress people have a health care system payed for by tax payers and none of them are complaining about their health care. They like it but warn us that we not want it. Of course having an insurance company between you and your doctor is worse, they make money by denying people coverage. And this fact is incredibly well documented with numerous whistle blowers coming out recently. Check out Robert Greenwald's latest five minute film: sick for profit

The medical industry has spent 3.4 billion dollars in the past decade lobbying congress, second only to the financial industry. A list of the biggest recipients of money from these companies is the same as the list of people who are against a public option (democrats included). So here we see where the loyalty lies. Corporate America or the American people. %100 of Republicans so far are against the people and for the corporations. it seems so far about 10 or 20 percent of the Democrats are in the same boat. Which means the corporations may win this round.

Now who gets the blame? This is interesting. The media seems to say that the Dems have 60 seats in the senate so if this doesn't pass it is their fault. But that means 100% of Dems need to agree! None can vote against it because they want single payer and none because they are batting for the insurance companies. That is not democracy. Say 80% of dems are for it and 0% of republicans are, who should get the blame? In my opinion the Republicans should be banned from government since they do not believe it works. If we had moslty Dems in office then they could work it out among themselves and the most liberal and most conservative could bow out on any one issue and things would still get done.

Now how bad are the Democrats at the game of politics? The Republicans are the minority, the Dems have the White House, and at least 75% of Americans back the Democratic plan and yet the Republicans still seem to be able to call the shots. Worse yet, the dems have adopted over 100 Republicans amendments to the Health Reform Bill in the House in order to be bipartisan and gain Republican support yet the Republicans still are against it. And if their party openly says they want it to fail then why should they get to help craft the law? I understand some conservative Democrats are against this as well. Well it is a platform of their party and if Obama cannot get them to give a little on this issue then he is a weak president. Hell, he needs to endorse someone else in their primaries who will work with the Democrats on important issues. And they need to tell the Republicans to go to hell with their amendments! They should craft a bill that the American people want, vote on it, and then if it fails go to the people and tell them get rid of all those who voted against it so the next time they can get it done.

Of course the bigger issue is campaign finance. If we took away the right of any corporation to finance politicians then they would truly have only the voters to answer to. Hell, in three days they OK's 800 billion dollars for the financial bailout but cannot find money to pay for health care. And these banks that got bailed out are now making record profits and paying their CEOs 100s of millions of dollars in salaries again. Just crazy.

Call your congressmen/women and your senators. Tell them you want a public option and you will vote against them if they vote against it. Call the White House and tell Obama he better use his muscle and not cower down to these slimy Republicans who fight only with lies and untruths and who have came out and said they want this to fail so it will be Obama's Waterloo.

This is truly an ideological battle. One that goes beyond how much we are paying for health care. Do we want a government that works for the people or for the corporations and top 1%? Since Reagan took power this country has been literally falling apart while the very rich concentrate the wealth in their off shore accounts.

sotomayor, republicans, and the press

Well I have enjoyed listening to the Sotomayor hearings when I can. It is an interesting window into our judicial system as well as our elected officials.

Of course Sotomayor is an incredible nominee and is a good middle of the road candidate.

What has been most striking to me is how the republicans keep making twisted accusations and how the press gives credibility to them. I noticed in an online article that they quoted Jeff Sessions' complaint that she is biased and racist but never said anything about who Sessions is. Media Maters has a great article discussing this exact thing. Sessions was denied a spot as a federal judge (even by republicans) because he himself is a racist. Pot calling the kettle black but do any of the major media sources mention this when giving his twisted attacks credibility? No. You can read the original at the link below or just read the excerpt I included below which sums it up.

Another ridiculous point they are trying to make is that Obama's "empathy" standard is bad. One of the Republicans actually said that by having empathy for someone you must in turn be prejudiced against another group. He said therefor if you are empathetic you are by definition prejudiced. Obviously he has no idea what it means to be empathetic.

Another insight into Republican ideology came when one of the Republicans used his time to make points on two issues: guns and abortion. He went on and on about how important the 2nd amendment is and how he is worried that cities, etc may make laws pertaining to gun use and he also grandstanded against abortion. Funny, seems like he arguing we should make laws to protects unborn lives but is in the same breath arguing against laws to protect the lives of others. And are these even the two most important issues facing us today? Or is he just pandering to his loyal base?

the interesting article and many others:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907140058

SUMMARY: On July 14, five major newspapers reported on Jeff Sessions' opening statement at the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor without noting that, in 1986, Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge was rejected following allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments.

67 Comments

On July 14, the nation's five major newspapers reported Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) opening statement at the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotoamyor without reporting in that day's print editions that, in 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge following testimony that reportedly included allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments. In addition, as noted by the Associated Press, Sessions' "nomination originally drew fire from civil rights groups because of his [1985] prosecution ... of three west Alabama civil rights activists on vote fraud charges. The three were acquitted by a federal court jury, prompting civil rights leaders to charge that the prosecution was an attempt to intimidate black voters."

Media Matters reviewed the coverage in the July 14 print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal.

In a June 6, 1986, report about the Judiciary Committee's rejection of Sessions' nomination, the AP described the allegations:

All eight Democrats on the committee voted against Sessions on both motions, as did Sen. Charles Mathias, R-Md. Another Republican on the panel, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted against recommending the nomination favorably but voted for sending the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation.

[...]

The nomination originally drew fire from civil rights groups because of his prosecution last year of three west Alabama civil rights activists on vote fraud charges.

The three were acquitted by a federal court jury, prompting civil rights leaders to charge that the prosecution was an attempt to intimidate black voters to help ensure Denton's re-election.

Sessions denied those charges and defended the prosecution during his first appearance before the Judiciary Committee in March. But he soon faced new allegations that he had made a series of racially insensitive statements.

Witnesses accused Sessions of calling a black lawyer a "boy," of describing church and civil rights groups as "un-American," of agreeing with a statement that a white civil rights lawyer was a "disgrace to his race," and of saying he thought the Ku Klux Klan was all right until he learned members smoked marijuana.

Obama/Congress missing the point on healthcare

While our politicians push for a health care plan of some sorts we are provided with an example of how messed up our political system is and an example of a time when each and every one if us has a responsibility to take part in our democracy and contact our elected employees.

The fact that a single payer health care system is not even being considered for a place at the table of discussion is the biggest problem. Then we have the whole debate over a public option. Our current health care system is driving individuals bankrupt (even with insurance) and making businesses shoulder a financial burden that often makes them unable to compete with all the other countries that have national health care.

I heard Obama speak very misleadingly today. He said "everyone" has been invited to the table to discuss possible health care plans. That is BS. I am sad that Obama is proving to be more of a politician than a visionary, not surprised but sad none the less. He once advocated for single payer and now he considers the idea dead on arrival.

The fact is, according to a number of polls, the majority of Doctors, Nurses, and Americans want a single payer system. It as least deserves a place at the table.

Harvard medical researcher David Himmelstein and Rose Ann DeMoro of the California Nurses Association are both leading advocates of single payer health care. These two health care experts must have an opinion worth discussing, wouldn't you say?

Yet when Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) held health care reform hearings before the Senate Finance Committee which he chairs, he said "he would not waste his time" with discussion of single payer. He had 41 people testify during the hearings, zero in favor of single payer. 13 doctors and nurses protested and got arrested during the hearings, leading to public outcry which has pressured Baucus to ask charges be dropped against the 13 and to meet with Himmelstein, DeMoro and others.

Interestingly enough Baucus has received the most money from the insurance industry out of every Democrat in congress. The for profit medical industry has given hundreds of millions of dollars to members of congress in campaign contributions (read legal bribes).

A recent study by the American Journal of Medicine showed 62% of private bankruptcies in this country were due to health care costs (Up 20% from 2001) and 80% of these people HAD HEALTH INSURANCE! So obviously something is wrong.

The fact is the cost of health care in this country is crippling. Not just the middle and lower class but it is crippling business as well. GM just went bankrupt. We are the only major auto producing nation without a national health care system. One idea being floated by our politicians is making employers provide health care. How will that spur business growth. $1000 of the cost of every car made in America goes to health care of employees. My school has 50 employees and at $400 each pays about $20,000 a month in health insurance! Imagine companies like Halliburton with 50,000 employees - that would be $20 million dollars a month. Of course this will provide more motivation to move companies over seas or to hire part time, low wage workers to get around providing health care.

Having private insurance companies act as middle men with the sole purpose of extracting profit makes no sense when we all agree people and business cannot afford our health care. CEOs of insurance companies are getting billions of dollars while citizens and businesses are being driven into bankruptcy.

The republicans are joining in mass against the idea that Obama has that we should allow private insurance companies to exist but also allow people to buy into a government run medicare type system. They are against this type of competition because they say the insurance companies will not be able to compete. Doesn't THAT in itself tell you something about the whole debate.
People may argue that the republicans will not support single payer but they will fight against anything the Dems do. They have shown that over and over, look at their public reaction to Sotomayor - a middle of the road extremely qualified nominee to the supreme court. And look at their opposition to a government run option. I say if single payer gets a place at the table, if the numbers are crunched on Bernie Sanders' and John Conyers' single payer proposals and they make sense, and the people and the doctors and the nurses want it, then let the republicans obstruct it and then lets get rid of the republicans in the next election.

The proposals that Obama and the Congress are considering are in fact experimental adjustments to an already messed up system. Fact is the single payer system is one that we have models of all over the world - and ask any of those countries - Canada, France, Germany, Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark - if they would like to switch to a for profit system.
Those who argue that "the government can't do anything right" or "that the private sector can do things better" are arguing, I guess, that the American government is less capable than other governments. Funny the same people who argue our government cannot do things right feel we need to be the leaders of the free world, by force if necessary.

If we truly want to fix health care then single payer is the only way to do it. Some say the public option being discussed is a step towards national health care because eventually everyone will chose the cheaper option. Proponents and opponents both make this claim. The problem with this is how are we gonna pay for it? Think about schools. we have a public option and it sucks, money keeps getting cut from it and it cannot compete to the private schools that take in tons of money from wealthy families. Of course those private schools for the most part are run as non profits so they are not funneling billions out of the system. But still. The argument goes that if EVERYONE went to public school and payed for it through taxes then we would have better public schools. It would be hard to make this happen now because the system is in place. But with health care we are starting from scratch, or should be. If everyone could have access to single payer health care and everyone payed for it it would cost less than our current insurance does. But I worry about an underfunded "option" that becomes what the public schools are to education in this country.

So you have senators and representatives in the House so get on the email or phone and let them know what you think, if you think that is.

here's a link to do it: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Tortured logic

Well I cannot believe we are actually debating in this country whether or not we should torture people. But talking with a friend the other day who seemed to think it was a difficult question to answer made me think I gotta weigh in on this one.

The argument is usually broken down into two separate questions: Is Torture wrong? and Does Torture work? The proponents of torture seem to imply that if it works then the first question is null and void. The ends justifies the means. Ironically by their own logic if it does not work then the first question does not matter for there would be no reason to torture. Most of the opponents to torture address it from the first question saying it is wrong so it does not matter whether or not it works. But of course there are many opponents who also point out that it does not work well anyway.

The reason I cannot believe we are having this debate is that torture is wrong AND it does not work. So where is the debate? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney is out there running his mouth that torture is necessary to keep us safe. Don't get me started on Dick! Is he really the voice of reason? (I gotta just point out ex-democratic vice president Al Gore is out talking about stopping global climate change while Cheney is out defending torture.)

So is it wrong? Well according to international law, US law, and military law, it is illegal. Our Army's field manual on interrogation prohibits it. Our government has prosecuted others for water boarding our soldiers. In past wars we have took pride that we treat our prisoners of war humanely and according to international law. Hell, Saddam's "torture chambers" were sighted as evidence that he was an "evil doer" and he needed to be removed from power. I am no lawyer but I do know that the interpretation of our law is based on precedents set by prior legal cases that have gone to court. By this process there is no doubt that things like water boarding is against the law. Bush/Cheney had lawyers write up opinions that it is legal to do things like water boarding. These "lawyers" - Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales based these opinions on what precedents?

Plus look at the fact we locked up some of the "bad apples" who carried out the torture. These are men and women who were low ranking military personnel. They tortured and we put them in jail. So it must be wrong.

Any way I think there is plenty of history that shows even in this country we considered torture illegal and wrong.

But does it work? This is the question some think could justify the use of torture even though it is wrong. Perhaps the way they spin it, is that it is not wrong if it saves lives. Well that is a matter of opinion I suppose.

First even the government agrees that 90% of those held in places like Guantanamo are innocent. So we are torturing innocent people. And incidentally we are hiring private contractors to do it, but that is another rant entirely.

Second, even if torture works, the logic of the 'ends justifies the means' only works if there are no other means by which to get to the same end. And in fact this is the elephant in the room. There are other ways to interrogate people that work. In fact testimony before the senate a week or so ago by an FBI interrogator named Ali Soufan who is the chief witness in two of the main terrorism trials since 9/11 gave a damning testimony of torture as a interrogation technique. He said they got good info from suspects like Abu Zubaydah until the torture began and that the torture actually hindered their investigations into terrorism. In fact Soufan said Zubaydah was cooperative until he was tortured and then he stopped cooperating. He said that they have advanced interrogation techniques that work incredibly well and fast. He said they got important information from Zubaydah in one hour through advanced mind games. He pointed out that, not only are terrorists trained to resist torture and the info you get is unreliable because people will say anything, but it takes too long. If you have to water board someone 89 times in a month to get info that is slow and useless if you are trying to save lives. Torturing people for years, what does that do for us? Many CIA and FBI interrogators resigned when they were told to stop using their effective methods and to start torturing.

Plus what evidence you get from torture cannot be used in a court of law. This means even if people are guilty of terrorism we may not be able to prosecute them because we got the evidence through torture.

Many people, including Soufan, make the point also that torture has been used around the world, not to get actionable intelligence (for they all know there are better ways) but it is used to get people to lie. When governments want false testimony they can use to support their agenda of war or whatever they torture people to get them to say what they want. In fact Soufan said the techniques used by the contractors in the case of Zubaydah were Cold War-era communist techniques used by the Chinese during the Korean war to illicit false testimonies from American pilots. This has also been used by police to get false confessions from suspects (especially blacks in this country back in the days of lynching and beyond I am sure). For most people will eventually say anything you want them to say to get the torture to stop. This is why torture was so good for Cheney and gang for they were trying to get confessions linking Saddam to Al Qaida. This is why confessions by people who were tortured are not submittable in a court of law. And this is why our government does not want our detainees in the war on terror to be tried in a court of law, hence the military tribunals.

Even if torture works and therefore we think it is OK. Our main objective is to make Americans safe. Well I submit that when the world sees us torturing people, many innocent, mostly Muslim we become much less safe. Terrorism feeds on hatred and what better Al Qaida advertising slogan than "they tortured your brother, now what are you gonna do about it?"

So to end this rant. From the arguments I have heard torture is not the best way to get good intelligence, it does not work and there are other methods that are better and faster even if you do get some info from torture. And torture is illegal and wrong and we should not be having an argument about it, we should be prosecuting those nuts who said it is legal and who keep running their mouths that is something we should do.

Oh, and I never even got into the fact of how mad I was when I read in the paper that this whole torture debate and the stink between Pelosi and the CIA could discredit Pelosi and Obama to the point that they may not be able to do what they had hoped to do to fix our health care system! Boy the republicans are expert obstructionists! Come on folks, torture is wrong, the CIA has been dishonest since Cheney was a schoolyard bully, get over it and lets move on. Or on the other hand, lets run with Pelosi's idea of a truth commission on torture and lets find out who said to do what and if we don't lock 'em up, let's at least ban them from government and Sunday morning talk shows.