Politics Plus

I have done a lot of sleeping and resting since Thursday last week, yet still I am miserable and spend most of the days sleeping when I can.  It is day 5 and although I am still miserable, I think so far Sunday was worse, so maybe I've turned the corner . . . maybe.  Nameless, you know him as SoINeedAName, dear friend that he is, is bringing you tomorrow's Open Thread.  I very much appreciate him for this.  Virtual hugs dude!

Puzzle — Today’s took me 3:05 (average 4:45). To do it, click here. How did you do? For those that don't know, we always do the 48 piece classic.

Short Takes 

Alternet — Chomsky described how Republicans gravitated toward an increasingly radical base in the 1980s and '90s. 

"[Republicans] became so dedicated to the interests of the extreme wealthy and powerful that they couldn't get votes. So they had to turn to other constituencies, which were always there but were never politically mobilized. So they turned to Christian evangelicals, the nativists who are afraid they're taking our country away from us. People who are so terrified they have to carry a gun in a coffee shop."

Chomsky makes some good points about the American political system, of where the parties are standing.  Yes he bashes Republicans, but he does not spare Democrats either.  Listen to the interview above.

The Guardian — People who expose wrongdoing on national security and intelligence issues around the world are often given weak or no protection and are often subject to retaliation, creating a “chilling effect on people speaking out”, a United Nationsreport has found.

The report by David Kaye, United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, outlines an extensive case for governments to revise whistleblower laws to enhance public-interest disclosures and the flow of information, protect whistleblowers and ensure the confidentiality of sources for journalists and others who release information into the public domain.

We have seen what happened to Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and others who have blown the whistle on government and corporate actions. And Americans are not unique in this.  The UN appointed a Special Rapporteur in 2013 to investigate and provide recommendations.  In the Conclusions section of the rapporteur's report on page 21, the first conclusion is as follows:

58. A common thread ties together the right of access to information, the protection of sources of information and the protection of whistle-blowers: the public’s right to know. Human rights law protects the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, while also permitting restrictions of the right on narrow, specified grounds. When the right and the restriction clash, as they are often purported to do, Governments and international organizations should not adopt laws and policies that default in favour of the restrictions. Rather, laws should favour disclosures of information in the public interest. In cases of source and whistle-blower disclosures, public institutions have most of the power — the power to intimidate, to investigate, to prosecute. They also have greater access to information and, thus, the ability to make their case, while the source or whistle-blower typically has only a window into broader policies and practices, hindered by secrecy laws that preclude an adequate defence. If a disclosure genuinely harms a specified legitimate State A/70/361 22/24 15-12531 interest, it should be the State’s burden to prove the harm and the intention to cause harm. States and international organizations are urged to adopt or revise laws accordingly, consistent with the well-recognized centrality of the right to freedom of expression and access to information in democratic governance.

Read the section Conclusions and Recommendations.  You might think this makes sense, isn't this what we have?  If it is, how do we explain Edward Snowden living abroad, or Chelsea Manning sitting in military prison?  How does the UK explain William McNeilly's dishonourable discharge from the Royal Navy?  You might also find the OHCHR report to the United Nations helpful.

Roamin' the Web @ Wonkette

There was no intention to do so, but ​If I have violated a copyright, please advise and I will remove them.

Over the past 2 days, I have seen pictorial comparisons of Bernie Sanders to Christopher Lloyd from Back to the Future fame (also the TV sitcom Taxi).  Here is one, while the other is, I think, a strong statement on Hillary's handling of the Republicans at the most recent Benghazi hearing.

Washington Post — “It never was about the most perfect guy with the most perfect voting record; it’s about the person that’s willing to govern in a way that allows conservative ideas to at least come to the forefront, which he has said he is willing to do,” Salmon said. “I think conservatives all over the country ought to be doing cartwheels. . . . We’ve been dealing with eating crumbs off the table. Now we’ve got an opportunity to sit at the table and actually partake in the meal.”

Oh my!  Anyone who thinks that getting a simple vote on who the next Speaker should be, is a simple matter, needs their head examined.  And what does it mean to people like Salmon to "govern in a way that allows conservative ideas to at least come to the forefront"?  There is no doubt that the Republicans are a badly fractured party.  I find no truth in the name "the Freedom Caucus".  It is more likely the anarchy Caucus!

My Universe — h/t Ted W and Carol B Care2

This gives new meaning to coughing up a hairball!!!