Tuesday Open Thread | Native American Chiefs |Cochise

CochiseChief Cochise was one of the great leaders of the Apache Indians in their battles with the Anglo-Americans.

Known as “The Apache Napoleon,” Cochise was war chief of the Chiricahua Apache tribe and fought tirelessly against the American and Mexican armies and settlers for many years. Cochise originally befriended white settlers until he was wrongly accused of kidnapping and several of his relatives were executed in retaliation in 1861. From that point on, Cochise made it his mission to kill as many white men as possible in Arizona. The following year, Cochise and his followers took on the U.S. Army in the battle at Apache Pass. Although he lost that engagement, Cochise continued his attacks on settlements and travelers on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border until signing a peace treaty with the U.S. in 1872. He died on a reservation a couple of years later.

Cochise (or “Cheis”) was one of the most famous Apache leaders (along with Geronimo and Mangas Coloradas) to resist intrusions by Americans during the 19th century. He was described as a large man (for the time), with a muscular frame, classical features, and long black hair which he wore in traditional Apache style. He was about 1.78 m (5’10”) tall and weighed about 175 lbs.[2] In his own language, his name “Cheis” meant “having the quality or strength of oak.”

Cochise Quote: “When I was young I walked all over this country, east and west, and saw no other people than the Apaches. After many summers I walked again and found another race of people had come to take it. How is it?

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Native Americans, News, Open Thread, Politics, Tribute and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Tuesday Open Thread | Native American Chiefs |Cochise

  1. Breaking News: Cleveland Kidnapper Ariel Castro Has Committed Suicide at a State Prison.


    Ohio corrections officials say Ariel Castro who held three women captive in his home for nearly a decade has committed suicide at a state prison facility.

    Spokeswoman JoEllen Smith says 53-year-old Castro was found hanging in his cell around 9:20 p.m. Tuesday at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient. Prison medical staff performed CPR before Castro was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

    The three women disappeared separately between 2002 and 2004, when they were 14, 16 and 20 years old. They escaped May 6, when one of the women broke part of a door and yelled to neighbors for help. Castro was arrested that evening.

    Castro was sentenced Aug. 1 to life in prison plus 1,000 years on his guilty plea to 937 counts including kidnapping and rape.

    • Xena says:

      @SG2. Rather sad. Makes me wonder if Castro was construed as a “short-eyes” in prison and his hanging may not have been by his own hands.

  2. Yahtc says:

    “You must speak straight so that your words may go as sunlight into our hearts.”
    — Cochise

  3. Yahtc says:

    Frederick Douglass Escapes Slavery, 175 Years Ago
    By Christopher Klein


    On September 3, 1838, Frederick Bailey undertook the riskiest journey of his life. The 20-year-old slave made a daring escape from his master in Baltimore, and with his newfound freedom came a new name—Frederick Douglass.


  4. Yahtc says:

    “UN experts urge United States to wrap up review of Trayvon Martin case, examine laws”

    Special Rapporteur on racism Mutuma Ruteere

    3 September 2013 – A group of United Nations independent experts today called on the Government of the United State to finalize the ongoing review of the case involving the death of teenager Trayvon Martin, an African –American teenager who was shot in 2012 by a neighbourhood watchman in the state of Florida.

    “We call upon the US Government to examine its laws that could have discriminatory impact on African Americans, and to ensure that such laws are in full compliance with the country’s international legal obligations and relevant standards,” said human rights expert Verene Shepherd, who currently heads the UN Working Group of Experts of People of African Descent.

    The death of Trayvon Martin sparked a new debate about racial profiling in the United States after the unarmed black 17-year-old was shot and killed in Florida by George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watchman. Mr. Zimmerman, who argued that he acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force, was found not guilty of all charges against him.

    The US Department of Justice, the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are currently evaluating the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony from the state trial, trying to establish potential civil rights charges linked to the case.

    “The Trayvon Martin case has highlighted the importance of the need to review those existing laws and policies that can have a discriminatory effect on the basis of race, as African Americans become more vulnerable to such discrimination,” Ms. Shepherd said, recalling that the US has been party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 1992, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination since 1994, and many other international human rights law treaties.

    “States are required to take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists,” said the Special Rapporteur on racism, Mutuma Ruteere.

    According to the 2011 US Department of Justice Hate Crime Statistics, 71.9 per cent of the total number of victims of hate crimes reported to the nation’s law enforcement agencies were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias. In a 2012 survey, the local non-governmental organization Malcolm X Grassroots Movement found that at least 136 unarmed African Americans were killed by police, security guards and self-appointed vigilantes over the course of a single year.


    • Yahtc says:

      If you go to the link below you will find a August 17, 2013 upload of his song dedicated to all the Trayvon Martins across the world entitled “Stand Up” by William Robinson who writes:

      My tears turned into words the pain turned into a pen and paper my heart moved me to give back to all the Trayvons all around the world. My love for my brothers helped me see beyond myself.

      See video below.

      • Yahtc says:

        I just tried to send you to William Robinson’s Youtube page with the song, but the link did not work, and so I will have to post this way:

  5. Yahtc says:

  6. rikyrah says:

    Considering that any film made from these books can only be straight up soft porn…

    here’s the news.


    Dakota Johnson Nabs ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Role

    8:31 AM PDT 9/2/2013 by Sophie Schillaci

    Dakota Johnson has landed the coveted role of Anastasia Steele in Universal’s forthcoming Fifty Shades of Grey adaptation, author EL James announced via Twitter on Monday.

    “I am delighted to let you know that the lovely Dakota Johnson has agreed to be our Anastasia in the film adaptation of Fifty Shades of Grey,” she wrote. Moments later, James revealed that Sons of Anarchy actor Charlie Hunnam would play Christian Grey in the film.


    Johnson, the daughter of Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith, previously worked with producers De Luca and Brunetti on The Social Network. She has also been featured in 21 Jump Street, The Five-Year Engagement and the upcoming Need for Speed. Last fall, Johnson starred in the freshman Fox series Ben & Kate.




    Charlie Hunnam to Play Christian Grey in ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

    9:09 AM PDT 9/2/2013 by Sophie Schillaci

    The “Sons of Anarchy” actor joins Dakota Johnson in the highly anticipated adaptation of EL James’ novel.

    Moments after announcing Dakota Johnson as the lead actress in the upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey adaptation, author EL James dropped another casting bombshell: Sons of Anarchy’s Charlie Hunnam will play Christian Grey.


  7. rikyrah says:

    The Morning Plum: How Republicans will make their Syria decision all about Obama

    By Greg Sargent, Published: September 3 at 9:01 amE-mail the writer

    submit to reddit

    It’s been widely noted that both parties are deeply divided over Obama’s request for Congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria. Dems are split into many camps, including liberal interventionists, Dems who support the president, those who favor action but worry it won’t work, and those wary of any entanglement abroad.

    Meanwhile, there are fresh signs of divisions among Republicans: As a big New York Times piece details this morning, they are split between Tea Party isolationists and neocon hawks. But like many other accounts, the Times politely downplays another key cause of GOP division: Opposition to anything Obama proposes.

    Fortunately, a new piece from the well-connected Byron York brings much needed candor in this department. York talks to multiple Republicans on background, and finds they have many reasons for opposition. But this is the most telling one:

    The lack of confidence in Barack Obama. There’s no doubt the president has been extremely reluctant to take action in Syria. He also showed terrible judgment by painting himself into a corner with his 2012 “red line” comments on chemical weapons. For those reasons, and more, some Republicans will argue that they simply cannot entrust special warmaking powers to a president who they believe is not competent to use them.

    This conclusion says it all:

    In the end, many will carefully consider all the evidence and then vote their instincts. And that will mean a vote against Barack Obama.


  8. rikyrah says:

    Syria debate gives John Boehner an escape hatch

    By Greg Sargent, Published: September 3 at 12:00 pm

    House Speaker John Boehner just announced that he will support Obama’s request for Congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria. “I’m going to support the president’s call to action,” Boehner said. Eric Cantor agrees. It remains unclear whether majorities in Congress will go along, but that’s a big step forward for the President.

    Boehner’s announcement brings up another element to all of this: The war debate actually gives the House Speaker a way out of the big mess he’d expected to find himself in this fall, thanks to conservative demands for a series of epic confrontations over Obamacare and the debt limit.

    Here’s why: There are only nine legislative days from when Congress returns until funding of the government runs out on September 30th, which is to say, there are only nine days for Congress to pass a continuing resolution, or CR, temporarily funding the government at current levels.


  9. rikyrah says:

    Eric Holder’s Suit Against Texas Gives the Supreme Court a Chance to Gut Even More of the Voting Rights Act


    Last week, Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would sue Texas over its new voting ID law and redistricting plan. Vowing that the U.S. wouldn’t allow the recent Supreme Court decision gutting Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act to invite states to suppress minority voting rights, Holder promised that the Obama administration would sue under a different provision of the Voting Rights Act—Section 2—which the Court didn’t address in the case. As Molly Redden has reported, the lawsuits face an uphill battle because courts have interpreted Section 2 of the voting rights act to ban only voting practices that are intentionally discriminatory and have established a high burden of proof for intentional discrimination.

    There is, however, another, deeper reason that the Section 2 suits are unlikely to succeed: several of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have expressed deep skepticism about the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself. When Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 to ban voting practices that had the effect, rather than intent, of suppressing minority votes, the Supreme Court came close to suggesting that the 1982 amendments were themselves unconstitutional. In other words, Justice Anthony Kennedy was being idealistic, at best when he suggested at oral arguments that Section 2 might be a plausible alternative to Section 4 in preventing practices like voter ID laws that have the effect of suppressing minority participation. The fact is that the Supreme Court’s approach to Voting Rights has been like a game of whackamol: every time Congress tries to ban voting rights discrimination under one provision of the Voting Rights Act, the Court smacks it down, forcing Congress to try other approaches that are smacked down in turn. That’s why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was right to tell the New York Times last weekend that “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”


  10. rikyrah says:

    Public not yet on board with intervention in Syria
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 3, 2013 2:16 PM EDT

    If lawmakers intend to take their cues from the public on U.S. policy in Syria, the Obama administration is going to have to hope for a quick reversal of Americans attitudes.

    President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

    The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adult, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.


  11. rikyrah says:

    September 03, 2013 10:58 AM
    The Road To War With Iran Runs Through Syria

    By Ed Kilgore

    The administration has now put itself into a position where it must convince Republicans to place their hatred and contempt for the president in abeyance just long enough to give him authorization for military action in Syria. It must do so, moreover, without offering concessions on the fiscal issues hanging fire at the moment; once that door is open, the demands will surely escalate and GOPers may even see a glimmer of hope that the implementation of Obamacare can be put on the table.

    So the White House badly needs Republicans to reach the conclusion that it is in their own interests to back a strike against Syria, even though they have a thousand excuses for claiming it’s too late or too early or too much or too little or simply the occasion for a “no confidence vote” against Obama’s leadership.

    One argument we are going to hear frequently and loudly from some on the Right was, unsurprisingly, articulated today by WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin:

    [F]or isolationists, there is no amount of dead Syrians, refugees and WMD deaths that would justify us doing anything effective.

    Is that the world we want to live in? Once Assad used chemical weapons, then all despots will feel free to do the same. And the green light would not entice merely rogue regimes in Syria and North Korea.

    As for Iran, it isn’t clear whether hard-core isolationists would think sanctions and resolutions are in order. (When a former senator, Chuck Hagel, didn’t think so.) In any case, sanctions haven’t worked. So, in their view, now we would do nothing of consequence to prevent Iran from getting the bomb


  12. rikyrah says:

    ‘The result will be more people without health insurance’
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 3, 2013 11:38 AM EDT

    As the political world’s focus shifts to Syria and looming crises on Capitol Hill, the Republican campaign to defund the Affordable Care Act has largely disappeared from the landscape. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and the Heritage Foundation intended to use the August recess to put this on the front burner, but as of today, their efforts appear to have fallen far short.

    So, the federal health care law is in the clear as the state exchanges get set to open? Not entirely.

    The Obama administration has invested $67 million in grants to hire “navigators,” intended to help American consumers better understand the new system and sign up for benefits they’re legally entitled to. Unfortunately, many Republican-led states have imposed harsh restrictions on the navigators — in Ohio, navigators are forbidden from comparing and contrasting insurance plans for customers — and Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week launched a new intimidation campaign targeting those assisting the uninsured.

    Even the Washington Post’s editorial board is getting sick of the sabotage.

    As The Post’s Sandhya Somashekhar reported last week, Republicans at the state level also have applied a variety of less visible measures to impede the law’s implementation. Some won’t enforce consumer protections, including a ban on insurance companies rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions. The result will be illegal discrimination. Another tactic has been restricting the work of federal “navigators,” consumer assistants who help people understand their options and get coverage. […]

    Though some analysts offer explanations for why state governments might make one or another of these decisions, states taking these steps are unwise at best. To the extent they represent a deliberate policy to derail the law, such steps are worse than misguided. Georgia’s state government is doing “everything in our power to be an obstructionist,” Ralph Hudgens, the state’s insurance commissioner, boasted.


  13. Ametia says:

    Angry Black Lady Blasts Washington Post: ‘Turning Into a Pro-Rape Propaganda Rag’
    by Tommy Christopher | 12:37 pm, September 3rd,

    The Washington Post‘s resident excuser of horrible things, Richard Cohen, is at it again, and has drawn the ire of Angry Black Lady Imani Gandy, among others. The This Week In Blackness editor took to Twitter Tuesday morning to blast Cohen’s paper, tweeting “@washingtonpost is turning into a pro-rape propaganda rag. I won’t read it anymore. Add it to the list, along with Salon & The Daily Beast.”

    I’m citing Imani, not just because she makes a kick-ass headline, but because she so eloquently and effectively expresses the criticism that’s being directed at Cohen, and the paper:

    In which Richard Cohen blames the “so-called Steubenville rape” on twerking. http://bit.ly/14ngkeg (h/t @MoreAndAgain for #donotlink URL.)

    (retweet of @dreamhampton’s tweet) I don’t care if @washingtonpost publishes never before seen pages from Betty Friedan’d diary, I’m never clicking one of their links again.

    Do these shitlords have any idea how much the shit they write actually HURTS? It literally HURTS MY SOUL.

    Read on:


  14. rikyrah says:

    Decisions, Decisions…

    by BooMan
    Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 at 11:48:56 AM EST

    Byron York provides 5 reasons why Republican lawmakers may vote against authorizing military force against Syria. Nowhere on his list is any healthy respect for public opinion. Since politicians do deem their reelection prospects a rather important consideration, this is a glaring failure of analysis. If you are a member of Congress, you not only need to look at the current polls, but you have to make an effort to predict how a ‘yes’ vote will look in retrospect.
    One idea is that by severely limiting what is authorized, Congress can significantly diminish the risk of blowback or mission creep. Another consideration that could work along with this is that the administration is not compelled to use the authority they are given but might be able to use the authority as leverage to force some creative compromise on the Russians, the Iranians, and the Assad regime. For example, would the regime agree to a voluntary disarming of their chemical weapons stockpile in return for not getting bombed? Could the Russians facilitate that?

    But this would require skeptical members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to place a high degree of trust in the administration. And trust is in short supply.


  15. rikyrah says:


    Did Twitter wreck the 2012 campaign?

    Peter Hamby, the CNN correspondent behind many a 2012 scoop, spent last spring at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center reviewing the media’s role in the 2012 presidential campaign. The result of that effort — Did Twitter Kill the Boys on the Bus?: Searching for a better way to cover a campaign — is finally available online, and includes quite a few gems. Essentially, if you read this blog, you’ll want to read Hamby’s paper.

    A few highlights (and a shameless plug) to whet your appetite, bold mine…

    Page 75:

    “As a general criticism, I don’t think the media did a terrific job of explaining Obama and his presidency,” said [Former Washington Post editor] Marcus Brauchli. “I don’t think that we the media did a good job of presenting how Obama governed in his first four years or in telling people about the people Obama relies on and how decisions were made, what decisions were made for what reasons and even some of the fall out of some of the decisions. I think actually we were too much on the surface. We assumed that we had written the stories because at the time of big events we had covered them.”


    • Ametia says:

      HUH?! This article is the very reason Twitter and other forms of social media are rendering these fools irrelevant.

      We know the media folks are lying, water-carrying hacks, plus a lot of us are BOOTS ON THE GROUND, and know exactly what goes down/went down in teh Obama campaign and how Obama governed.

      The boys on the bus, well, they got free rides, kissed ass with the dying fools in the Tea Party and carried water for Romney.

      BYE NOW!

  16. rikyrah says:

    Judge Sparks Protests After Sentencing 14-Year-Old Girl’s Rapist To Just 30 Days In Prison

    By Tara Culp-Ressler on August 29, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    A Montana judge who recently sentenced a 14-year-old girl’s rapist to just 30 days in prison is defending his decision, even as hundreds of people picketed the courthouse in protest on Thursday. Although State District Judge G. Todd Baugh doesn’t see anything wrong with the sentence itself, he has apologized for his comments that the rape victim acted “older than her chronological age” and was “as much in control” of the situation as her rapist.

    In 2007, a Montana teacher named Stacey Rambold raped a 14-year-old girl who later ended up committing suicide. On Monday, Baugh gave him 15 years in prison for his crimes — but suspended all but 30 days of that sentence. And when arguing the case, Baugh noted that the 14-year-old girl was acting “older than her chronological age” and “as much in control of the situation” as the 49-year-old teacher who raped her.

    That sparked considerable backlash. More than 30,000 people signed onto a MoveOn.org petition calling for the judge’s resignation. “Baugh places the responsibility for the situation on a troubled child — one who committed suicide just two years later — and excuses the criminal actions of an adult who violated the ethical standards and trust of his community,” the petition reads. “Baugh has engaged in the worst kind of victim shaming.”


  17. rikyrah says:

    Beyonce in Ibiza
    Posted on Sep 3, 2013 in Celebrity

    We’re back, darlings! Tanned and well-rested after our 3-day weekend. And you? Did you have a lovely time away from us? Because here’s the thing: no matter how wonderful your weekend or ours was, chances are…

    Beyonce did it better.

    Six-inch heels on a yacht in Ibiza with a baby on her hip. If that isn’t fabulous, then we need a new word.


  18. Ametia says:


    What say you, Rusty Boner?

  19. rikyrah says:

    Republicans’ Devious Plan To Slow Down Obamacare Enrollment

    By Igor Volsky on September 3, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Republican lawmakers who had criticized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for improperly targeting conservative nonprofits for additional scrutiny kicked off an investigation last week into community-based groups who received Navigator grants to help uninsured people enroll in the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act, demanding that the organizations answer detailed questions and produce thousands of reams of documents.

    Fifteen Republican members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, including Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), are requesting detailed responses and thousands of pages of documents from approximately 60 percent of Navigator-recipients across the country by Sep. 13.

    The tactic is reminiscent of the kind of practices Republicans had condemned over the summer, after news broke that the IRS subjected certain groups applying for 501 C4 nonprofit tax status to long, intrusive, questionnaires about their filings. Upton personally called such tactics a “thuggish abuse of power” and “simply un-American.”


  20. rikyrah says:

    Higher Education’s New Caste System: An Event Based on the Washington Monthly’s 2013 College Guide and Rankings

    By Paul Glastris

    Last month, Barack Obama proposed that the federal government create a new rating system for the nation’s colleges based on affordability and student success, rather than prestige and exclusivity. The Washington Monthly has been ranking colleges based on these very criteria for years.

    The latest Washington Monthly College Guide and Rankings will be the subject of a special event tomorrow, September 4, 2013, 10 AM to noon, at the New America Foundation’s Washington D.C. offices. The theme of the panel discussion is “Higher Education’s New Caste System.” For the better part of a century, higher education has operated under a compact with its citizens. Taxpayers would fund the basic research that sustains economic growth, and in return tuition at public institutions would remain low enough that middle- and lower-class students can afford degrees.

    That compact is breaking down in front of our eyes. With plummeting state support and skyrocketing tuition, our flagship public universities are increasingly becoming, like elite private colleges, strongholds of the wealthy (including rich foreign students). Meanwhile, lower-income and minority students are increasingly being channeled to lower-prestige “open access” colleges where spending per pupil and graduation rates are roughly half as high. Instead of being an engine of equal opportunity, higher education is becoming a driver of inequality. Can a new federal rating system help change this reality?


  21. rikyrah says:

    Kohut: Obama shines on world stage

    Andrew Kohut 6:03 a.m. EDT September 3, 2013

    As world leaders gather for G20, president is personally more popular than his policies.

    As President Obama heads to the G20 summit in St. Petersburg this week he remains the most popular world leader. Ordinary citizens in most countries, with some notable exceptions, say they have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs and many generally approve of his policies.

    But over the course of the past five years he has certainly lost some of his luster — which is to be expected from a president who won a Nobel Peace Prize just nine months after taking office. Expectations were very high. And, as it turns out, so far he has not achieved what he promised. The world public has noticed.

    Nonetheless, Obama remains personally popular and has consistently received much higher confidence ratings over the course of his presidency than his predecessor George W. Bush. And he is better regarded than other current world leaders. Only Angela Merkel comes close to the breadth of Obama’s popularity. But even in Europe, a Pew Research poll last year found the American president getting higher ratings than the German chancellor in seven out of eight major European nations. In other parts of the world, more citizens expressed confidence in Obama than Merkel for the most part.


  22. rikyrah says:

    Media Outlets Spitting Mad At Obama For Spoiling Their Plans To Cash In On War

    Following the President’ surprise announcement that he would seek the advice and consent of Congress before launching an attack on Syria, it seemed that no matter where you landed on the cable news dial everyone was in a state of upset.

    With visions of TV screens filled with ‘shock and awe’ dancing in their heads along with the blessed promise of the ratings that follow the hysteria of war—not to mention a sublime ending to the slow news agony of August that dogs all news show production staffs, writers and broadcasters (trust me,I know)—Obama had held out the football for Charlie Brown to kick and then pulled it away at the last minute.

    And the media was pissed.


  23. rikyrah says:

    ‘Soft on drugs’ talking points go up in smoke
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 3, 2013 9:17 AM EDT

    Attorney General Eric Holder took a step without modern precedent last week, giving Colorado and Washington the green light on voter-approved marijuana-legalization measures. After four decades of a “war on drugs” that only moved in one punitive direction, the Justice Department decided to go in a decidedly more progressive direction.

    Immediately after, congressional Republicans did something fascinating: nothing.


    If previous administrations were inclined to take the steps on drug policy the Obama administration has taken, fear kept them from doing so — no one wanted to be condemned as being “soft on drugs” or “soft on crime.”

    But the landscape has changed quite quickly. Holder very likely assumed that if there was political pushback, it’d be mild and unpersuasive, if it existed at all. The usual, regressive talking points, the A.G. probably assumed, just don’t resonate the way they used to, and much of the American mainstream has lost its appetite for an expensive policy that tears apart families and communities while failing at its purported goals.

    And Holder’s assumptions were correct.


  24. rikyrah says:

    Rapper Lupe Fiasco Accused of Hiding Money …For a Drug Kingpin

    Lupe Fiasco is in cahoots with a convicted drug kingpin
    — hiding millions of dollars from the drug lord’s estranged wife to
    screw her in the divorce … this according to a new lawsuit.

    Fiasco is a big-time rapper … who’s being sued by the estranged wife of convicted drug kingpin Charles Patton, who’s currently serving a 44-year prison sentence for running a heroin enterprise.

    to the suit, Patton’s estranged wife believes Fiasco conspired with the
    drug kingpin to move more than NINE MILLION DOLLARS into various bank
    accounts in an effort to block her from making a play on the cash in
    their ongoing divorce.


  25. rikyrah says:

    September 02, 2013 11:35 AM
    Making the Case and Accepting the Verdict

    By Ed Kilgore

    Having misstepped by threatening imminent military action against the Assad government in Syria without making a compelling public case or building the requisite domestic or international support, the president took the difficult but welcome step back over the weekend that I had hoped for without, well, a lot of hope that it would actually happen. He and John Kerry are now harvesting the inevitable mockery of Republicans whose only point of unity in foreign policy is contempt for the 44th president, and of Democrats who have long feared that both these men represent a “liberal hawk” tradition in their party that must be decisively repudiated as shameful opportunism or worse.

    I don’t share PA weekend blogger Sam Knight’s conviction that the Obama administration is replaying the Bush administration’s campaign for the Iraq War, or Sam’s certainty the case for a limited military strike on Assad’s forces is as flawed as the case for an invasion of and occupation of Iraq. But it should be clear the administration’s welcome if tardy decision to pursue congressional authorization and broader international sanctions for an attack on Syria should be accompanied by a willingness to stand down if neither is forthcoming.

    We’ll hear a lot in the days just ahead about Obama’s credibility—or even his presidency—being on the line, with political and diplomatic catastrophe ensuing if he fails to secure sufficient backing for military action. That is the kind of imperial thinking—once the Emperor has “planted the flag,” no “retreat” short of total victory is acceptable—that prolonged both the Vietnam and Iraq wars long beyond any concept of proportion or usefulness. If Obama makes his case and succeeds in securing a congressional authorization for the use of force and sufficient international backing to make this an act of collective security, the wisdom or folly of his policy will be judged by results on the ground. But if his efforts at persuasion here and abroad fail, and he accepts an adverse outcome, he should earn praise, not contempt, for making military action contingent on compliance with domestic law and the kind of international support needed to maintain international norms against scofflaws like Assad.


  26. rikyrah says:

    The Most Worker Friendly President Since FDR

    Monday, September 02, 2013 | Posted by Spandan C at 12:38 PM

    In his Labor Day message, the president once again renewed his call to raise the minimum wage, saying that no one who works full time in America should have to live in poverty.

    Labor day isn’t just for bar-b-ques and a long weekend. Labor Day is the day we dedicate to people who are working hard for themselves, for their families, and for their communities. Things like the minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, the right to a safe work environment, and even the weekend were all hard won victories by organized labor, while laws to protect workers from discrimination came when organized labor fought side by side with civil rights groups.

    The labor movements proudest achievement in American history, without a doubt, is FDR’s New Deal, which continued progress with LBJ’s Great Society. But in the intervening years since then, corporate interests colluded with the country’s political leadership (when they didn’t collude, the corporate interests outright bought the political leadership) to try to walk that progress back.

    Whether through “free trade” deals that globalized the rights of corporations but not the rights of workers, or through union busting, or through nefarious political strategies to make one group of American afraid that another group would take their crumbs – I mean, jobs – or through the Supreme Court’s absurd pronouncements that women couldn’t sue for pay discrimination, the basic fairness for American workers – and with it the great American middle class – seemed in danger.

    The working folk of America needed a champion – we needed a fierce advocate, if you will. And we elected one in 2008. If by some miracle of happenstance, President Obama didn’t have to work twice as hard to get half the recognition, even from “liberals” in the media, it would be patently obvious to everyone that the man presently occupying the Oval Office is the most worker-friendly president since Franklin Roosevelt. Barack Obama is a president who has more than kept his word to always make the best decision for people who work for a living.

    The first bill this president signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that reversed an injustice perpetrated by the Supreme Court that said that women couldn’t sue their employers for pay discrimination if they found out about the discrimination too late. It’s a bill the previous president had threatened to veto.


  27. rikyrah says:

    Neocons outraged that Obama wants democratic approval for war

    By Alex Seitz-Wald, Published: September 2 at 1:30 pm

    After spending much of the past four years decrying President Obama’s alleged overreach in circumventing Congress, neoconservatives are furious with the president for … deciding to consult Congress before attacking Syria.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “euphoric” about Obama’s decision to seek an authorization vote, Sen. John McCain, one of Congress’ most outspoken hawks, told CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. ”[Obama] didn’t say, ‘It’s a red line — and by the way I’m going to have to seek the approval of Congress.’ He said it was a red line, and that the United States of America would act. And that’s a big difference, and that’s one of the reasons why this is so problematic,” McCain said.

    Former senator Joe Lieberman echoed the sentiment on Fox News Sunday: “Our enemies are cheering now … and our allies are worried.” Lieberman added that it’d be “catastrophic” if the democratically elected members of Congress do what polls suggest most Americans want and vote down a strike.

    Not to be outdone by the upper chamber, Rep. Peter King, the hawkish former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who led controversial hearings looking into Muslim radicalization, said Obama was “abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents.”

    Going to Congress is “how not to run a foreign policy,” neoconservative éminence grise and former Bush adviser Elliot Abrams wrote in Politico today. “This erratic conduct leaves U.S. foreign policy in a shambles,” he added.


  28. rikyrah says:

    Why the left is split on Syria

    By Alex Seitz-Wald, Published: September 2 at 11:55 am

    The White House is preparing to mobilize the full power of the bully pulpit to push members of Congress to approve attacks on Syria, even as the administration refuses to say whether or not they would proceed with strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s forces if the vote doesn’t go their way. “The strategy will be to flood the zone … everything is on the menu,” an unnamed official told Politico.

    The vote will be unlike any other of the Obama era in that there is no clear partisan position and deep divisions on both sides. Much has been made of the split on the right between hawkish neocons and isolationish libertarians, but the left has its own divisions here as well.

    While liberals are almost universally supportive of President Obama’s decision Saturday to seek the approval of Congress, BuzzFeed’s Evan McMorris-Santoro reports that they’re divided on what Congress should actually do. Democracy for America, the grassroots organizing group that grew out of the Howard Dean presidential campaign, sent a remarkable e-mail to its members explaining why the group is refraining from taking a position:


  29. rikyrah says:

    Russia eyes U.S. lobbying campaign
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 3, 2013 8:44 AM EDT.

    As Congress readies a vote on authorizing the use of force in Syria, lawmakers in both parties and both chambers will be lobbied by all sorts of folks — members of the Obama administration, members of the public, defense contractors, etc.

    But don’t be surprised if Russia dispatches some lobbyists of its own.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes to send Russian lawmakers to lobby Congress against a strike against Syria. According to a report by the Interfax news agency,

    Putin has signaled his support for a proposal made by two Russian lawmakers to send a delegation to Washington.

    The initiative, championed by Russian legislators Valentina Matvienko and Sergei Naryshkin, still requires formal approval by the country’s Foreign Ministry — although an informal group of Russian lawmakers may decide to travel on their own.

    The meetings between Russians and U.S. lawmakers would be fascinating, wouldn’t they? “Don’t believe your State Department and your CIA; instead put your faith in the Putin government!”

    I don’t doubt that there will be plenty of members of Congress who balk at authorizing force in Syria, but I’ll be eager to see just how many of these lawmakers say they were persuaded by a Russian lobbying campaign.


  30. rikyrah says:

    McCain says congressional inaction could prove ‘catastrophic’
    By Steve Benen
    Tue Sep 3, 2013 8:00 AM EDT

    When it comes to rallying political support for military intervention in Syria, President Obama could use more friends. And in theory, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) could certainly fit the bill — the Republican has been pushing the White House to use force in Syria, and as of last week, that’s precisely what the White House is prepared to do.

    But it’s not that simple. While many skeptics of military strikes in Syria fear Obama intends to do too much, McCain and his allies have blasted the president from the other direction, insisting Obama isn’t doing enough. Indeed, almost immediately after the president announced his intention to seek congressional authorization for the use of force, McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued a statement saying they “cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria” if the mission is too “limited.” McCain and Graham want a full-fledged war, not targeted strikes.

    Yesterday, the senators seemed ready to change their mind.

    The White House’s aggressive push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria appeared to have won the tentative support of one of President Obama’s most hawkish critics, Senator John McCain, who said Monday that he would back a limited strike if the president did more to arm the Syrian rebels and the attack was punishing enough to weaken the Syrian military.

    In an hourlong meeting at the White House, said Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, Mr. Obama gave general support to doing more for the Syrian rebels, although no specifics were agreed upon.

    “A vote against that resolution by Congress,” McCain said, “I think would be catastrophic.” He added a congressional vote against authorizing force would “undermine the credibility of the United States.”

    There are a couple of important problems with this.


    First, McCain’s approach seems poorly thought out.


  31. rikyrah says:

    Rand Paul’s unique understanding of Syria
    By Steve Benen

    Mon Sep 2, 2013 9:00 AM EDT

    It wasn’t surprising to see Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on “Meet the Press” yesterday criticizing the idea of military intervention in Syria. It was, however, interesting to hear his rationale for what U.S. foreign policy should look like in this case.

    “I think the failure of the Obama administration has been we haven’t engaged the Russians enough or the Chinese enough on this, and I think they were engaged. I think there’s a possibility Assad could already be gone. The Russians have every reason to want to keep their influence in Syria, and I think the only way they do is if there’s a change in government where Assad has gone but some of the same people remain stable.

    “That would also be good for the Christians. I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians and all of a sudden we’ll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted.

    “So I think really the best outcome for all the major powers would be a peaceful transition government, and Russia could influence that if they told Assad no more weapons.”

    Paul seemed oddly preoccupied with Christians in Syria — a group he mentioned five times during the brief interview — to the point at which it seemed the senator may be confusing Syria with Egypt, where Coptic Christians have seen their churches burned.

    But it was his rhetoric about Russia that was especially out of place.


  32. rikyrah says:

    The argument the non-interventionsts must make

    President Obama has made his argument for military intervention in Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons. And he has once again said that he welcomes the debate.

    It is now time for those who oppose this military intervention to make their case. I’ll tell you what won’t work: suggesting this is just like what Bush/Cheney did when they lied us into an invasion of Iraq. Rather than looking for an excuse to invade another country, we all know that President Obama has fought off advice to engage in Syria – even when it came from his closest national security advisors. This large-scale use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is what finally changed his mind. But even more importantly, President Obama is not talking about invading Syria – he’s talking about an action that would be limited in scope and duration – with no boots on the ground. An argument against the President’s proposal has to take that into account.

    If those arguing against intervention want to make a case that they are non-violent pacifists who would speak out against ANY military intervention under any circumstances – including this one – I think that could be a strong case. But that argument must also deal with the consequences. It requires that we either ignore the criminal slaughter of civilians or develop alternative forms of resistance. No one gets a “pass” on these difficult questions.

    Since President Obama has abandoned the “regime change” argument that drove so many of our military misadventures in the past and is instead making the argument based on the United Nation’s Chemical Weapons Convention, liberals who believe that military intervention is sometimes appropriate have a harder case to make against this one.


  33. rikyrah says:

    Obama Put His Feet on Oval Office Desk, and People are Outraged
    by Josh Feldman | 10:45 pm, September 2nd,

    If you were hoping for one more overblown controversy to end your summer, your wish has been granted. President Obama put his foot on his desk in a White House photo, and although it admittedly does look a little cheesy, people are outraged over the leader of the free world placing his foot atop the Resolute Desk because it’s undignified and beneath the office of the president… although technically it’s in the office of the… the point is, people are not happy.

    Here’s the image that has everyone freaking out so much:


  34. rikyrah says:

    Some of us don’t know that we’re free


    WATCH: The Sheryl Underwood Clip That Has Twitter Seething
    by Tommy Christopher | 2:40 pm, September 2nd, 2013

    Sheryl Underwood, stand-up comedy star, actress, and co-host of CBS’ totally-not-a-ripoff-of-The View gabfest The Talk, has spent the better part of the Labor Day weekend fending off blistering criticism on Twitter over remarks she made on the show about natural black hair. Discussing supermodel Heidi Klum‘s revelation that she saves all of her sons’ shorn hair, Underwood asked “Why would you save afro hair?” and in questioning the utility of the saved hair, observed that “You can’t weave afro hair,” and that “You never see us at the hair place going ‘Look, here, what I need here is, I need those curly, nappy beads…That just seems nasty.”


  35. rikyrah says:

    President Obama is working on bigger change than the purists can even contemplate

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this passage that Al Giordano wrote years ago.

    There are times when “The Law” is dressed up in liberal language in a way that masquerades the bloodlust behind witch hunts and impulses to scapegoat individuals for crimes or taboos that, in a democracy, we’re all responsible for having enabled.

    The same tendencies that have always placed me squarely against McCarthyism and Red Scares put me on the opposite side of some liberal and progressive colleagues today when they demand the prosecution of Bush, or of Cheney, or of some of their underlings…

    In the end, preventing torture is a political struggle and also a power struggle, so much more than a matter of “The Law.” It’s about changing society and its presumptions, and changing institutions, like the military and police agencies, where the culture is so prone to that kind of abuse…

    The real task at hand is to evolve American society – and with it, military and law enforcement culture – to change in ways that “The Law” will never be able to touch. That’s what I observe that the President is, step by step, doing. And the legal fundamentalists who fail to consider that larger context are going to continue to be upset, again and again, until they open their eyes to the bigger chess game going on between the new President and the institutions of defense and law enforcement, the only steps that can ever accomplish a permanent ban on torture and more.

    While he was specifically addressing the emo cries for the Obama administration to prosecute Bush/Cheney for torture, it continues to be the main cause of the rift between the Obamabots and the purists on the left side of the political spectrum.

    As I wrote about earlier, I see many of the purists thinking they can use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. What we get with that approach is a continued bloodlust for witch hunts and scapegoats. Whether its McCarthyism looking for communists around every corner or lefties trying to scare us about the plutocrats and autocrats, it all reeks of the same paranoia.

    The first time most of us ever heard of Barack Obama, he came with a totally different message.


  36. rikyrah says:

    Box Office: ‘The Butler’ Enjoys Labor Day Upset With $20 Mil; ‘One Direction’ No. 2 With $18 Mil

    8:52 AM PDT 9/2/2013 by Pamela McClintock

    The civil rights drama is the first film of 2013 to top the North American box office chart for three consecutive weekends as Hollywood rings out a record summer and Labor Day Weekend; “Getaway,” “Closed Circuit” are D.O.A.

    Lee Daniels’ The Butler engineered a surprise victory over Morgan Spurlock’s 3D concert documentary One Direction: This Is Us at the Labor Day box office, becoming the first movie of 2013 to top the North American chart three weekends in a row.

    Overall, Hollywood enjoyed a record Labor Day, with revenue reaching an estimated $156 million, beating the record set in 2007 with $148 million. The film industry also enjoyed a record summer ($4.7 billion) thanks to a wide array of films prospering and despite a handful of high-profile flame-outs.

    The Butler, distributed by The Weinstein Co., is one example of a smaller title that has shown remarkable staying power. The historical drama grossed $20 million for the four-day holiday, pushing its domestic total to a $79.3 million. The film’s outstanding run is a testament, at least in part, to Oprah Winfrey’s standing.

    Winfrey stars opposite Forest Whitaker, who plays a White House Butler working through eight presidential administrations. The film — a likely awards contender — is certain to gross north of $100 million.

    The audience continues to broaden out and get younger,” says TWC distribution chief Erik Lomis.


  37. rikyrah says:


    mccain graham potus and RICE
    President Barack Obama meets with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the Oval Office to discuss Syria, Sept. 2. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice is at left
    —-(Photo by Pete Souza)

  38. rikyrah says:

    this series is already so informative…thank you

    • Ametia says:

      Indeed. HISTORY, real history. The majority of tv westerns NEVER sat well with me, even as a child. you know the ones that depicted the indians as pure savages. These shows never, ever got to the heart of why the Native Americans FOUGHT the white man.

  39. Native American Chiefs

    Chief Cochise was the father-in-law of Geronimo and leader of the Chiricahua Apache Tribe.

    He is known today for his fearless and relentless fighting against Mexican and American armies and settlers and much of his adult life was consumed by war. The Apaches were a nomadic tribe that roamed what is now known as Sonoran Mexico, New Mexico and Arizona. They followed the seasons and hunting.

    Fighting with American settlers was not a choice of Cochise. After years of war with the Mexican army, Cochise welcomed white settlers in what was then part of the United States. He helped the new settlers learn to live in the harsh desert landscape. But the peace didn’t last and the treatment of Cochise by whites would turn him into one of the most feared Native American chiefs history has ever known.

    As more settlers flooded in however, tensions mounted. Those tensions came to a head when Chief Cochise was falsely accused of kidnapping in 1861, as retribution for the supposed kidnapping, several of Cochise’s family members were killed.

    After that incident, Cochise vowed to kill as many white men as possible in the state of Arizona. The tensions culminated in a battle against U.S. forces in what is known as the Battle at Apache Pass. Chief Cochise and his band lost the battle, but escaped and continued attacking settlements and travelers until 1872, when he signed a peace treaty with the United States in 1872.

    After making peace, Cochise retired to his new reservation, where he would die just two years later in 1874. Cochise was buried in the rocks near one of his favorite camps located in the Dragoon Mountains in southeastern Arizona. His only white friend, Tom Jeffords, and a few of his own people knew the exact location of his grave. They all kept the secret until their deaths.

  40. Good morning, everyone!

    I’m so loving this music today. Hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I cannot understand the words but I feel it.

Leave a Reply