The fishbowl

If you're into social media and designing applications (and helping los federales to spy on the citizenry), the FBI has the perfect free-lance job opportunity for you.

How would you like to design an app that could search social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and Twitter and allow users to compile information on domestic and international terrorism?

The FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center (SOIC) posted its "Social Media Application" market research request onto the web on 19 January, and it was subsequently flagged up by New Scientist magazine. 

The document says: "Social media has become a primary source of intelligence because it has become the premier first response to key events and the primal alert to possible developing situations." 

It says the application should collect "open source" information and have the ability to: 

• Provide an automated search and scrape capability of social networks including Facebook and Twitter.

• Allow users to create new keyword searches.

• Display different levels of threats as alerts on maps, possibly using colour coding to distinguish priority. Google Maps 3D and Yahoo Maps are listed among the "preferred" mapping options.

• Plot a wide range of domestic and global terror data.

• Immediately translate foreign language tweets into English.

Sure, when you post something online it's out there for the whole world to see. But, so many of these social network sites function more like a cocktail party or a backyard bbq. You and your circle of (mostly) virtual friends chat and comment about this or that - until your eye is drawn to the next shiny object.

What has happened to our right to be left alone? As Scott Greenfield points out, on the internet you don't know if you're talking to a dog -- or a terrorist, or at least someone los federales have their eyes on. How does it feel to know you might just get dragged into an investigation? How does it feel to know that you might find yourself under suspicion because of a tweet?

Of course you know that everything changed on 9/11. Now we're all under suspicion. Now the government needs to be able to monitor all our communications lest someone say something that might be a little bit controversial. The same tools that we have hailed for making our world smaller and allowing us to connect with more people are being used to keep an eye on us.

How does it feel to be the fish?

The Peter Principle in action

Citgroup. Bank of America. AIG. General Motors. Ally. Chrysler. Chrysler Financial.

What do all of these companies have in common? (Ally, for those of y'all who haven't seen the annoying commericals was created by the spinoff of GMAC from General Motors.)

The seven companies listed above were the largest recipients of the bailout funds doled out by the federal government as the economy came crashing down. As part of the bailout, executive compensation at the firms was limited to $500,000. Citigroup and Bank of America have since repaid their loans and are free to pay their executives whatever the hell they want to.

Kenneth Feinberg was named the special master whose duties included overseeing executive compensation at the bailed out companies. Under pressure from the Treasury Department and the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Mr. Feinberg gave the official thumbs-up to the wholesale obliteration of the compensation limit according to an audit from the inspector general for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP).

One of the worst offenders was AIG whose collapse was caused by its sale of unregulated credit default swaps. After handing the company over $180 billion, the taxpayers still own 70% of AIG. Now, keep in mind that the executives we're talking about are the folks who sat in the captain's chair as they drove their companies over the cliff in 2008.

The companies begged and pleaded with Mr. Feinberg (and had their friends in Washington and New York do more cajoling) to ignore the limit on compensation because, otherwise, the executives might just leave the companies and look for work elsewhere.

To which I say, so fucking what? Would you want to retain the people that drove your company into the ground? As an example, Robert Benmosch is the CEO of AIG. In 2008 Mr. Feinberg authorized a $10.5 million compensation package for Mr. Benmosch. For what? Under his leadership AIG's stock was worth less than the paper it was printed on. But that wasn't all. The following year Mr. Benmosch found himself the recipient of another $10.5 million in compensation while 17 of the company's 22 top employees received between $3 million and $7.6 million in compensation.

And they were rewarded for what? Getting down on their knees and begging the government to give them taxpayer money to keep their doors open? They shouldn't have been rewarded. They should have been kicked to the curb and left to fend for themselves.

Instead the men responsible, in large part, for the economic meltdown continue to sit in the lap of luxury on the taxpayer's dime. If executive compensation is meant to be a reward for steering the company to higher profitability then the opposite must also be true. Meanwhile the federal government just doesn't seem to be able to scrape the money together to help homeowners stave off the repo men.

The moral must be that if you screw something up, screw it up royally - otherwise you'll just find yourself on the unemployment line.

H/T Democracy Now!

Does more of the same make any sense?

I heard portions of a Mitt Romney speech the other morning in which he urged folks to vote for him to put an end to the health care bill signed by President Obama.

Mr. Romney said that the American people didn't want bureaucrats in Washington making health care decisions for them. He said what we needed were more market-based solutions.

Really?

Just tell me, how many people walk around telling others how much they love their health insurance provider? Is it really better for your health care decisions to be made by executives whose job it is to maximize profits? Does it make sense for those decisions to be taken out of the hands of your doctor and placed in the hands of someone sitting in an office who has never seen you?

How has the market done with allocating health care to the American people? Does reducing benefits, raising premiums and denying coverage benefit anyone other than the health insurance executives and shareholders?

And, Mr. Romney, do you have any idea just how much health coverage costs these days? Just how do you plan on ensuring that folks can carry their own insurance with them from job to job?

The health care debate is the perfect example of the perversion of the New(est) Right. If you're not happy with the current state of health care, the solution isn't for the government to step in; the solution is even more of the same.

Does that really make any sense?

Book review: Pity the Billionaire

During the depths of the Great Depression capitalism faced its greatest challenge. The unfettered free market of the Gilded Age crashed and brought the economy of the United States (and western Europe) to its knees.

In response to the demands of the people, President Franklin Roosevelt pumped money into the economy to build schools, bridges, parks and buildings. We saw the creation of social security and unemployment compensation. Farmers formed organizations to prevent farms from being foreclosed upon. Banking reforms were enacted to prevent another banking crisis.

The Keynesian model of "priming the pump" during bad times prevailed until the late 1970's when the OPEC oil embargo threatened to bring the US economy to its knees once again. The stagnation of the Carter era paved the way for Ronald Reagan and his religion of free markets.

Over the ensuing 30 years, the reforms of the New Deal were gradually unwound and those who worshiped at the Altar of the Invisible Hand exported their ideology around the world.

And, for a time, everything seemed perfectly okay. Incomes were rising. Profits were rising. Land values were skyrocketing. CEO's were deified. And the free marketeers continued to preach their gospel of limited government interference with the economy.

But that all changed in 2008.

One investment bank after another bit the dust. The derivatives based upon collateralized debt obligations (sub-prime mortgages) tanked. The holders of these bonds found out they were toxic. The government didn't regulate the creation and sale of this instruments. That would have been interfering with the invisible hand of the market.

Banks failed. The housing market tanked. Credit dried up. Workers lost their jobs. People lost their homes. President Bush and his crew had no idea what was going on. They had no clue how to fix it.

President Bush pushed through the first bailout through Congress. While many folks were trying to figure out how to get their lives back on track, the federal government was handing out money to the folks who brought the whole system crashing down. The public was outraged.

But this time things were different. There was little rage against the free market ideology that caused the entire pyramid to collapse. What we saw instead was the rise of a protest movement of folks who called for even less government involvement in the economy. It was the great Republican reawakening. A movement that defied logic.

In his latest book, Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right, Thomas Frank takes an in-depth look at how the New(est) Right created a protest movement in favor of even more laissez-faire economic policy.

The Right took the themes of Great Depression protests and flipped them inside out then sold their vision of free market capitalism to those who were upset that the government was handing out money to the people responsible for the Great Recession. Suddenly the problem wasn't the lack of government oversight, the problem was too much oversight. The problem wasn't the marketing of toxic securities and unregulated financial instruments (such as credit default swaps), the problem was that people and firms weren't allowed to fail.

Mr. Frank also has harsh words for President Obama and the Democrats. Once upon a time the Democratic Party was the party of the working class and the disenfranchised. That all changed in the 1980's when moderates and conservatives took over the party and got into bed with Wall Street. Without an effective check, the free marketeers led the country to the edge of the cliff and into the sea below.

The New(est) Right has, without a doubt, pulled off the biggest swindle in history.

Vultures and thieves

Mitt Romney is a "vulture capitalist."

Mitt Romney "made a lot of money while people were going broke."

The allegations were that Mr. Romney's firm Bain Capital bought up struggling companies, laid off workers and sold what remained for a profit. The allegations were that Mr. Romney profited off the backs of the workers he fired.

But isn't that part of the destructive cycle of capitalism? Aren't the strong companies supposed to survive and thrive while the weaker ones fall by the wayside? Isn't that what competition is all about?

Were these the attacks of the Democrats? Were these the words of President Obama? What about the occupiers? Trade unionists? Commies? Athiests?

No.

Those were the words of Mr. Romney's fellow Republicans - Gov. Goodhair and the Newt.

You just have to love the irony of it all. Two candidates who worship at the altar of the free market railing against another candidate because he is too much of a capitalist. Of course the Newt has since backtracked on his statements because, well, he's a politician and that's what they do. Mr. Perry, on the other hand, hasn't yet figured out what irony even means.



Here is the Newt's paean to capitalism:

Happy Birthday, Guantanamo

Where were you ten years ago? What were you doing? Who were you hanging out with? What changes in your life have you seen over the last ten years? Who's died? Who's been born?

Think back to January 2002.

That's when President Bush opened Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as a prison for detainees in the War Against Something Terror. That's when he decided to hold those detainees indefinitely without charges, without bail, without trial.

That's when President Bush said fuck the Constitution. And that's when our representatives and senators in Washington forgot all about that oath everyone took to uphold the laws of the United States.

Sure, it's a dangerous world out there. We all know that. But it's been a dangerous fucking world ever since man first decided to walk upright and venture out of caves.

It was a dangerous world long before 9/11. A good deal of that danger we brought about ourselves by meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Just how safer do you feel knowing that your government has been holding people in prison for a decade without ever bringing them to court? Without ever presenting the evidence it claims to hold against them?

Constantly changing security alerts. Scope and grope at the airport. War in Afghanistan. Feeling safer yet?

So, happy birthday, Guantanamo.

A little undue influence

The big political story Wednesday was Mitt Romney's "victory" in the Iowa caucuses. But with only 24.6% of the delegates, that means 75.4% of the delegates wanted someone other than Mr. Romney. The big winners would seem to be Rick Santorum who picked up 24.5% of the delegates and Ron Paul who garnered 21.4%.

Let's face it, Mr. Santorum is nobody compared to the machine the Romney operates. Romney spent enough money in Iowa to fund a Third World dictatorship while Mr. Santorum spent just a little over a million dollars. At the same time, Ron Paul, whose views are, shall we say, just a bit out of the Republican mainstream, came in a strong third.

I'm not interested in the fact that Mr. Romney beat Mr. Santorum by all of 8 delegates. I'm more interested in how he won by only 8 delegates.

And just why does Iowa get such disproportionate influence when it comes to picking a president? It's not like Iowa is in any way representative of the nation's population.

Iowa is 61% urban while the US is 82% urban. 

Iowa is 91.3% white while the US is 63.7% white.

African-Americans make up only 2.9% of the Iowa population versus 12.2% of the US population.

And it's not like New Hampshire is any more representative.

Book review: Deadly Spin

Wendell Potter was the chief PR flak for CIGNA until May 2008 when he walked away. He helped coordinate the health insurance industry's response to the Clinton health care initiative. He was the point man at CIGNA when Michael Moore released his health care expose Sicko. He helped craft the message that the health insurance industry wasn't part of the problem - they were part of the solution.

Now Mr. Potter is a crusader against the ways in which the health insurance industry has restricted and limited coverage for millions of Americans - while at the same time raking in huge profits.

His book, Deadly Spin, is an insider's account of how the health insurance industry works. It's also a tutorial in how to set up public relations campaigns - including the use of so-called "astroturf" groups; that is, groups that appear to be organized on a grass roots basis that are actually fronts for whatever industry is trying to protect its turf.

Mr. Potter thinks that public relations can be a useful, and beneficial tool, when used correctly. He believes that the health insurance industry, and its allies, misused the public's trust and bastardized ethical PR principles in its quest to attain higher profits.

The practices he denounces in the health care industry are the same tactics used in other industries facing regulation. Whether we're talking the soft drink industry, nuclear energy industry, coal industry or any industry facing scrutiny due to concerns over global warming -- the tactics are all the same. Read the book and you'll have more questions anytime you see an ad promoting an industry or decrying increased regulation.

I do think that Mr. Potter is a bit too Pollyann-ish with his belief that PR is a higher calling than just shilling for a company. The entire point of PR is to create an image in the public's eye that your client is a good neighbor, that your client is concerned about the well being of the entire community. Your job is to insulate that client when the shit hits the fan - which it inevitably will at some point.

There are no absolute truths in the PR world. Everything is a shade of grey and the job of the PR flak is to make certain that his client looks good in that shade.

Outsourcing Ron Paul

As my fellow blawgers Eric Turkewitz, Mark Bennett and the one wearing the mitre hat like to remind us - outsource your marketing, outsource your reputation and ethics.

Ron Paul is (once again) learning this lesson the hard way as words written in the Ron Paul Report back in the late 1980's and early 1990's are coming back to haunt the GOP presidential candidate. You see Mr. Paul didn't write the material in his newsletter, it was written by someone else and Mr. Paul (allegedly) didn't read it before it was released.

Just a little something to think about.

Book review: With Liberty and Justice for Some

In his book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, Glenn Greenwald blows hole in the myth that ours is a nation in which the rule of law is sacrosanct. From high crimes in the White House to fraud in the financial sector to our two-tiered justice system, the rule of law seems a quaint reminder of the long distant past.

Richard Nixon obstructed justice. Richard Nixon was part of a conspiracy to commit a felony. Richard Nixon should have faced not only impeachment, but indictment, for his acts while in the White House. But Gerald Ford didn't see it that way and pardoned the disgraced former president before the criminal (in)justice system could get its hands on him. Mr. Ford told the public that we needed to look forward rather than backward.

Just try telling that to a prosecutor or judge the next time you appear in court with your client accused of committing a crime (in the past). How far do you think that'll get you?

Oh, but the legacy of Gerald Ford lives on.

You remember the Iran-Contra affair, don't you? You remember how under Ronald Reagan a secret structure was erected that sold weapons to Iran and then took the proceeds and funnel them to the right-wing paramilitaries fighting the Sandanista government in Nicaragua? You remember that the Congress had outlawed the funding of the contras? You remember that little concept called checks and balances - where the President asks Congress for money and Congress decides how much to give and for what?

The scheme was patently illegal and Mr. Reagan was complicit. Yet what did George Bush (the elder) do once Reagan's underlings started getting indicted? That's right, he pardoned them. He shielded his former boss from the scrutiny of prosecutors.

Fast forward to the presidential campaign in 2008. Then-senator Barack Obama exclaimed that he would never immunize the giant telecoms for their role in carrying out President Bush's (the younger) illegal domestic spying plan. He also stated that those responsible for the gross violations of human rights carried out in the aftermath of 9/11 should be brought to justice. But, once the nomination was sewn up, Mr. Obama voted to immunize the telecoms; and, once ensconced in the Oval Office, Mr. Obama blocked any efforts by Congress or the Justice Department to investigate President Bush and his minions for torture and other violations of international law. Why? Because it was more important to look forward than backward.

The President of the United States has the duty to see that the laws of the nation are enforced. He also has an obligation to follow those laws. The idea is that no one, not even the president, is above the law. That's what the whole concept of the rule of law boils down to.

But, in these United States, if you sit in the Oval Office, if you run a major financial corporation or if you have money, power and influence, you are above the law. And that's the ultimate betrayal of the principles upon which this country was formed.

Police attack protesters in San Antonio

The Alamo? Forget about it.

Police in San Antonio shut down the Occupy! protest in HemisFair park on Monday, arresting at least five protesters and hitting a legal observer with a patrol car.

Unlike protesters in other cities, the protesters in San Antonio complied with the demands of the police and the city during the occupation, which began on October 6.

But, citing the default explanation - unsanitary conditions - the police gave protesters 15 minutes notice on Monday before shutting down the camp. Steven Baum, commander of the park police, first said protesters were being evicted because they violated the city's no camping ordinance, but later said the city had to prepare the park for a New Year's Eve celebration.

Baum said the group was asked to relocate so that preparations can be made for "Celebrate San Antonio", the city's annual New Year's Eve bash. 

"We have the fencing coming in today," he said. "We have other operations that are going to come in to build up toward the celebration."

Meanwhile, Carlos Villalobos, a legal observer with the National Lawyer Guild from Houston, was struck by a police car. Officers on the scene refused to call for help, identify the officer driving the car or take a report. Park police chief William McManus denied Mr. Villalobos had been struck and claimed that he had thrown himself in front of the police car.

Mr. Villalobos was transported by friends to a local San Antonio hospital for treatment.

The use heavy-handed police tactics on nonviolent protesters is an abomination. That local governments go along with, and sanction, the use of violence on the part of police is criminal. We may have the First Amendment to protect us, but the price of dissent is certainly not free. Just ask protesters in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Houston...

Shooting the messenger

Bradley Manning is not a criminal.

He should be praised for shining a light on the underhanded dealings of our government. Instead, he's facing a court martial.

The material he provided to Wikileaks didn't endanger the lives of any Americans. But it sure as hell did embarrass the government. Through his actions he exposed the ways in which the United States government lied both to the American people and its allies.

The cables and correspondence documented the ways in which our government committed war crimes and violated international law. Our government armed repressive governments world wide and turned a blind eye when the weapons were turned on their own people. Our government bombed civilian targets. Our government tortured detainees who have never been charged with a crime.

We condemn those around the world who act in the very manner our government acted.

Sure, it's a dangerous world out there - it's always been a dangerous world - but that doesn't excuse our leaders from breaking the law. Ronald Reagan, George Bush (the elder), Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are all complicit in atrocities committed against the poor and powerless. Yet none of them will ever be called before the people to answer for their crimes.

Two more Occupy! encampments shut down

Encampments in Boston and San Francisco were the latest targets for police raids in the ongoing fight to shut down the Occupy! protesters across the country.



Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who ordered the encampment shut down, did offer this doublespeak when questioned:

 "In the interest of public safety, ultimately we had to act. We did so with patience and respect. I also want to recognize the people of Occupancy, Occupy Boston, they shined a much needed light, still needed, on the growing economic inequality in this country. In the end, they also acted with restraint. I thank them for that."

That seems the equivalent of saying "Goodbye, and don't let the door hit you," as you slam it shut.

In San Francisco, the cat-and-mouse game between protesters and police continued when the newest encampment was raided on Sunday morning.

Now, about that separation of powers thing...

I have spent thirty years in law enforcement in Harris County as a prosecutor and District Court judge.

So begins the campaign rhetoric on Harris County District Attorney-wannabe Mike Anderson's website. I find it interesting that he lumps working as a prosecutor and a judge into law enforcement.

Especially since they're not the same.

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch - the police enforce the laws. The District Attorney's Office is part of the executive branch. The DA's job is to enforce the laws by prosecuting those accused of breaking the law.

But judges aren't supposed to be part of law enforcement. Judges are part of the judicial branch. The job of a judge isn't to enforce the law, the job of a judge is to interpret the law and to preside as a neutral and detached referee at trial. The judiciary is supposed to act as a check on the power of both the executive and legislative branches.

Mike Anderson, like too many men and women sitting on the bench today, confused his role. He thought himself a prosecutor in a black robe (or, as Mark Bennett would say "dress"). He refers to himself as a "strong law and order judge." That, of course, means that he came down on the side of law enforcement, ignoring the "testilying" that takes place on witness stands throughout the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center on a daily basis. That means he ignored allegations of police brutality and racial profiling.

If you're a prosecutor there's nothing wrong with that. Prosecutors are advocates. But, if you're a judge, that attitude indicates an abdication of power.

Mike Anderson never left the Harris County District Attorney's Office - he just transferred to a different division.

A couple of questions for Mike Anderson, please

Okay, Murray, I took a look at Mike Anderson's website. I had to because I had a couple of questions for the prospective District Attorney that I thought needed answering, so I e-mailed him:

Mr. Anderson,
 I understand that you are opposed to the current DA’s policyof not prosecuting “trace” possession cases. If you were going to pursue thosecases, how would your office handle the problem of having enough of a samplefor defense attorneys to have re-tested? 

 Additionally, if these cases are to be prosecuted, wherewould you find the beds and the money to house the additional inmates? 

 Furthermore, as the “War on Drugs” has largely been afailure, how will locking someone up help that person to get over their drugaddiction? 

 I will be more than happy to run your answers in my blog, TheDefense Rests, unedited. I look forward to your response.

It's easy to offer criticism of another's approach to any problem, it's much harder to formulate a proposed solution. I would like to hear Mr. Anderson's ideas on how to handle residue cases. I would like to hear that he's thought beyond the knee-jerk "lock 'em all up!" approach.

KPFT presents Greg Palast - tonight

Greg Palast, the author of Vultures' Picnic and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy will be appearing tonight at a fundraiser for local public radio station KPFT. The presentation is at Fondren Hall at St. Paul's United Methodist Church located at 5501 Main Street in Houston. Admission is $10 and the show begins at 7pm.

Limited government? What's that?

So, Mr. Limited Government, what should we do about the budget shortfall in Texas?

Cut funding for public education, you say. Really? Is that the best option we can come up with? You want to lay off teachers and ease up on class sizes? What kind of message does that send out?

How about reducing the amount the taxpayers spend on security details for the governor when he's not conducting state business? You know, set an example.

In September 2011, Gov. Rick Perry spent almost $400,000 on security details traveling around the country sticking his foot in his mouth and coming in below "Other" in the polls. Since his reelection in 2010, Gov. Goodhair has racked up more than $750,000 in security expenses for his travels outside the Lone Star State.

If Gov. Perry is willing to be so hypocritical when it comes to spending your money, just what the hell do you think you're in store for if he makes it to the White House? He is more than happy to spend your money chasing a pipe dream but he can't be bothered to find money to restore funding to public schools.

So, Gov. Perry, why don't you take a few minutes and explain to us your vision for limited government?

P.S. I understand how you might need to wait for your speechwriters and press people to stop by and drop off your talking points because God knows it's hard work making George W. look like a genius.

First they came for the (alleged) terrorists...

On Tuesday the U.S. Senate had the opportunity to put the rule of law ahead of fear-mongering and politics -- and failed spectacularly.

By a vote of 61-37 the Senate defeated an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would remove three troubling provisions that have raised the spectre of a presidential veto. The bill, if passed, would allow the U.S. to hold those suspected of involvement with terrorism - including US citizens - indefinitely without charge. In other words, forget about that American concept of innocent unless proven guilty; if los federales suspect you're involved in terrorism, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

The bill would also require civilian law enforcement to turn over anyone suspected of terrorist activities into military custody. The bill would also place further restrictions on the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo who were cleared of all charges.

Holding a suspect indefinitely without bringing charges makes a complete mockery out of our criminal (in)justice  system. Without being informed of the specific charges against him, an inmate can't muster a legal defense and his right to a speedy trial is taken away. The very notion of indefinite detention should make us all shudder - but it won't. After all, who's going to raise a stink about someone accused of plotting to blow up a building? He's not a person, he's a terrorist. He has no rights.

But once you've demonized one group of defendants, it makes it easier to demonize the next group. And who will that be? And who will stand up to challenge the state then?

Liberty is a funny creature. We all have the right to be left alone by our government. But, at the same time, that means we can't be protected from every possible threat out there. It's a trade-off we make. The more freedom and liberty you have, the less security you get. And vice versa.

What's more important to you?

When we allow the government to take away our rights - no matter how tangentially - we are allowing the fox into the hen house. There will always be a rationale. C'mon, these are really, really bad people.

It's happened to the Fourth Amendment. Where once we were protected against unreasonable search and seizure, today it's little more than a piece of paper. In the name of security and efficiency we have allowed one of our most important freedoms to be whittled away to nothing.

Today it's suspected terrorists. Who will it be tomorrow?

You gotta blame someone

Last March protesters took to the streets of Bahrain demanding a voice in the governance of the oil-rich kingdom. Imagine that - in this day and age of democracy busting out all over, we have the vestiges of an era in which someone grabbed a bigger stick and declared himself to be king. How could that cause any problems?

As is wont to happen when an authoritarian regime is challenged, the security forces (providing security for whom?) were whipped into a frenzy and went into a murderous rampage against their own citizens. Now let's just think about that for a moment. Armed personnel (thugs?) in the employ of the government are ordered to beat, maim, intimidate and kill anyone who dare speak out against the regime. The same regime that puts on its smiley face and tells the people to be patient - that reform is in the works.

Nope. Wrong answer. What we have is a government that has lost all legitimacy. Once a regime turns its armed forces on its own citizenry, it has lost whatever moral authority it may have had in the first place. And any member of the security forces (or police or army or whatever the hell you want to call the thugs) that follows an order to turn his weapon on a fellow citizen is guilty of a crime.

But there's more. You see the Bahraini government decided that it wasn't enough to beat, maim and kills its own citizens. After all, the victims who were still breathing had to get medical treatment somewhere. With all apologies to Shakespeare, the king decided the first thing he needed to do was kill the doctors.

Punish the doctors, that's right. Forget about the dead and the wounded. Forget about the army pointing its weapons at the people it's supposed to protect (well, that's what we're told the military and police do - in reality their job is to protect the chosen few.)

Twenty doctors, nurses and medics were convicted of inciting the people to overthrow the government and were sentenced to between five and 15 years in prison. Forget about the soldiers that shot, maimed and killed their fellow citizens - they went back to their barracks and got some commendation or ribbon to pin to their uniforms. But the medics who did what doctors do got the whip.

Maybe some of the medics wanted to see the government overthrown. Maybe some were part of the protests. Who cares? They were tried and convicted for tending to the wounded and trying to save their lives. They were punished for treating the citizens who were injured at the hands of their own government.

Bowing to international pressure (and to an international panel's report that found "abuses" in the government's crackdown on protesters -- I guess you could call killing protesters to be abusive. I prefer to call it murder), the medics were retried on Monday.

Maybe the regime tries to make nice and hope everything blows over. But you can't unring the bell. And, no matter how hard you scrub, you can't wash away the blood on your hands.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

What a shock. The day after the local police unions announce they will not endorse current Harris County DA Pat Lykos in the upcoming election, former judge Mike Anderson announces his entry in the race.

Let the games begin...