Follow Up

A couple of posts below, Peter mentions that DoJ aide Monica Goodling has announced that she is going to invoke the 5th amendment and not testify in front of Congress. Ignoring the debate about whether or not the 5th amendment applies in this case (since I'm not a lawyer), the following question must still be asked:

If she's concerned that she could incriminate herself if she testifies, then there must be some, what's the word for it, oh, yes - crime, that has been committed that she's afraid she could be implicated in, right?

The only other option is that she's afraid that if she lies, and is caught in the lie, that's grounds for perjury.

So we're left with one of two options:

1) A lawyer who works for the Department of Justice knows that a crime has been committed, and knows that if she testifies she could be implicated

-or-

2) She knows that she would not tell the truth, and doesn't want to be caught committing perjury.

That's special.

When you're right, you're not paying much attention

(h/t Crooked Timber) Earlier this year, the right-wing blog Right Wing News sent out a survey to 240 right-wing blogs asking them about a variety of topics. They only got 63 responses, most from marginal blogs, but the results are telling.

First of all, there's the 61 (out of 63) who think the surge should go forward. Of course. If we don't Win In Iraq (TM), then their entire worldview, centered on the idea that the US can go beat the crap out of anyone we don't like, any time we want, especially those who are "different", fails.

Then there's the 53/63 who think that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq for political reasons. Yes, because this disastrous war has been nothing but a political and personal boon for all of us Haters of America. Those of us who have been against the war from the beginning have really been motivated by a desire to lose and weaken our country, rather than any connection to reality or that we thought that Iraq was a distraction from the real danger.

But then we get to the fourth question.

Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%

You may need to pause and read that one slowly. Yes, the anti-intellectualism of the right continues to grow, and continues to invalidate a whole body of scientific knowledge. Remember, this is an issue over which there is essentially no debate in the scientific community. Every major national or international scientific organization which has released a report about climate change says that the evidence is incontrovertable - the activities of the human race have contributed to changing the climate of the planet. And not one of these neocons believes it. Not one. This isn't an argument about the uncertainty of what the results of climate change will be. This isn't an argument that, while we're affecting the environment, there is a reasonable debate about what we should do in response. This isn't a question of how it affects the economy. This is a flat-out rejection of science, of the knowledge that is gained through the rigorous exercise of the abilities of the human mind.

What makes this weirder is that there's no significant religious component to this debate. It's not evolution, or the Big bang, where religious fundamentalists choose to rely on no textual authorities other than the Bible. Hell, even the Liar in Chief admitted that there might be something behind the science in his last SotU. This is willful ignorance, determined incuriosity, and an unshaking attachment to a belief, not because there's any evidence supporting their side and not because God told them to think a certain way. The culture of anti-intellectualism, of instinctively rejecting any information that comes to them from a source that isn't FoxNewsApproved, that might cause them to question, well, anything, has so taken root that these Luddites are willing to ignore mountains and mountains of data, just to remain in their safe little bubbles.

Their safe, little, warming bubbles.

Scandal scorecard, redux

And now for a blast from the past. Former Reagan budget director David Stockman, supply side boy wonder who made up the numbers then is still doing so now, indicted and also charged civilly with securities fraud.

Stockman personally directed fraudulent schemes to inflate C&A's reported income by accounting improperly for supplier payments. In furtherance of those schemes, the complaint alleges that Stockman and other defendants obtained false documents from suppliers designed to mislead C&A's external auditors. According to the complaint, when aspects of the schemes were discovered in March 2005, Stockman embarked on a public campaign to mislead investors, potential financiers and others by minimizing the extent of the fraudulent accounting and hiding C&A's dire financial condition.

The more things change.....

The truth hurts? (or at least incriminates)

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

That is a shocking statement from the attorney (John Dowd, known to sports fans as the author of the Pete Rose gambling dossier) for Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison.

Think about that. Truth and accuracy by a senior "Justice" aide = criminal jeopardy.

"Get your scorecards here, can't keep the GOP scandals straight without a scorecard!"

I am now a Gator fan!

Congratulations and a hearty "Well Done!" goes out to the University of Florida:

Jeb Bush denied honor at U. of Florida

The [faculty] Senate voted 38-28 Thursday against giving the honorary degree to Bush, who left office in January (more).

We had a similar problem at my alma mater where they were reluctant to so honor one J. Dumbforth Quayle. Unfortunately, they caved for the money, as his grandpappy was a HUGE donor and a life trustee.

From the White House

The White House
Washington, D.C.
Executive Order

.

The White House does not intend to comply with any subpoenas from Congress directed at senior executive officials in connection with the U.S. Attorney dismissals.

However, the individuals named will be made available for interviews from Congress if:

1) No White House official will be sworn or take any oath;
2) No transcript of any kind will be taken or provided
3) All Congressional questioners must be naked
4) All interviews will take place in inner tubes in a "lazy river" water park ride.

I couldn't have said it any better myself

From Crooks and Liars:

Air America's Rachel Maddow (one of my favorite hosts) speaking on CNN about using torture to get information:

"You can't say it doesn't matter what we're doing cause we're trying to get Al Qaeda. It matters what we do. We're America. That's more important than Al-Qaeda."

Insert your own caption

From the "Oh Really?" File

Halliburton will move headquarters from Houston to Dubai

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Oil services giant Halliburton will shift its headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.

Taking any corporate records with you out of reach of U.S. subpoenas? Just askin'.

Gun-sanity

Well, it finally happened. A federal appeals court (District of Columbia Circuit, http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf, issued a precedential ruling (unlike the 5th Circuit's Emerson decision, where the 2nd Amendment talk was dicta) holding that the 2nd Amendment guarantees private ownership rights.

I had always worried that neocon administrations would lead to an ideologically active federal judiciary, and here we see it in full bloom. The decision is bizarre on both ends, both in the majority and the dissent. The majority opinion (this is a three-judge panel) completely misses the historical basis of the 2nd amendment.

Firearms in a pre-Industrial Revolution America were made by hand and were quite expensive--it is doubtful that individual ownership would have been a concern to the framers. For example, individual rights advocates fondly quote Patrick Henry with well-placed ellipses, as he states "the great object is that every man be armed...every one who is able may have a gun." Unfortunately, the excised portion reveals that Henry is referring to the STATE purchasing weapons for militia use rather than Skeeter owning a squirrel rifle: "The great object is that every man be armed--but can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"

The description of the "Magazine" at colonial Williamsburg further states that "The night of April 20, 1775, Lieutenant Henry Collins stole toward the capital with a squad of royal marines from the H.M.S. Magdalen anchored in Burwell's Bay on the James River. Their orders, straight from Governor Dunmore, were to empty the arsenal and disable THE MUSKETS stored there. In 1715, the magazine "safeguarded shot, powder, flints, tents, tools, swords, pikes, canteens, cooking utensils, and as many as 3,000 Brown Bess flintlocks--equipment needed for defense against Indians, slave revolts, local riots, and pirate raids"--weapons held collectively for the MILITIA to keep and bear.

The frightening part of the opinion lies in their conclusion that "Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are `Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them." Think about that. No arms may be banned under the 2nd. Historically speaking, as the archives of the militias show, during the colonial period, "arms" included not only rifles and pistols but artillery and ordnance as well. Need a howitzer, anyone?

The dissent is equally bizarre. She doesn't attack the majority for completely botching the notion of "keep and bear"--rather, she seizes on the first clause, the security of a free state notion, and says that the 2nd does not apply to DC because the district is not a state! A rather perverse exercise of the dynamic of federalism there.

First of all, let us note what this opinion does NOT do--it does not have any impact outside the district. First of all, jurisdictionally, it is only binding within that circuit. In addition, as far as persuasive authority goes, gun cases involving the states are decided under the 14th amendment rather than the 2nd.

What it does do, for the first time, is to set up a clear split among the circuits. Perhaps the Supreme Court will address this question once and for all.

Editor's Note: This opinion may also be subject to review by the entire court (known as an en banc review.)

From the "Well duh" file

Here's the front page headline in this morning's Chicago Tribune:

Iranian influence soaring in Iraq

Shiites, Sunnis say Tehran is winner of U.S. invasion

Gosh, who could have seen that coming? I mean, besides your average college sophomore in an intro-level middle eastern history class? I found the quote below particularly disturbing:

America handed Iraq to Iran on a golden plate," says Sunni politician Saleh al-Mutlaq. "Everything Iran fought for in the Iran-Iraq war, America gave to it when it invaded."

In God we trust?

Apparently some of the new dollar coins are circulating without the "In God We Trust" legend (link) This excites the coin collectors as did the famous "inverted Jenny" stamp:



But this is more than just a screwup at the mint. This is an opportunity to examine something that is just flat-out wrong. The "In God We Trust" line dates from the Civil War. It has withstood constitutional challenge on the incredibly shaky ground that it is "ceremonial" or "patriotic" rather than religious.

In effect, the federal courts are allowing it to stay because it is meaningless. So if it is meaningless, then why not just get rid of it?

I don't want to see poor municipalities like Zion in Illinois forced to spend tax dollars that could be used to teach kids and fix potholes to sandblast religious symbols off public building or re-order all the village stationery, etc. This one is simple. The next time we need to update the die for minting coins or the template for printing bills--just remove it. Almost no cost would be involved and we would honor the Constitution and the nation we are today.

Moment of Silence

Winemaker Ernest Gallo dies at 97

Thank you Ernest for helping America understand that wine is a food and proof that God loves us.

I've been one poor correspondent..

Work's been hell and adjusting to having Peggy back from another European boondoggle, but--so little time, so much stuff.

First of all, Merry Fitzmas! Kudos to Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's prosecutor. He is truly our generation's Untouchable, a ruthless yet fair and honest prosecutor. He has no agenda other than justice. He is a media superstar with a J.D. from Harvard and could have any partnership he desired, but no--he's a prosecutor. A Washington Post reporter interviewed him over breakfast and was going to pay for Pat's doughnut and coffee and he said no, even $10 (at DC prices) for breakfast would have compromised his integrity.

Guilty on four out of five, and the "not guilty" had a jury vote of 11-1 for conviction. These are serious charges ABOUT A SERIOUS MATTER. I use the caps for the Clinton comparison. Bill Clinton was deceptive under oath. One could make a fine legal argument that he did not "lie" because the other side's definition of "sexual relations" actually did not include happy humming.
It included touching this and touching that, but VERY TECHNICALLY it did not include the flute sonata.

That notwithstanding, Clinton did not commit perjury under applicable federal law. The federal statute criminalizes lying about MATERIAL matters. Material means something important that could impact a decision. For example, if I swear under oath that I was married on May 28, 1982, when in fact I was married on May 29, 1982 (note that this will be the 25th, presents accepted) I have lied under oath but not committed perjury under federal law unless my wedding date was an issue in the case (some states vary, a lie is a lie) Given that the Monica stuff wasn't even admitted into evidence, it is immaterial as a matter of law.

Scooter Libby lies and lies about outing a CIA operative TO DISCREDIT HER HUSBAND'S ANTI-WAR MESSAGE. A tad bit different from a blowjob.

A quick quote from the Washington Post:

Prosecutors contended that Libby tracked down and told reporters about Plame's CIA job as part of an administration strategy to discredit her husband by insinuating that the agency had dispatched Wilson to Niger because of nepotism.

Nepotism? NIGER? OK, if you give me a business trip to San Diego, Vegas, Orlando, Paris, London etc. but NIGER????No.

And isn't revenge a dish best served cold? Remember when the Dems said "BLOWJOB" and the Repubs answered with "rule of law?" PERJURY, JUSTICE! Enjoy that one!

Walter Reed? Need I mention, except to quote from the first Republican president:

to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle

Let's get right on that!

The North Korea screwup surfaces, U.S. Attorneys are fired and Scooter goes stripey and the White House says all is good.

Go with that.

Merry Fitzmas, one and all

Lewis "Scooter" Libby:

Count 1 (Obstruction): GUILTY
Count 2 (Perjury): GUILTY
Count 3 (False Statement): NOT GUILTY
Count 4 (Perjury): GUILTY
Count 5 (Perjury): GUILTY

Guilty on 4 of 5.

The world is a little brighter today.

March, march on down the field for old DePauw..

News from my alma mater:

Sorority Evictions Raise Issue of Looks and Bias

By SAM DILLON, New York Times

GREENCASTLE, Ind. — When a psychology professor at DePauw University here surveyed students, they described one sorority as a group of “daddy’s little princesses” and another as “offbeat hippies.” The sisters of Delta Zeta were seen as “socially awkward.”

Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was contributing to a decline in membership that had left its Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta’s national officers interviewed 35 DePauw members in November, quizzing them about their dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the sorority house.

The 23 members included every woman who was overweight. They also included the only black, Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen students allowed to stay were slender and popular with fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the sorority hoped could attract new recruits. Six of the 12 were so infuriated they quit.

“Virtually everyone who didn’t fit a certain sorority member archetype was told to leave,” said Kate Holloway, a senior who withdrew from the chapter during its reorganization.

This is particularly troublesome story for DePauw, even though the university was not involved. Why? Because some 85% of the students are involved in the Greek system (hey, it's an Indiana town of 6500 people!)

The system has always been screwy. I never could have been a Beta or a Phi Psi (rich face men), I didn't want to be a Sigma Nu (the offensive line) or a Delta Upsilon (stoner losers). I found my perfect niche at Alpha Tau Omega, the book jocks, the guys that girls wanted to study with but not go out with. This "bias" was built into the often insidious process known as rush.

But this story is devastating to the university at just the wrong time. First of all, high school seniors are making their final college decisions now, and beyond that, the obvious--even though it is an outside entity, the national sorority, the stories create the image of shallowness and elitism.

Sight Seen

Yup, a bumper sticker on a pickup truck this morning:

George Allen for President 2008

There's a collector's item for you!

The enemy of my enemy

is a bad shot.

I'm sure you've all heard about the bomb that went boom near Shooter in Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't know why the Taliban would try to kill him - after all, they both hate freedom and are slaves to fundamentalist idealogies. Not to mention, this will only piss off people (ie, Shooter and McFlightsuit) who are known to have invaded Iraq partly because Saddam tried to kill McFlightsuit's dad, who have access to the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons, and who believe that they are subject to no laws. I'm sure that somewhere, there's a wingnut arguing that this means that we should nuke Tehran, just to prove a point. (The point being, of course, that America is run by psychopaths.)

Now, one could say (and I'm going way out on a limb here) that if we had finished the job in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have been weakened, Al Qaeda would have lost a huge revenue source (the larger-than-ever opium fields), and we'd have a military capable of responding to threats. Don't expect to hear that from anyone associated with the administration or the media, though - it requires actual thought.

It also provides us a lesson as to why growing the national debt at a rate so fast that mathematicians have had to invent new ways of counting to deal with it is a bad idea. Lead story on CNN.com - "Dow tumbles after China selloff: U.S. stocks plunged today after stocks in China and Europe slumped and investors digested the news that Vice President Dick Cheney was the target of a Taliban suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan. Cheney wasn't hurt. The Dow was down more than 133 at one point. China's stocks fell 9 percent, the worst one-day selloff in a decade."

There's an assassination attempt against the US VP, China goes nuts, and our stocks tumble.

And hey - if Americans want a personal reason (other than the dead people, of course, since they're depressing) to oppose the war in Iraq - the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan just made retirement portfolios all over the country tumble.

Smart Man

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." - John Stuart Mill

They write headlines

From AP: White House opposes war authority limits

If I was the editor, I'd leave a comment like "Omit needless words."

White House opposes war authority limits

Tip your servers, Part II

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well"

Darth Cheney on the British withdrawing from areas of Iraq that are "stable" because they are firmly in the control of the Shi'a militias who have engaged in horrific ethnic cleansing.

I'm here all week, tip your bartender and drive home safely!

From standup comic Condoleezza Rice: "The coalition remains intact."

What? What "coalition?" Albania? Estonia? My grandfather's birthplace, Denmark, which has announced it's leaving (cutting off the supply of beer and porn.)

Can these people PLEASE go on MapQuest and find directions to reality?

My Life is Over...

I open up the mailbox and find the world's most dreaded missive...

The AARP mailing.

Goodbye cruel world.

The Supremes

No, you can't hurry love, you just have to wait...

Wait, wrong Supremes.

I'm referring to the Supreme Court, which came down with a remarkable decision vacating a punitive damage award against a tobacco company. I find it remarkable for many reasons.

1) First of all, I can't believe they took this case. The Supreme Court is the only federal court that can control its docket. In most instances, the Supremes can pick and choose what cases to hear. Yes, this one did involve a staggering amount of money, but it is really a routine matter of state tort law that just doesn't present constitutional issues. It is a HUGE stretch by the majority to bring this case within a due process ambit and scare court resources could have been better spent sorting out real issues.

2) I also think they are wrong on the basic legal point, about what harms the jury can consider in assessing punitive damages, and

3) Talk about strange bedfellows, Scalia and Thomas joined in a dissent by GINSBURG, where she wrote quite logically that "I would accord more respectful treatment to the proceedings and dispositions of state courts" than did the majority.

From Worst to First, Redux

First of all, let me apologize the "Presidents' Day" mistake!

Then we have the Idiot-in-Chief saying about that first president

George Washington's long struggle for freedom has also inspired generations of Americans to stand for freedom in their own time. Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.

Ahem, we are NOT fighting to "defend our liberty and our people and our way of life." WE are not fighting. Volunteers are stuck in a hellhole because of you. WE are not fighting, they are, because of you.

You stumbled on that "we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Umm..no. George Washington said that

Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other....So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

He hardly would have supported external war to change the form of government of foreign states.

As I wrote on Schmidlap,

I stole James Thomas Flexner's ever-so-accurate description of Washington as "the indispensable man."

Was he a great general? No, not in a classical sense. He had little experience and no training in military tactics, and he won no major victories during the revolution. The legendary "crossing the Delaware" was a Christmas Eve raid on drunken Germans who didn't want to be there, and let's face it, the French won Yorktown.

However, he was the "indispensable man" because he was THE leader that held the revolution together. You will also note that Washington didn't win big battles, but he didn't lose them either. He almost by force of will kept the Continental Army together as a fighting force.

Let's compare Washington with his fellow Virginian (and step-in-law many times removed) Robert E. Lee. Lee was a much more accomplished tactician and fought and won set-piece battles. However, Lee's "wins" involved a casualty count and loss of equipment that ultimately doomed the South. Washington kept his revolution alive in the field long enough to negotiate a settlement, and Lee bled his to death.

And as president, again, he was not a master politician, but his very presence solidified the republic. We saw a tremendous amount of opposition to the new "constitution" but even the anti-federalists agreed to much because of "the indispensable man."

From worst to first

He

went here

to observe President's Day.

The "Indispensable Man" meets the "Incredible Buffoon."

Doc will love this one

Doc, please visit here and share your thoughts with the class!

Goodbye, old friend

Team members disagree with me on this one, but I would like to bid a fond adieu to an old friend:




Oskee-wow-wow, Chief.

In vino veritas

The president looked particularly blotchy, drinky and stumbly in his press conference this week. As the Latin phrase above says, though, "in wine, there is truth."

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes.

Now add this in with this, and yes, 2 and 2 still equal 4.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government is at risk of squandering significantly more money in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has already wasted, overcharged or poorly tracked $10 billion in taxpayer money, federal investigators said Thursday....David M. Walker, comptroller general of the GAO, Congress' auditing arm, said his agency has been pointing out problems for years, only to be largely ignored or given lip service with little result..."There is no accountability," Walker said. "Organizations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable....People should be rewarded when they do a good job. But when things don't go right, there have to be consequences," he said.

Pardon me!

Well, Scooter-palooza is just about over.

I have never been a trial lawyer, and trial strategy is not my strong suit, but this seems fairly obvious. Libby's team meekly put forth two "defenses," the "I'm too busy and I forgot" claim and the "They threw me under the bus to save Turd Blossom" angle.

The problem is, Defense #1 effectively required Scootie to take the stand and #2 needed Darth Vader under oath to make it fly. Why do you think the words "Libby," "Cheney" and "under oath" don't fit together here?

So here's the drill. The jury HAS to convict based on the evidence presented and then, lo and behold, for being the good soldier, here comes a freshly-minted pardon.

Hate and Conservatism

In the comments to the previous post, Jimbow8 quoted Tim Hardaway, easy runaway winner for Humanitarian of the Year, saying "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. ... I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

First of all, I'm glad that Tim distinguishes being the United States from being in the world, since it shows that he is not part of the reality-based community, and thus a conservative. I've heard this topic being discussed in multiple forums, and one thing that radio show hosts try to do (to avoid alienating their audience), is say things like "I don't care whether you agree with him or not, I'm not here to argue right versus wrong." Well, I don't care if I alienate people who hate like this, so I'll tell you right here - if you agree with Tim, you are a moron. Hating a whole group of people for a genetic characteristic is just dumb. Hating someone because they're gay is like hating someone because they're black. Or a woman. Or Arabic.

Wait, I'm seeing a pattern here.

I find it interesting that conservatives like to hate those who are "different". Their worldview is so narrow that opening their lives up to people with different backgrounds, body parts, etc, scares them into hatred. Of course, this is because conservatism is about selfishness and power. "I want my share to increase, I want to only deal with the things I want to deal with, and perhaps most importantly, I don't want you to have something that I otherwise could have had. Those who do not have power are a threat to me, because they could take mine away. And that scares me, so I must fear them. Then I must hate them, because they are out to hurt me."

To a conservative, it's all about distributing a finite set of resources, and making sure that they get the biggest share they can. There's no sense of working together to grow the resources, so that more people can share more things. It's about the haves and the have-nots, and convincing the have-nots that the only way they can get more is to take from others (while those with more power take it right back). It's about creating images of Us vs. Them, so that when we take from someone else, especially that damned woman, or gay guy, or furriner, we're not taking from someone as important as we are. We're not taking from someone as human as we are. We're taking from someone who is lesser than us, somehow, someone who wants what is rightfully ours. Someone we can hate with impunity. Someone we can kill, and feel no sorrow.

And that's how you start a war.

Spraying to all fields

The Straight Talk Express John McCain trainwreck spirals further out of control, as he speaks to the Discovery Institute, those intelligent design/the world is 6,000 years old folks.

May I say how annoyed I am about Iran possibly meddling in the Middle East? The nerve?

I would like to congratulate the Rev. Ted Haggard , head of the National Association of Evangelicals, for being "cured" of his homosexuality. All I can say is. "FABULOUS!"

Memo to the U.S. Senators from Illinois--STOP APOLOGIZING FOR BEING RIGHT.

How damned guilty is Scooter Libby?

Down on the corner...

We haven't visited for a while, but we must pause and reflect upon the wisdom of John E. Groskopf of Vernon Hills, Illinois, who gave us this gem:

Comparing Obama to Lincoln borders on hubris. Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama is willing to see millions of fetuses destroyed. Lincoln fought the war to win. Obama wants to withdraw in defeat. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to save the country. Obama wants to grant it to enemy combatants determined to destroy the country. What do they have in common? Did they both smoke? Bridge the gap? Not with millions of gun owners. Not with those who see failure in the backbreaking commitment to entitlements. Not with those who do not want socialized medicine. Not with those seeking permanent tax relief for all taxpayers (not just those who pay no taxes). Can't we all just get along is not a policy.

Besides being an anti-abortion gun nut, 1) Johnny celebrates the suspension of fundamental legal rights as a virtue in a fashion rarely seen among the breathing and 2) obviously has no idea what "hubris" means.

So John...

Good to be home, Part II

Brief reflections on my trip to the nation's capital (for those of you that know me from another particular forum, hat tip to Rambler Boy!):

First of all, I was completely divorced from the news. I didn't touch a computer and saw very little TV. About all I could gather was that I am the only man in America who claims not to have fathered Anna Nicole's baby.

My kid is amazing. She basically curated the show that opened Friday night at the gallery where she's interning. My little girl's all grown up!

I am always moved and awed when I see the White House. This time, though, my thoughts turned to how much we're going to have to pay one of those disaster recovery companies that clean up after fires and floods to remove the neocon stench from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

At the National Archives, I caused a security guard to laugh out loud briefly before returning to palace guard seriousness when I said they should put a "Repealed Effective 9/12/2001" label over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For all of you DC area dwellers who complain about the Metro, come to Chicago! On Sunday morning, I left the hotel in Silver Spring at 8 AM. Walked to the Metro, took the train, changed lines, and by 9:10 was checked in and past security at National Airport (I will not use that other name.)

Finally, how's this for an appetite killer. I took the daughter out for dinner to a restaurant close to the White House that is a favorite of Congress creatures and the K Street crowd. I excused myself to visit the facilities, and yes, got to stand at the necessary next to former Senator Man on Dog. Just try going back to eat after standing next to Rick and his Santorum.

Good to be home!

Yes, it is deliciously true. The author of this:

is the new pastry chef here:

Whatever happened to "up or down" votes?

Washington: A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

So much for that good for the goose is good for the gander nonsense.

Excuses, Excuses….

I know, I haven't written much lately. The Bears, work, the car's been in the shop forever, it's too damned cold, etc. And tomorrow, I'm off to the nation's capital for a conference and to see my kid, who is spending the semester there. I may have some random thoughts before the very early departure tomorrow, but I leave you in good hands, and will see you all Monday.

Sometimes you don't even need to read the article

Headline: "Pentagon big winner in Bush budget plan"

Really? I am shocked.

As if you needed another reason

WASHINGTON - Even talking football, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks diplomatically.

She made clear Friday that she wants the Indianapolis Colts to win Sunday's Super Bowl over the Chicago Bears, but her words were measured.

During a photo opportunity to tell Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov goodbye, the two refused to answer questions about the Middle East situation, the subject of Lavrov's visit. Then, as they turned away, a reporter asked Rice to forecast the Super Bowl outcome.

"I really like both Chicago and Indianapolis, but I think Indianapolis is going to win it," she said. Then, as if it were an afterthought, she added: "And that would be a good thing."

Quote of the Day

Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he *loathed* the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How *easily* that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: *survival as what*? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. *It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!* Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what *we* stand for: *justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!* - Judge Dan Haywood, Judgement at Nuremburg

Alex, may I have "Stating the Obvious" for a trillion dollars, please?

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document (more) .

Wow, there's a shocker.

He's probably right....

During the Super Bowl media day nonsense, Bears wide receiver Muhsin Muhammad gave us this one, a shout-out to the troops:

To all the troops in Iraq and Iran, we love you and we’re with you!’’

I'd say he's probably right on this one.

Did you ever read something that just, well, made you question everything?

While waking up this morning, I was browsing some right-wing blogs via the Daou Report on Salon. I find it best to read some of these things when I'm not fully awake. One of the hot topics, apparently, is global climate change. Really, you say, after the Liar in Chief mentioned it in his State of the Union address, people who have previously doubted the mountain of scientific data telling us that human activity affects the environment are changing their minds? Or perhaps it's that they're aghast, as any thinking person should be, that the White House has been actively pressuring scientists to not release that data?

(I think you know where I'm going with this...)

Of course not. They're digging in their heels even harder, and in the process, are just going wacko. Yes, I'm comfortable using that word for people who write things like this:

"Paper recycling is probably responsible for a lot of CO2 remaining in the air and not being removed."

You see, you environmentalist activist nutjobs - if (and I mean if!) human activity is causing global climate change, it's because of your crazy recycling. Not the burning of coal. Not the burning of gasoline and oil. No! You, who are trying to "save" the earth, are killing it!

Quick - everyone jump in your Hummers and go to the paper recycling plants and burn them down - they're destroying the earth. That's the only way we can save ourselves.

Torture Boy Takes a Page from Joseph Heller

Apparently Torture Boy Gonzalez has agreed to release details of the illegal domestic spying program. What makes this story funny is the following quote from torture boy himself:

"It's important for us that they (congress) understand what we're doing (with the spying program). All they have to do is ask."

Of course, NO ONE in congress knew ANYTHING about the illegal spying on US citizens for months - if not years - after it was instituted shorty after 9/11. Even then, only a few highly placed GOP toadies and the ranking Democrat in the house and senate were let in on the EXISTENCE, but not the workings and/or scope, of the illegal fishing expedition. To make matters worse, they were FORBIDDEN from even acknowledging that the program existed.

So, how exactly was congress **supposed** to ask? It took a FEDERAL judge, an overwhelming electoral defeat, a change of leadership in BOTH the house and senate, AND two weeks of foot-dragging and stonewalling before saying: all they had to do was ask?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to Team Thinker

We have been "Google-ized," we're in the new format now. You will need to get a Google account to post.

UPDATE: It is pretty screwed up right now, bear with me.

Updated update--Better.

From the "Is this supposed to surprise me?" File

WASHINGTON (AP)- The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

“The security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort,” according to the 579-page report, which was being released Wednesday.

(more)

Inmates Running the Asylum

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.

Yeah, that was a crazy idea having those wacky scientific experts involved in regulation. Everyone knows Bush appointees do a MUCH better job there!

We REALLY need to take the Senate in '08.

We need a solid majority where we don't need miscreants like Droopy:



Oh sorry, wrong Droopy:



He gives us this gem:

"I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican, or even an Independent [White House '08]if there's a strong one," the U.S. Senator from Connecticut told "Fox News Sunday." "You make a decision based on a whole range of issues. But obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

I want to beat him badly, humiliate him on committee assignments and let him turn Republican. He will then learn the bitter lesson Benedict Arnold learned upon moving to England--while people use traitors, no one LIKES them.

Ted Kennedy unloads on the Greedy

From Schmidlap, we know that there are three types of Republicans, Evil, Greedy, and Stupid. It's probably some combination of the first two that has prevented the Senate from passing the minimum wage bill that the House passed very easily during the first 100 hours flurry. They killed it in a cloture vote (essentially, now everything takes 60 votes to pass), although they bitched to high heaven when the Dems did it when they were in the minority, and are now trying to add tons of amendments to it, just to make sure that rich people don't, you know, incur any actual costs or anything.

Ted Kennedy's sick of it, and he's letting people know (thanks to Bob Geiger for the story):

"We have now had amendments that have been worth over 200 billion dollars… Amendments that have been offered. We've had amendments on education of 35 billion dollars. We've had health-savings amendments that will benefit people with average incomes of $112,000… We've had those kinds of amendments and we're looking at the Kyl amendment at 3 billion dollars. But we still cannot get two dollars and fifteen cents -- over two years. Over two years!

"What is the price, we ask the other side? What is the price that you want from these working men and women? What cost? How much more do we have to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars more, are you asking, are you requiring?

"When does the greed stop, we ask the other side? That's the question and that's the issue."

"Make no mistake about it -- they have on the Republican side, 70 more amendments. 70 more amendments!" said Kennedy. "We have none. We're prepared to vote now. 70 more amendments… 'Oh yes, we want an increase in the minimum wage, we want this, we want that but… let's have some other kinds of amendments that have virtually nothing to do with this.'"

"240 billion dollars in tax breaks for corporations. 36 billion dollars in tax breaks for small businesses. Increase in productivity -- 42 percent over the last 10 years," yelled Kennedy emotionally. "But do you think there's any increase in the minimum wage? No. At 12 after five today, on Thursday, I speak for all of our Democrats and say we're prepared to vote now. Now!"

"Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to pile all your amendments on this? Why don’t you just hold your amendments until other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of amendments on just the issue to try and raise the minimum wage? What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. Something! What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?"

"We don’t want to hear any more from that side for the rest of this session about permitting or not permitting votes in here when you're denying it on the most simple concept of an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy. "We don’t want to hear any more about that."

"This is filibuster by delay and amendments. I've been around here long enough to know it when I see it and smell it, and that's what it looks like, that's what it is, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it."

Now, that's some real vitriol. Wait for the SCLM to hammer him for being uncivil.

State of the Union Whack-a-Mole

First, we must balance the Federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — and met that goal 3 years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the Federal deficit within the next 5 years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the Federal Government, and balance the Federal budget. Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour — when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate — they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Hmm. Mr. President. where have you been for the last six years?

For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

You're absolutely right, since 9/11, it has been Terrorist-apalooza.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions....By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty.

Hmmm, who are our enemies??? How are we advancing "liberty??"

We have said this many times here, but the basic fact is that this is NOT A WAR. There is nothing to be won or lost here as in a war. There is just an end, and a bad end at that.

Everyone's running for President!

Except John Kerry.

Stay in the Senate, John. I certainly won't miss you.

Repubicans hate poor people

Despite passing easily in the House, the Republicans in the Senate just can't keep their grubby hands to themselves, and have messed up an attempt to raise the minimum wage. The bill from the House was extremely simple, spelling out when and to what amount the minimum wage would be raised, and that's it. However, unless businesses get tax breaks (I know, shocking), the GOP doesn't believe that they should have to pay their workers a respectable wage.

Of course, they killed it in a cloture vote. What about an up and down vote, folks? What about those obstructionists in the other party?

Who cares about the poor, anyway - hell, can they even vote?

The Blogger and the Pea

There is so much to comment on from last night, so much fuzzy math and so many disconnects from reality. However it is the first and the smallest, the pea under oh so many mattresses, that is really bothering me. Perhaps I'm suffering from outrage overload on Iraq, or perchance I'm dumbstruck that this man with the popularity of open sores would dare broach funding religious schools or screwing up social security at this late date.

But no. Read the official transcript: "Some in this chamber are new to the House and Senate—and I congratulate the Democratic majority." But he didn't say that. He used the Newt Gingrich-Frank Luntz "talking point" adjective, the DEMOCRAT majority. You see, they really aren't "democratic" and it rhymes with RAT--get it?

OK, back to business now, but that damned pea certainly does bother me.

(Note: See Joshua Holland over at Alternet for a thorough breakdown. Note in particular how Tony Snow described picking out the highlights of the speech as choosing among "a drawer full of diamonds." YACK.)

I don't know who's watching tonight

Link to the text (h/t Think Progress)

Who yelled "Whoo!" when W was introduced?

Health care? Higher fuel standards? Global climate change? Who does this guy think he is, a liberal?

What the hell is Cheney smirking at?

Oh, crap. 9/11. Time for whiskey.

Notice how he's gotten almost no applause at all about his 20k Tank Fodder approach?

This really is a painfully weak speech. He's not saying anything at all. Not the usual nothing, but really nothing. Even the "initiatives" are small time for a SotU. Not exactly what he needs to get a bounce.

Man, did he have to concentrate to say "Dikembe Mutombo".

Someone call Jack Nicholson. Laura stole his Joker mask.

That's it - if we have kids, I'm never buying them "Baby Einstein" stuff.

I'll give Wesley Autrey his props, though. That took some serious guts.

Thoughts?

Will the Circle be Unbroken?

Will the Circle be Unbroken? Yup.

There is a god.

E, Howard Hunt dies on the day where Pat Fitzgerald comes out firing on Cheney, the man whose idiot daughter penned a ridiculous op-ed saying that our republic was in an “existential” struggle while der Chimpenfuhrer prepares an address that even Republicans don’t want to hear.

Indeed, there is a god. As former Chicago Bulls guard Jamaal Crawford once opined, things are coming to “fruitation.”

When in free fall, objects accelerate downward at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s/s

CBS News' latest poll has the Liar in Chief at a 28% approval rating.

Other presidents two years before their 2nd term was up?

Clinton in 99, after the impeachment (remember, he was hated and despised and ruined America) - 65%.

Reagan in 87, after Iran-Contra - 52%.

LBJ in 67, hip-deep in Vietnam - 47%.

Ike in 59 - 57%.

Where the hell were you people in November of 2004?

--UPDATE (by Rousing Rabble)--
Good Dr. Magoo didn't have access to my archives, but I have been able to find the approval rating of one other famous (well, infamous) American president who had his own war debacle

Jefferson Davis, 1865, after Appomattox - 29%

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls

BAGHDAD (AP) — Twin bombings Monday tore through stalls of vendors selling second-hand clothes and DVDs in a busy Baghdad market catering to Shiite Muslims during a religious festival. A market also was attacked north of the capital, and police said nearly 100 people died in the renewed campaign blamed on Sunni Muslim insurgents.

Think about this for a minute. Nearly a hundred people dead in ONE DAY in ONE CITY. We have sown the wind, and are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

Having nothing to do with politics

Bear down, Chicago Bears
Make every play clear the way to victory;
Bear down, Chicago Bears
Put up a fight with a might so fearlessly.
We'll never forget the way you thrilled the nation
With your T-formation.
Bear down, Chicago Bears
And let them know why you're wearing the crown.
You're the pride and joy of Illinois
Chicago Bears, bear down!

In news you may have missed...

Sam Brownback (R-Kan)

announced the formation of an exploratory committee to prepare for a run for chancellor of Germany in 1933 on the National Socialist ticket president.

UPDATE: As mentioned in one of the comments, Rolling Stone did a feature story on Brownback a few years ago. It can be accessed on-line here. It is recommended reading on any number of levels. (Rousing Rabble)

For a Cubs fan, George Will is an idiot

Okay, maybe there's a dispute about that Cubs fan part. The second part, on the other hand, is an ever-growing truth. On This Week, this week, during the roundtable session they were talking about Bush's future State of the Union address, and brought up that the Liar in Chief will talk some about global warming, for the first time. I don't expect that Bush will propose anything of value that he'll actually back up with funding, but even discussing it will move the national dialogue in a better direction. That way, when there's someone who's less of an idiot in the White House, there will be real bipartisan support to try to do something about this issue.

Back to Mr. Will. He states (correctly) that India and China are growing very quickly, and that their production of greenhouse gases will outpace ours. He concludes that we shouldn't bother to do anything about it, since others will be causing problems. Appropriately, Sam Donaldson pointed out how dumb that statement is, but it goes further. Of course the "well, they're bad, so it doesn't matter if we are or not" is a dumbass argument. But so is ignoring the idea that if the US truly invested in technologies that combated global warming we wouldn't see a growth in our economy, that China and India and Europe wouldn't become our customers for that technology. It's also our responsiblity to do what's right.

Not that George Will would understand that.

Iron-y Deficiency

Dick Cheney tells Iran that they should "keep their folks at home," while the secretary of state tells Iran that we won't tolerate outsiders "meddling" in Iraq.

Do they even listen to themselves?

It's dumbass shooting fish in a barrel time

Sometimes it is just WAAAY too easy:

Many argue that the cost of American lives in Iraq has been too high. How soon we forget that we once had a war called the Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died. A hundred years before that, we were ruled by our own perceived tyrant, the king of England. Likewise Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. I applaud the U.S. for standing up to a tyrant. Who knows what Hussein was going to do next? The price of freedom isnever cheap.

Mitch Johnson
Western Springs

"How soon we forget that we once had a war called the Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died??? " Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, who has forgotten? It is not a problem with "us" forgetting, it is a problem of you fundamentally misunderstanding the events of which you speak.

With regard to the Civil War, need we even point out that this conflict was HERE rather than a world away? Let's also note that Lincoln took our nation to war to protect a union that he believed was worth holding together, a national idea joined and bound by "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land." It is difficult to imagine a starker contrast between that cause and this ill-conceived invasion of a fractured legacy of European colonialism where the competing sides cannot even be rationally identified.

Mr. Johnson then refers to our rule by a "tyrant" where he again displays his ignorance of history. While the phrase may have been tossed around by firebrands and agitators, few Americans, even revolutionary leaders, perceived King George as tyrannical. Arrogant, stubborn, petty and incompetent, yes (...hmmm, that sounds familiar...) but tyranny? No.

Besides that, Mr. Johnson, how does that have anything to do with the present mess? You present two instances of domestic insurrections and compare them to an unwarranted and unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation? You equate the establishment of permanent U.S. bases and a stooge government in Iraq while thousands are butchered monthly with freedom?

We did not "stand up" to a tyrant, sir. We destroyed a country. We sowed that wind and reaped the whirlwind of a region in chaos. You also say that we did not know what Saddam Hussein would have done next. Yes, we do. He would have continued to rule over a functioning society in a repressive and often cruel fashion, under close U.S. surveillance. People would have suffered, but for the most part, they would have worked and lived rather than hide and die. We do know one thing he would not have done, however, and that is attack Iran. If only the same were true of our leader.

Mr. Johnson....

One of my least favorite people gets a smackdown

The "intellectual" right has been feeling uppity lately, with moron Dinesh D'Souza explaining how gays and drugs and permissiveness casued 9/11. He's not the only one out there explaining, under the guise of intellectualism, how liberals are ruining the world. One of his compatriots in idiocy is David Horowitz, who had a brainiectomy and has decided to spew venom against those who do the most harm to our society - college professors.

On a website called "The Beast," they ranked the 50 most loathsome people in America, 2006. The list includes many of the obvious people (Bush, Cheney, et al), as well as some less obvious, such as "You" and "Us". It's a worthy read, if you enjoy reading insulting things about obnoxious people. My favorite, though, is what they have to say about the aforementioned Mr. Horowitz:

Like most fascist converts, Horowitz sees disseminating information as an act of treason. His favorite targets are university professors he declares enemies of "academic freedom," because nothing is more dangerous to a neocon than someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

Madame Speaker, the President of the United States

The state of the union drinking game.

Congrats to the Schmidlaps

Here.

What time is it?

It's Dumbass Time!

Jimbow, a good friend of this space, submitted what he aptly called the trifecta, from a local paper:

To the Editor:

Unfortunately, this country is at war with two enemies, the terrorists and the liberal leftists who rely on the media to support that lose-at-any-cost agenda. Had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood with President Bush and looked the terrorists in the eye and said, “We are one. This country is united and we will not be defeated,” this war would have been over in months, but no. Our own people constantly and wrongly drag this country, which is winning the war and is doing a good job, through the mud. We are enjoying a thriving economy, record unemployment, a deficit on the decline and troops who are re-enlisting in record numbers.Why are people not uniting as one? Those who voted for Sen. Dick Durbin, D–Ill., please, stop and think before you vote next time or just toss your ballot in the garbage. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy – is that who you want running this country? For those of you who are older, remember, we had our Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make the same mistake. Let’s try unity before we choose defeatism, I believe that we are called the United States. Let’s start acting like it.

Bruce Bocian
Lake in the Hills

AND

To the Editor:

Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, there have been a few letters expressing desires to get rid of President Bush before his term is up. I wholeheartedly agree with this. After all, Bush didn’t respond to an attack on the World Trade Center [editor's note: the attempt at sarcasm here is correct. He did not respond] , ignored the threat posed by Osama bin Laden [editor's note: again, the intended sarcasm is correct, Bush did ignore the threat, and of course the Sudan stuff following is lies and urban legend.] (refusing to take him from the Sudanese government three times), gave us the largest tax hike in American history[editor's note: No], bombed Iraq to avoid an impeachment hearing, [editor's note: No], lied under oath [editor's note: Well, yeah, but it wasn't perjurious because it was not "material."], trampled our Second Amendment rights, [editor's note: No], gave nuclear technology to North Korea [editor's note: No], and, oh, wait a minute.That’s right, Bush cut taxes [editor's note: On the super-rich], put Osama bin Laden on the run [editor's note: No], has protected our Second Amendment rights [editor's note: HOW?], has disrupted uncountable numbers of terrorist attacks [editor's note: No], deposed Saddam Hussein [editor's note: So? Fat lot a good that did you, upsetting the balance of power and creating a `Shi'a Crescent], freed 25 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from murderous totalitarians [editor's note: No], has signed legislation protecting unborn children [editor's note: Symbolic legislation as part of a partisan agenda], stopped “negotiating” with North Korea because of their broken promises to us [editor's note: and that got us where???] ,and is the reason Saddam no longer is alive. [editor's note: I repeat, that does what for us?]

And, by the way, Bush didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction. [editor's note: No] Every major intelligence agency in the world supported this claim [editor's note: No], as did former Iraqi soldiers in Senate hearings on the subject, not to mention the Kurds and Iranian army.

Jake Justen
Ringwood

AND

To the Editor:

Impeach President Bush? Articles of Impeachment:

1) The stock market is at a new all-time high [editor's note: Not whwn adjusted for inflation and historic expansion] 2) Unemployment is at 25-year low [editor's note: "Fuzzy math" takes many out of the equation, those who are embittered to the point of giving up] 3) Oil prices are plummeting [editor's note: from record highs???] 4) Taxes are at 20-year lows [editor's note: and the deficit/debt is at a post-1789 high] 5) Federal tax revenues is at all-time highs [editor's note: Nice verb tense there. We have to adjust for inflation and consider the grotesquely would put a Keynsian to shame spending levels and that pesky deficit] and 6) The federal deficit is down almost 50 percent, as projected [editor's note: HIS deficit. HIS projections! 7) Home valuations are up at least 75 percent over the past 3.5 years [editor's note: SOURCE????], 8) Inflation is in check, hovering at 20-year lows [editor's note: while real wages and retirement security are decreasing] 9) Not a single attack on United States’ soil since Sept. 11. [editor's note: SO????], 10) Osama bin Laden is living under a rock, if he is alive. Or in a hole like his cowardly compatriot, the late Saddam Hussein [editor's note: as compared to what?] 11) Terrorist cells are flooding into Iraq to get their heads blown off rather than boarding planes and heading to America to wage war on us here [editor's note: No]. 12) Several terrorist attacks have been thwarted by U.S. and British Intelligence [editor's note: No]Yeah, President Bush sure hasn’t protected the personal and financial security of the American people. [editor's note: Yes]

What a crock.

Lester J. Ballerine
Cary

So Bruce, Jake and Lester:

Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum and original intent

Kudos to Doc below.

Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, also known as "The Great Writ." As the Supreme Court stated, `[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'

Such conduct just demonstrates the lack of regard that this administration has for the constitution and their abject hypocrisy in proclaiming their love for "original intent."

The revolutionary thinkers valued the "Great Writ," and of course presumed its universal application. Another galling aspect of their hypocrisy goes to the very heart of revolutionary sentiment. No, it wasn't "no taxation without representation." That was a shibboleth, albeit one well-used by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. They didn't want "representation," as the British parliament in the late 18th century was not a "representative" body in any sense of the word. Taxes on the colonies were also much lower than those levied in Britain, and here, they were almost exclusively transactional (i.e., avoidable).

No, what angered the colonists were "general writs," the right and power to forceably search without cause. You see that definitively written into the 4th Amendment, which includes elements of both cause and specificity. This administration trashes the very basis for the existence of revolutionary America as they become more invasive.

The framers would also be appalled at this war. There are libraries full of explanations of the American Revolution, dating WAY back historiographically speaking to (fellow DePauw alum) Charles Beard who wrote that the founding fathers rebelled basically to avoid paying off their debts to English merchants. You find a much more nuanced view in Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. In this seminal, albeit dated, work, Bailyn traces revolutionary ideology back to English opposition writers, and grounds revolutionary thought in the notion of "republicanism" and "republican" ideology. This is a political theory that in effect establishes a duality between good and evil, cast as "virtue" and "corruption." The thinkers of the day looked to the few "pure" republics, Athens and Rome (even though their historical grasp of classical Athens and the Roman republic was quite idealized, and the history was just not very good) and saw righteous states overcome by "corruption."

There were two key roots of "corruption" in the revolutionary ideologue's view. The first is selfishness. While we tend to think of our country rooted on capitalism, its revolutionary ideology was based on selflessness and the "commonwealth." According to republican (obviously with a lower case "r") theory, greed is NOT good, it is destructive.

The other great fear of republican thinkers was the mischief of "standing armies." As these 17th and 18th-century theorists saw it, and of course have been proven right time and again, standing peacetime armies are a BAD thing. The framers opposed them because hereditary rulers, often being of less than full control of their mental faculties and flush with the notion that they were God's instrument (thankfully, THAT never happens!) tended to use standing armies to make mischief.

Republican theory may not explain the revolution (I don't think it does), but it explains a lot of constitution-making. For example, the standing army fear is why you see the militia featured so prominently in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to allow Cooter to protect his "rahts" with his squirrel rifle. Rather, it is there to prevent the federal government from disarming the militias.

The framers also blended the war powers between Congress and the president so that this most solemn of obligations and actions would be carried out thoughtfully and deliberatively. Admittedly, the constitutional language is mushy. The Articles of Confederation vested the war power in Congress, while the constitution obviously tempers that with the Commander-in-Chief notion. However, the framers clearly expected a congressional role, as Congress is authorized to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

In other words, the framers expected congressional diligence and oversight. Simply put--do your job. At LEAST every two years. They would not be de-funding the troops. They would be following the constitution.

I would refer you to the archives over at Alternet for the brilliant writings of my pal Joshua Holland on this topic.

Shut up, Torture Boy

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, at hearings in front of the Senate Juniciary Committee (unofficial transcript, h/t Kos):

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

What the hell is he talking about? The right of habeus corpus shall not be suspended, but every individual doesn't have the right? Who, then, does have the right? The trees? How the hell does that make any sense?

On the other hand, it does fit in with other actions of the Murderer in Chief's administration. Consider the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, under TB's interpretation, when they wiretap people without a warrant, or read their mail, it's okay, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee that everyone has the right to a warrant, but just that the right to a warrant shall not be violated.

These people need to go away now.

Remarkably stupid, even for Sean Hannity

The great Sean Hannity actually suggested that the decapitation below might have happened because, and I'm not kidding--"the noose might have been too tight." Think about that for a sec...

Those wacky Iraqi hangmen!

They know how to have a good time!

Saddam aides hanged, but not as planned
Half-brother's head is severed; Sunnis claim he was 'mutilated'

The GOP with its priorities in place

At one of the crucial junctures of our nation's history, when we face both a constitutional crisis and the threat of a regional war in the Middle East, Rep. Jo Davis (Fascist-VA) introduced legislation to deal with our most pressing problem:

H. 107 To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman.

I know that Congress has authority over the district, but they have a LOCAL government that deals with these things. However, she must have acted because the wedding of Ed and Ted or Jane and June are the most important social problems facing the district. Never mind guns, drugs or school problems in D.C., we MUST stop homosexual nuptials!

It is odd though--Rep. Jo doesn't live in the district. Why should she care? Before ye of little faith think, though, that these are just GOP talking points, note that this is one powerhouse representative who has previously introduced crucial legislation calling for the James River to be named "America's Founding River." [editor's note: I've always felt the James has been slighted.]

And just one quick note on Rep. Jo. Besides winning the Joan Collins Over Made-Up Hag Award




we should point out this little factoid--she "attended" Hampton Roads Business College. We all know what "attended" means--she didn't finish. So to the fine folks of Virginia's 1st Congressional district, your representative is a typing school dropout!

My apologies

It was rude of me to suggest in the post below that the president's veinous, bulbous nose, bloodshot eyes and red blotchy complexion indicated that he was drinking again. We now know that he has beem prayerfully meeting with his grandfather

and his aunt



and his senior military commanders

Question for Schmidlap

WHY on earth would you think he's drinking?