Friday, May 18, 2007

The long and winding road

Garrison Keillor wrote
The French have a new president, the British will soon have a new P.M., and we envy them as we endure the endless wait for this small dim man to go back to Texas and resume his life.
My question is--after that endless wait is over, what kind of country will we have left? Barring a Diebold disaster of the highest magnitude, given that one-third of the GOP presidential candidates believe that we would have unicorns dancing in the forests if they hadn't missed the Ark, the White House in 2008 must surely go blue. But what will it mean? How much lasting damage has been done?

Our standing in the eyes of the world has never been lower, and this administration has made the Middle east into a permanent nightmare. The Chinese are our Mr. Potter and we do live in Pottersville. The jobs that went across the seas aren't coming back, and precious time has been lost in avoiding more than one ecological disaster.

Those fellow unicorn believers sit not only on the U.S. Supreme Court, but on every federal bench in the country, and will sit there for the rest of their lives. Career professionals throughout the government have been pushed out in favor of small-minded ideologues. The U.S. military has been shattered in a fashion that will take years to rebuild. The young officer corps, the academy grads, the captains, majors and lieutenant colonels, are leaving in droves, and of course, one of our most valuable resources, the national Guard, has been effectively destroyed as another hurricane season awaits.

Yes, the small dim man will return to Texas some day. The question is--where do we go?

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Three final notes

Today has been chock full of noteworthy stories, but I don't want to have too many posts, so let me combine three into one final post for the day (unless, of course, something else happens).

1) Paul Wolfowitz resigns. As a principal architect of the disaster in Iraq, I can only hope that his special comb someday gets used as his catheter.

2) The bloviating windbag says something really quite funny. During the GOP debate the other night, a question was asked about the lack of minorities or women on the stage. So, during his radio show yesterday, OxyContin boy said: "And I guess — you know, the Democrats never get those kinds of questions because it's always assumed that they're fair and just, and not discriminatory and all that." Or, perhaps, that well, I'm not even going to say it.

3) Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson are fining a suit against Shooter, Turd Blossom, Scooter, etc, charging that when they leaked her identity for political reasons they did damage to her career. Cheney's lawyer's response: "He has immunity." From the Washington Post:

The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials had about Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their normal duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went further, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment, whether the statements were true or false?"

"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."


So, when responding to "criticism," it's perfectly okay for any member of the Admininstration to say anything, true or false? Umm, what?

Torture Boy gets pwnd!

Fifty-six members of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez' graduation class from Harvard Law School (1982) took out a full-page ad in the Weshington Post as an open letter to Torture Boy:

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

Twenty-five years ago we, like you, graduated from Harvard Law School. While we arrived via many different paths and held many different views, we were united in our deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it guaranteed. As members of the post-Watergate generation who chose careers in law, we understood the strong connection between our liberties as Americans and the adherence of public offi cials to the law of the land. We knew that the choice to abide by the law was even more critical when public officials were tempted to take legal shortcuts. Nowhere were we taught that the ends justified the means, or that freedoms for which Americans had fought and died should be set aside when inconvenient or challenging. To the contrary: our most precious freedoms, we learned, need defending most in times of crisis.

So it has been with dismay that we have watched your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again. When it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority. Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women; witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections; witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration’s stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with others more "loyal" to the President’s politics, as merely "an overblown personnel matter." In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize "disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law."

As lawyers, and as a matter of principle, we can no longer be silent about this Administration’s consistent disdain for the liberties we hold dear. Your failure to stand for the rule of law, particularly when faced with a President who makes the aggrandized claim of being a unitary executive, takes this country down a dangerous path.

Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel, especially when the advice runs counter to political expediency. Now more than ever, our country needs a President, and an Attorney General, who remember the apt observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We call on you and the President to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.

THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF 1982

How you can tell when you've found our house

Should you ever be driving along, looking for Magooland, you will know you've found it when you see this in our window:

The Impeachables

The Liar In Chief at today's joint press conference with outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? ... I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. ... And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

Not really, but it amounts to the same thing (h/t TPM):

"There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen - I'm not going to talk about it. It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary, 'cause there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm. ... And so there's going to be all kinds of talk about it, and as I say I'm not going to move the issue forward by talking about something as highly sensitive, highly classified subject. I will tell ya, however, that the program is necessary. ... As I said, this is a necessary program that's constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress."

To clarify, again, the the question that was asked had nothing to do with the nature of the program, but what could be considered "internal" deliberations within the Administration. Bush considers all such deliberations classified, because no one has the right to question him or his decisions. He was forcing through a program which John Ashcroft, for goodness' sake, was against, because Shooter and Torture Boy wanted it. Note, specifically, that he didn't in any way dispute Comey's testimony. To him, it is irrelevant what tactics he chooses, because "If the President does it, it's not illegal."

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Move this pragmatist into the "Impeach Now" column

YES, there were ample grounds for impeachment before, and yes, I thought the effort would be futile and frustrating. The wiretapping-Ashcroft stories are brazen abuses of power, though, that not only support impeachment--they demand it.

Jimbow is certainly right on "high crimes and misdemeanors." Read the report of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 (will link when I get home). This phrase referred not to "crimes" but to abuses of power.

I don't want RR's head to explode

But after reading his post below, read the following, perhaps the only time John Ashcroft came out as a sympathetic figure in his life.

From Salon:

The call came at 8 p.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2004. Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital, struck with a life-threatening case of pancreatitis. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey was just leaving his office, being chauffeured by his security detail.

"I remember exactly where I was, on Constitution Avenue," Comey testified Tuesday morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And [I] got a call from Attorney General Ashcroft's chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call."

So begins a remarkable tale that nearly led to the resignation of the Justice Department's senior leadership, an ordeal that was recounted in great detail for the first time Tuesday. Two senior White House officials, Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales, were headed to Ashcroft's hospital bed, despite the instructions of his wife that there would be no phone calls or visitors. They wanted Ashcroft to sign off on the secret National Security Agency wiretapping program, a program that Ashcroft had already decided to reject before falling ill.

Comey was determined to stop them. "So I hung up the phone," Comey told the committee, and I "immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller and -- with whom I'd been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week -- and told him what was happening. He said, 'I'll meet you at the hospital right now.' [I] told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and ran up -- literally ran up the stairs with my security detail."

The story gets better at this point. Comey's testimony reads like a detective story. Minutes later, there is a showdown in the hospital room. Ashcroft, buffered by his wife and three of his senior deputies, faces down Gonzales and Card and refuses to sign off on the spy program. Gonzales and Card storm out of the room. Card calls Comey and demands that he come to the White House, but Comey refuses to go until he can get Ted Olson, the solicitor general, to accompany him. "After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness," Comey tells Card.


Read the rest. It's scary stuff.

IMPEACH.

OK -- I'm Convinced..... It's Time to IMPEACH

I have been one poor correspondent over these months since the last election cycle. After all, the wicked witches running the congress had been melted by the icy cold water thrown on them by a disgusted electorate. I was as happy as Dorthy returned to Kansas after having lived through the terrible nightmare of the Texas neo-con tornado...

But I was dead wrong to be happy. All that I have heard since the congressional takeover is lip-service to the agenda that was forwarded by the Democratic leadership in the months leading up to the November election. We're STILL losing brave men and women in Iraq for no discernable reason. Bush is surging troops in the face of a 28% approval rating (within a percentage point of what the illustrious Schmidlap calls the Keyes Constant) and he sees no real problem with pretty much ANY WRONGDOING by his minions. Events of the last 24 hours have caused me to go past my usual distaste for all things neo-con, and get right down to brass tacks: BUSH MUST BE IMPEACHED. What events you ask? What hit my radar in the past day which makes IMPEACHMENT a necessity? It's not the Wolfowitz scandal at the world bank, nor the firing of the U.S. Attorneys for partisan political reasons.

And no, it's not the troop surge.

All of these things while distasteful are completely within the boundaries of a president's constitutional authority. So, what is it, you ask? It's HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS.

Last night on the award-winning PBS investigative series Frontline the entire breadth of Bush's illegal domestic spying program was laid bare. The basis for the program revolved around a very quiet move by the Bush administration's FBI to commandeer the records of private enterprises in Las Vegas in the weeks preceeding New Year's Eve 2003 in reaction to a "threat" against the city intercepted by the NSA. In effect, National Security Letters were used to confiscate ALL information on 250,000 people who had visited Las Vegas over a 2 week period. In the end, there was no threat. There were no terrorists, no plot. But the FBI now had the personal financial and travel records of a quarter of a million citizens - AND THEN HELD THE INFORMATION FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS.

The despicable nazi John Yoo could barely contain his glee as he explained that under the constitution the president has unbridled and unlimited rights to do anything he wants regarding suspicionless searches and seizures. The basis for this power: the president's authority as commander-in-chief. Yoo did everything but call the 4th amendment "quaint." At the same time, the investigation revealed that the president is almost certainly STILL bypassing the FISA courts and conducting unmonitored domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens.
Here is a portion of an interview done for the program with Peter Swire, Chief Counsel for "Privacy" in the Clinton administration

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRONTLINE: ...the president says, "I authorized (the warrantless domestic spying program)." As a lawyer, as somebody who specialized in information technology and the law for a quarter of a century, what's your bottom-line take on this? …

SWIRE: I was outraged. I tend to be fairly level in the way I approach things, and I had a sense of outrage that they would just disregard the law. The law said the exclusive authority for wiretaps were these other statutes, and the president looked at exclusive authority and said, "Except when I feel like it." It was as though the lessons of Watergate had been forgotten. It was as though the lessons of centralized executive power and the problems that come with that had been forgotten. And now the president just said, "I think I can do it my way."

Q: So you're saying the president violated the law?

A: My view is that the president violated the law, yes.

snip

Q: Now, the president has described the program publicly, and to a certain extent Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA, Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales have followed the same line that makes it sound as though the eavesdropping is from one point overseas -- Al Qaeda -- to one point in America; point to point, person to person. Is that what's going on here, or is there more going on?

A: Well, there's still mysteries here. There's one program that the president and the attorney general have announced publicly, but there's very strong reports about other programs that are happening, too. ...

Q: What are you talking about? There's one program; ... it's the program the president describes. What else have you got in mind?

A: Well, there's two other revelations that we've had -- three programs to keep in mind. Program number two has to do with a whistleblower for AT&T who says that some of the big phone switches where huge amounts of communications go in and out between the U.S. and overseas, there's a direct feed to the government. That's not point-to-point for people linked to Al Qaeda; that's anybody who's sending e-mails or [making] phone calls overseas.
[The] next report was the USA Today story in the spring of 2006 which said that for 40 or 50 million Americans -- that's not all Al Qaeda -- 40 or 50 million Americans, [their] detailed phone records have been turned over to the government by the big phone companies. So now we have huge numbers of ordinary communications being intercepted, huge numbers of ordinary Americans' phone records being taken, and no legal structure in place to do that. That's much, much broader than a few people linked to Al Qaeda. ...

Q: [T]his business of turning over the stored communication records for 40 or 50 million Americans, is that legal? …

A:I think it's illegal according to the published reports. There's something called the Stored Communications Act. It says what the rules are for when the government can get people's phone records, but the published reports went down each of the exceptions and said they didn't apply. And we had apparently senior lawyers for one of the phone companies, Qwest, that decided not to participate. … The published reports said ... that Qwest had asked for a warrant, and the government refused to do it.

Q: Could the National Security Agency have gone under the FISA law and gotten a warrant to obtain stored communications, records, for millions of Americans?
I think that would really be up to the judges on the FISA court. The Patriot Act says you can get the whole database. If the whole database is 10 million people, that's something that was never discussed in Congress, [has] never necessarily been approved by any court. The court might decide that's a general warrant and it violates the Fourth Amendment, but the words in the statute would appear to allow it. …

Q: The third program you were talking about is this AT&T program. ... What is your understanding of what is happening in the AT&T case?

A: This program sounds like it could be Carnivore on steroids (an old FBI eavesdropping program)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Both my wife and I had to pick our jaws up off the floor. And today, the exacta came in. My brother emailed me this piece from Slate wherein a former assistant to (now retired) Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before a senate committee that (then) White House Counsel (now Atty. General) Alberto Gonzalez tried to coerce Ashcroft and his deputy to sign off on the reauthorization of the COVERT domestic spying program in 2004 WHILE ASHCROFT LAY CRITICALLY ILL IN THE HOSPITAL. The punchline is that Ashcroft, who has never been accused of being a liberal, had already come to the determination that the program was ILLEGAL, and he REFUSED to signoff on it. The upshot is that the US Attorney General was telling the president that this program BROKE THE LAW. The president's reaction? Send his counsel to get his signature from a nearly comatose Ashcroft. The piece reads like Kafka on acid.

So what do we have?? We have two stories which dovetail. They tell that this administration believes that it is answerable to no one. Bush and his minions believe that TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS isn't a necessary evil, but a presidential prerogative. It's time to stop this madness. It's time to IMPEACH.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Ahhh...Catholicism

Y'know, Schmidlap had the right idea abandoning this religion. Come to think of it, I'm knee-deep in doing the same thing, too.

Somebody must've been working with Ratzy and playing the old Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood alphabet game. "D", is for dogma and doctrine.

While traveling around Brazil, and *there's* a country come Carnival time that says, "Let's party and then start the most penitent part of the Christian calendar," God's Rottweiler gave us the following gem about politicians and abortion:

But before Benedict even got off his plane in Brazil, he stoked a debate among Catholics who have been arguing whether politicians who approve abortion legislation as well as doctors and nurses who take part in the procedure subject themselves to automatic excommunication under church law.

...

But Lombardi added that politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Anybody remember what the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry went through when the religious right got their Wurlitzer started?

It's okay to play to play the pedophile shell game. It's okay to be hypocrites. It's even better to lead all kinds of cleansing "In His Name," throughout most of the Middle Ages.

But to have a tolerant, scientific approach about women having reproductive rights and formulating a well thought out opinion that has to do as much with population science and privacy as it does with anything else, they're going to remain stuck in the Dark Ages.

Best of all, Ruu-dee, who stands for really nothing at all, won't even get near this one.

And the band plays on...

The Way Back Machine

GWB, Fall 2000:

I'm worried about over committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use.

Fearless Leader on Tornado Survival

"...a lot of folks had basements here in this part of the world"

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Back to normal (for me)

Back and un-jetlagged!

We don't need to torture prisoners--just make them fly long-haul coach.

Can we PLEASE buy France some soap?












VETO

So the Chimp is all excited - he might get to pull out his veto pen again. But remember what he's all excited about - vetoing money for his war. No matter what Congress proposes, unless they give him everything he wants, the way he wants it, he will veto. That's not "leadership", that's being a dictator.

If he won't work with anyone else, ever, then the only possibility is to get rid of him. Most presidents begin to worry about their legacy, but he continues to live in a dangerous world of delusion.

Frankly, if he doesn't want his money, that's fine. Bring the troops home, then.

IMPEACH

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Science, students, and activism

One of the most frustrating things for me about the current political landscape is the lack of participation by younger voters (18-24). This is a group of people who will be profoundly affected for years to come by decisions that politicians make, but who have not connected themselves to the political process. Imagine how different the political landscape would be if 18 year olds voted in the same percentages as 70 year olds.

So I decided to try to do what I can to influence my students. My theory is that if they get involved now, they're likelier to stay involved. In the fall semester, I gave them extra credit if they (a) voted and (b) wrote a paper about science and politics. This semester, I made a required part of the course a paper about an issue of public interest that had important connections to science and then to spread the word to some community outside the class. Given the chance to care, the students did an excellent job - they wrote on global warming, stem cell research, banning smoke in public places, the spread of communicative diseases - heck, even the injuries caused by wearing a backpack over one shoulder. They wrote to their senators, the President of the University, letters to the editor, and letters to professional organizations. Their political opinions don't always line up with mine, which is fine - I just want them to think and participate.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Courting the moron contingent

During the GOP debate last night (and no, I didn't watch it), the moderator asked for a show of hands of which candidates did not believe in evolution.

pause

Yes, that was an actual question. Hand raisers - Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, apparently in competition for the Presidency of the United States of Christ or something.

Later in the debate, they asked who didn't believe in gravity. (Okay, no they didn't - but it just missed the cut.)

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Four more years!

So, Chimpy McFlightsuit is going to commemorate four years of celebrating Mission Accomplished with his veto pen. It's the one he's only pulled out to support his Culture of Life by preventing scientists from doing research that could save lives and now, by refusing to consider ending the occupation of Iraq by US forces. He has said, many times, that he won't agree to anything with a timetable in it, and this weekend, he sent his Secretary of Hate out to the talk shows to explain that he also wasn't interested in requiring anything of the Iraqi "government":

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that President Bush will reject any attempt by Congress to require the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks as a condition for US troops remaining in Iraq...

The president and the administration are still prodding the Iraqi government to meet its goals for political progress and quelling sectarian violence, but the Bush camp does not want deadlines for them to be enshrined into law, she said.

"The benchmarks that are anticipated here, of course, [are] benchmarks that the Iraqis themselves have adopted. They are benchmarks that they need to meet," Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We are telling them all of the time that their national reconciliation is moving too slowly [and] needs to move more quickly."


Now, this is an administration that doesn't believe in consequences or planning, so it's quite natural for them to decide that the Iraqi "government" should play no role in anything as trivial as getting our soldiers home and ending the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars into a giant black hole. And the Iraqis themselves are planning on taking July and August off (hey, just like ol' President Ranchhand!). The combined lesson, of course, is that neither the Bush administration nor the Iraqi "government" seems to have any interest in ending the occupation.

If you would like a little reflection on the costs of this disaster, the Democrats in the Senate have put together a little interactive map, showing the number of men and women from each state currently serving in Iraq, the number who have been killed, the number who have been wounded, and the cost of the war (in dollars) attributable to that state.

For example, here's the data from Illinois:

* Number of Active Duty Service-Members in Iraq: 7,124
* Number of Reserve Forces in Iraq: 1,449
* Number of Service-Members Killed in Iraq: 120
* Number of Service-Members Wounded in Iraq: 934
* Cost of War to the People of Illinois: $20.5 billion

(Source: CTS Deployment File, 1/31/07; Department of Defense Personnel Statistics; nationalpriorities.org)

One quickie from Greece

I'm sitting in an Internet cafe just above the Mykonos windmills, just after sunset. My wife just left, staying in Athens tonight and headed home tomorrow, while I'm kicking around Athens for a couple of days.

Been TOTALLY out of touch, what's new in the world? Be home Sat.

Some observations:

1) There is not a highway to hell. You do not go to hell in a handbasket. If you are going to hell, you go through Charles DeGaulle airport in Paris. My God, they should just blow that disaster up and start over.

2) Americans should not be allowed to leave the country. Period. We're dicks. God I hate it when I see Americans making asses out of themselves expecting everything to be like it is at home. If you want home--stay home.

3) It is amazing how different (and wonderfully refreshing) the international press is on TV.

4) Go to Santorini. I have never seen ANYTHING like it. Period.

Wisdom

One of the positive outcomes from someone's death can be a reflection on what they did that benefited the world. Such is the case with Kurt Vonnegut, whose words continue to teach.

There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.

Snopesed!

Well, it seems that Mr. Connie Miskimen is a lawyer who apparently enjoys wasting people's time (I wonder what he would do if the world billed him for his time) by writing stupid letters to the editor to see if they will get published. Well, he has proven that the editors at the newspaper were either idiots or pranksters.

Monday, April 30, 2007

All together now: Go sit in the corner...

Pete's not here right now, but I think he'd appreciate the following:

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Northwest Edition

Daylight exacerbates warning[sic]


You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.

This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they ?

Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.

Connie M. Miskimen, Hot Springs
(Thanks to Bartcop for the image.)


Where do I begin, oh Connie M. Miskimen? Is it with the typo in the title? Or that the bill changing when Daylight Savings Time would start was passed by the previous Congress, which was controlled by Republicans? Or, perhaps, that you have somehow imbued our Congress with the ability to actually change the rate at which the Earth rotates, thus adding an extra hour to the day? I mean, really, why didn't Congress give us that extra hour in the fall, so that it doesn't get so cold?

Connie M. Miskimen, of Hot Springs Arkansas,

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Must be getting famous

We have a Wikipedia page!

Thinking or Sitting ([www.thinkingorsitting.blogspot.com]) is a political blog created by Peter Rasmussen. The content is left of center politics, presented both in serious commentary and often crass humor. Peter's partners (names unknown, but they contribute under such names as DocMagoo, ZinfandelFan and Rousing Rabble) appear to be lawyers and college professors. In a regular feature, Peter picks out absurd letters to the editor in the Chicago Tribune to mock, finishing with a graphic showing someone sitting in the corner with a duncecap, and the slogan, "Go sit in the corner, *******."

The site has been in existence for approximately two years, and attracts thousands of visitors per week. Legal analysis and historical and constitutional discussion is a frequent feature of the blog. The blog has been mentioned on the Stephanie Miller radio show, and is listed as one of twelve recommended liberal and progressive blogs by WCPT radio, Chicago (http://www.wcpt850.com/links/).

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Well, they've done it

Both houses of Congress have now passed a bill that would end the war in Iraq next year. It's far from a perfect bill, but it would be a major step forward. As Senator Barack Obama said today, "We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War."

Of course, we won't get that signature. We'll have to see what the next step is, but at the very least, the Democratic Party has now stood up and done what the American people have been asking for.

Four Years

Tuesday, May 1 will be the fourth anniversary of Chimpy McFlightsuit saying "Major combat operations have ended." Take a look back at what we heard from the right in those first heady days of Bush's glorious war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/fouryearslater1.jpg

When we lost the war

There has been a fury of writing lately (mostly in neocon land, some in SCLM land) about how awful it was that Senator Harry Reid said that we'd lost the war in Iraq. A number of Democrats, as well, have been trying to backpedal from what Reid said (without trying to look like they were backpedaling, of course). Reid was right, of course, but there's something he missed in his statement - when the war was lost.

We lost the day we invaded. The second the first soldier's foot touched down on Iraqi soil, the war was lost, irrevocably and forever. There was never anything that anyone could have done to turn that instantaneous defeat into victory. We invaded a country based on lies, a country which had not attacked us (and could not have done so, even if there were any indications that it had intention to), and diverted our attention from the real enemies - the terrorists who had actually attacked us and the governments and financial enterprises which made their attacks possible. No "success" could erase the stain of what our country did in the name of fear, hate, ignorance, and greed. No false argument about freedom and democracy can hide the facts. We have killed many, many people and ruined the lives of countless others, people from all over the world, based on lies. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, money which hurts our nation's power worldwide and money which could have been used to make the lives of millions of people better, based on fear and hate.

We lost the day the war began. Every day since then (and for decades to come), we have been serving our punishment.

Impeach.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Response from Senator Durbin

Senator Dick Durbin's response to the email about impeachment I sent to his office a few days ago:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the actions of the Bush
Administration and proposals to impeach President Bush and Vice
President Cheney. I appreciate knowing your views on these matters.

Removal of the President, Vice President or other federal officials by
impeachment is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities
delegated to the Congress. Impeachment procedures are used very
infrequently. This legislative mechanism has been reserved for
carefully investigating and trying allegations of serious misconduct on
the part of the President, the Vice President and civil officers of the
United States. The House of Representatives has the Constitutional
authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of
impeachment. Should the House vote to impeach an official and specify
the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then
presented to the Senate for trial.

I am troubled by many of the actions of this Administration. The
American people are also concerned, as demonstrated by the mid-term
elections. The new leadership in Congress is working for a new
direction for our nation while reinstituting the Congressional oversight
of the Executive Branch that has been sadly missing in recent years.

I will keep your views in mind as the fact-finding continues. Thank you
again for sharing your views. Please feel free to contact me again with
any concerns you wish to share.

Ya sas!

Hello from Greece! I am typing this from a cafe with a view of the Acropolis.

What do other countries think of us? Here is an excerpt from an Athenian newspaper:
All of this changed with President George W. Bush. Suddenly all the reactionary, dark instincts of “Middle America” came to the fore. The arch-conservative evangelical Christians began to determine the superpower’s foreign policy. America the extrovert with its pop culture became frightened, wary, almost paranoid. September 11, which brought an outpouring of sympathy from the world, proved to be the start of an unbelievable and silly “crusade” with tragic results in Iraq. Osama could not have expected a better outcome, as Bush undertook al-Qaida’s recruitment campaign.

Everything indicates that the average American understands the dark path it entered seven years ago. The next president will have to turn to realpolitik. But Bush has caused irreparable damage. History will be merciless with him, because, for no reason, he set fire to the planet’s most crucial region, because he isolated America and because, in the end, he brought Osama bin Laden into every last hovel in the Islamic world. Who said history is not determined by personalities?

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

A dare for you

Try to read this article and remember that it's 2007.

Excerpts:
ASHBURN, Georgia (CNN) -- Students of Turner County High School started what they hope will become a new tradition: Black and white students attended the prom together for the first time on Saturday.

In previous years, parents had organized private, segregated dances for students of the school in rural Ashburn, Georgia, 160 miles south of Atlanta.

Adkinson's sister, Mindy Bryan, attended a segregated prom in 2001.

"There was not anybody that I can remember that was black," she said. "The white people have theirs, and the black people have theirs. It's nothing racial at all."

Another tradition that ended this year -- having two separate homecoming queens.

In the past, two queens were chosen -- one white, one black.

But not everyone in the town of 4,400, famous for its peanuts and Fire Ant Festival, was breaking with the past.

The "white prom" still went on last week.


"We did everything like a regular prom just because we had already booked it," said, Cheryl Nichols, 18, who attended the dance.

Nichols said while her parents were in support of the integrated prom, some of her friends weren't allowed to go.

"If they're not coming tonight it's because either they had to work and they couldn't get out of it or because their parents are still having an issue because they grew up in south Georgia," she said.

"I've asked, 'Why can't you come?' and they're like, 'My mommy and daddy -- they don't agree with being with the colored people,' which I think is crazy," she said.

Well, it is a true statement

"The president's record on climate change is very strong, [White House spokeswoman Dana] Perino said.

Yes, yes it is. Just like, say, Dan Quayle's record on spelling, George Wallace's record on civil rights, the Chicago Cubs record on winning the World Series, or Dick Cheney's record on, well, anything. Strongly negative is still strong, right?

Monday, April 23, 2007

He who must be impeached

I've been planning a post on the stunning idiocy expressed by some on the right in the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, but there's another topic that just won't let me ignore it.

George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2001: "Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourself not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity."


In a statement today, Chimpy said this of his Attorney General, Torture Boy: "As the hearings went forward, it was clear the attorney general broke no law, there's no wrongdoing."

This echoes comments Mr. "The Geneva Conventions are Quaint" made during his pathetic appearance before Congress last week, when he too argued that he hadn't broken the law, so nothing he did was improper.

With all due respect, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General (and you can be sure that I bear none for either one), perhaps no statement sums up your contempt for this country more than that one. I mean, it's a huge step forward that you even acknowledge that there are laws, and you conceivably could break them, but are you really trying to tell us that as long as what you have done isn't illegal, it can't be improper? That it isn't beneath the dignity of your offices? That's an awfully low standard to hold onesself to, much less the people charged with serving this nation in such important positions.

Chimpy, you may remember, famously joked that he was the C student who became president. Now, he was a C student at schools that give students A's for showing up sometimes, which should tell you something, and I think that his teachers were far too generous. This president is not a man who wants excellence or who wants to meet a high standard. He thinks that if if a person meets the minimum possible requirements to remain in office, then that's good enough. Actually, it's enough to have "increased his confidence" in Gonzalez.

After the election, I distanced myself from politics for a while because I couldn't take it anymore. But the more I see, the more it pulls me back in. There are no words to describe the contempt I hold for the man who currently serves as the president of my country, nor for the men and women who work for him and enable him to spend every day as an incompetent, ignorant, lying simulacrum of a human being, insulting every day what I, and hundreds of millions of others, hold sacred. He is a man who cheats and lies and kills, not for greatness, but for a D-.

Frankly, he's not that good. I have spent a long time arguing that now is not the time for impeachment, that it's more important to govern and marginalize our incurious president. But he's made it clear that he will not go gentle into that good night, no, instead he will whine and pout. He will claim victory when everyone else sees defeat. He will hold his employees to the lowest possible standard, and cheer them when they fail pathetically and publically.

Mr. President, you have failed in every way at your job. We must fire you. For the good of the country, for the good of Iraq, for the good of the world, for the future of every person living or not yet born. You, and Darth, and Torture Boy, and Ms "No one could have anticipated an attack on the towers", and the rest of them. You must do the only possible thing you could do to make the world a better place and go away.

Impeach.

I will be sending slightly modified versions of this to my senators and congressman.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Democracy

Democracy, from the Greek for "rule of the people."

I am leaving from here, where democracy died, to head for Greece, where it was born. See you in May.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Who watches the watchers of the watchers?

On the Bob Edwards Show on XMPR this morning, I heard an excellent interview with Bill Moyers (although that's probably redundant - all the interviews I've heard from Bill Moyers are excellent, and the Bob Edwards Show alone is worth a sizable chunk of my monthly payment to XM) about the first episode of his new PBS series, Bill Moyers' Journal, entitled "Selling the War." The show is about the failure of the media between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq to do anything even vaguely resembling their jobs.

To me, the most telling story was about at time when Darth appeared on Meet the Press. That morning, there was a story in the New York Times which supported the administration's claims about Iraq and WMD's, and Cheney slyly referred to the article as "independent" confirmation of his claims, although he didn't want to discuss it. Where did the Times get its information, you ask? That's right, Cheney's office. So he leaked a story to a newspaper which he had demonized as liberal, and when it ran the story, used it to confirm what he had been saying. Good ol' Timmy didn't question how any of it happened, and the Times let itself be used.

If you get a chance, check your local listings to see when the show will air. Journalism is always improved when Bill Moyers weighs in. Here's an excerpt.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Monday, April 16, 2007

Retard America

Americans' knowledge of national and international affairs has changed little in two decades despite the emergence of 24-hour cable news and the Internet as major news sources. People surveyed in February were slightly less able than those polled in 1989 to name the vice president, their state's governor and the president of Russia but slightly more able to answer other questions correctly about national politics, according to a poll released Sunday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.Of the 1,502 adults survey in February, 69 percent correctly answered Dick Cheney when asked who was the vice president, compared with 74 percent who correctly responded Dan Quayle when the same question was asked in 1989. Two-thirds correctly named their state's governor in February compared with three-fourths who got that right in 1989.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070415/news-knowledge-poll

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Really?

[Editor's note: I almost hate to post something to move Doc's wonderful piece below down.]

Alberto Gonzalez said ""I have nothing to hide," in a statement released Sunday.

Really, Al? Then why are all those emails missing? Why did your various stories keep changing? Why did your White House LIE-ason become the first Justice Department official (why a 33-year old from Pat Robertson's "law school" was in such a high position in the Justice department is another story, one that pisses off those of us who went to real law schools) in history to plead the 5th, which is a virtual admission of criminality?

And that whole torture thing...

The sad and frightening part is that he really DOESN'T have anything to hide, because he and this administration have been so brazen with their lawlessness, they flaunt their criminality.

Jackie

On April 15th, 1947, Jackie Robinson played in his first game in Major League Baseball and changed the world.

America was different in the late 1940’s than it is now. We had just won World War II, and there was a sense of optimism and joy that the struggle was over. But many of the things we were fighting for overseas – freedom, the end of Nazi Germany’s racial elitism – were still problems back home. There had been huge numbers of African Americans in the military, but it was still segregated. Some people started asking why, if blacks could go off and get killed to defend their country, why were they treated any differently once they returned? But that wasn’t true everywhere, especially in the South, and the increased acceptance of blacks in some areas just made the hatred and violence that much worse.

Nowhere was this division more starkly seen than baseball. Baseball was, at the time, truly the national sport. Football had its followers, but it didn’t really take off as a national phenomenon until television. Basketball was in its infancy. Hockey was played in 6 northern cities (two of which were in Canada). Auto Racing was a niche sport. But baseball was everywhere. The country hadn’t yet been linked by television, and while radio carried the big league games, small towns all over the country had their own teams. Young boys didn’t grow up trying to decide if they wanted to be Michael Jordan or Joe Montana – they all wanted to be Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. Or, if they were black, Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige.

From the 1920’s up through the early 1950’s, African Americans owned and operated a parallel set of baseball leagues to the American and National Leagues in organized (white) baseball. In their own way, they were the linchpin of the black business community – often the owners were the wealthiest blacks in town. The play was excellent, and the community supported the teams as much as they were able. Unfortunately, because of the racial divide in the country, that just wasn’t that much. Young black children knew who DiMaggio was, but young white kids didn’t know who Josh Gibson was, or that he may have been the best catcher ever. The industry that surrounded white baseball – the recordkeeping, the radio broadcasts, the baseball cards – existed in a much more rudimentary form in the Negro Leagues. While the black players were every bit as good as the white, there was no mistaking which league was on top.

White teams and black teams had played exhibition games against each other for years, with the white teams usually losing. They weren’t trying to prove anything, and it showed. But that meant that the white players knew how good their counterparts were, and a large majority (80% by some polls) had no issues with the idea of playing with black teammates. However, the opposition was nearly 100% in the owner’s boxes. A combination of racism, conservatism, and the fear of what would happen if there were any changes kept things the way they’d been since 1884, when Moses “Fleet” Walker became the only black player ever to play in a major league game (under the guise of being a dark-skinned Cuban).

Baseball was ruled with an iron fist by Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the Commissioner (for life) that the owners had appointed after the Black Sox scandal (which had nothing to do with race, but involved the 1919 Chicago White Sox deliberately losing the World Series in exchange for payoffs from gamblers). Landis wanted no part of integrating baseball, and he blocked any attempts to do so until his death in late 1944. There had been attempts – most notably from visionary Bill Veeck, who wanted to buy the worst team in baseball and stock it with black stars, but the sale was blocked, and the leagues stayed separate. After Landis died, the new commissioner, A. B. “Happy” Chandler was discreetly approached and made it clear that he did not share the attitude of his predecessor.

That opened the door for Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson to step through. Rickey ran the Brooklyn Dodgers at the time, after an amazing career that had already made him a legend in baseball. He had worked in baseball all his life, and had been running teams for 30 years. Rickey knew that a successfully integrated team would make money, as attendance in the African American community would rise sharply. He was also a bit of an idealist, having been struck by the anguish a black player had gone through on his college team forty years earlier. However, even though there was nothing preventing integration, and there was one team willing to try it, they still needed to find the right person.

Whoever took on the mantle of “the first black player in the modern major leagues” not only had to be a good enough player as to make people accept him on that level, he also had to be strong enough to endure the vicious hatred that was sure to come. Not only would he be forcing his way into new territory, he’d be taking someone’s job, and if he succeeded, more white players would lose their jobs as well. And he couldn’t just be tough, he had to be smart – a hothead who fought back against the abuse would have only brought more upon himself, and it was a fight no single man could win.

Jackie Robinson was a good young player in the Negro Leagues, although far from a star. He had been an excellent athlete at UCLA, especially in football and basketball, and had served in the military for three years during the war. While in the Army, he had been court-martialed (and found not guilty) for refusing to sit in the back of a transport bus. He was married to a strong woman, Rachel, and whatever hatred he faced, she dealt with as well.

When Rickey decided that Robinson was the best man for the job, they had an extraordinary meeting in which they discussed the realities of what lay ahead. Rickey taunted Jackie with every racial slur he could think of – vile, nasty, incredibly rude things. He’d hear those things, and worse, from thousands of people every day. He made Jackie agree that for three years, he wouldn’t retaliate against a single player, for any reason. Jackie was to play first base, instead of second, because it would reduce the risk of someone sliding in with their spikes up (players back then were known, from time to time, to file the tips of their spikes when playing against guys they didn’t like). And then they signed the contract.

Robinson actually broke the color barrier in the minor leagues first, playing for the Montreal Royals in 1946. His manager didn’t want him, asking Rickey “Is [he] even human?” But Jackie’s play, and his determination, won over his harshest critics, even that same manager – by the end of the year, he was calling Jackie one of the best players he’d ever seen. The game was played differently in the Negro Leagues than in white baseball – it was faster, with more stolen bases and more energy. Watching film of Robinson play, you can see that he was always hustling, always running, always doing everything he could to beat the other guy, even if it was by an inch.

And then on April 15th, 1947, Jackie finally played his first game with the Dodgers. He, figuratively, carried the weight of the entire black community on his back. Failure meant that it would be that much harder for someone else to try it. It would validate all of the hateful things that the racists said to make themselves feel better. And it would break the hearts of black people everywhere – from the kids who looked up to Jackie as their idol to famous black musicians and entertainers, who told him that he was their hope. As popular as baseball was, if he could successfully lead the way for African Americans into the majors, then the entire black community would feel like it was part of the national pastime, and hence the national fabric. To succeed at baseball, hyperbolic as it sounds, meant succeeding as an American to many people. Rookies have enough trouble trying to succeed for themselves, much less millions of people.

Jackie Robinson not only succeeded, but he was a star. He changed the game, not just from the standpoint of who played it, but how it was played. A rookie at age 28, he was in the top 15 in Most Valuable Player voting his first 7 years in the league, winning in 1949. The game got faster and more exciting. He kept his promise to Branch Rickey, and turned the other cheek for years whenever he’d hear epithets or taunts coming from the stands or the other dugout. He won skeptical teammates over with his excellent play, and became the idol of kids across the country, both black and white.

After he retired, he became a ceaseless advocate for racial causes. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that if Jackie hadn’t done what he did, both on the field and off, then it would have been unlikely that he could have done what he did. By playing a game, hitting and throwing a ball, first as the only black man among hundreds of whites, and then just as a star, he opened minds all over the country. People who’d always looked at blacks as inferior had that view challenged. People from segregated communities who really didn’t know what to think about blacks saw him succeed with grace and humility, and had their minds opened. The country didn’t immediately become a panacea of racial equality, but because baseball truly was part of so many lives, Jackie’s success in the sport truly led the way for change for millions of people.

Unfortunately, the stress of dealing with the hate took its toll on Jackie, and he died at 53. His widow, Rachel, continued to work for the same causes he always did, and today, nearly 35 years after his death, the country continues to recognize his contributions. He was posthumously given the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. The Rookie of the Year award in baseball is the Jackie Robinson Award. In 1997, on the 50th anniversary of Jackie’s first game, his number was retired, not by the Dodgers (who had done it years before), but by every team. And today, to mark the 60th anniversary, players from around the league who want to pay tribute to his achievement will wear his number, 42. First, it was Ken Griffey, Jr., who asked for permission to honor Jackie, and then the invitation was spread to all 30 teams. More than 150 players will take the field wearing the number 42, including five entire teams, including the Dodgers.

Some consider the tribute to be watering down the meaning, but to me, it’s a celebration. Athletes are often called heroic or courageous just because they play a game well. But Jackie really was a hero. He displayed incredible courage against hate and bigotry and opened the way for change not just in baseball, but in the world. The other day, my wife ordered Dodgers T-shirts with “Robinson 42” on the back, and we will join with countless others in saying thank you to a man who not only made the game I love one worthy of respect, but who truly made the world a better place.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Two for the price of one!

Yessiree, folks, step right up! Double your pleasure!

First of all, we have Susan Petrarca of Lemont, a regular in the corner, a right-wing harpy with a room temperature IQ. This dim bulb opines:
Regarding Nancy Pelosi, they used to have a word for people who consorted with our enemies during wartime, and it wasn't "diplomat." The kindest word I can think of to describe her attempt to set up a parallel foreign policy is "stupid."
Well, Little Susie, 1) we are not at war (if so with whom?) 2) we CERTAINLY are not at war with Syria, 3) she wasn't CONSORTING, she was part of a CONGRESSIONAL delegation and 4) even during a real war, diplomatic contacts take place.

And then we have constitutional scholar Mitch Johnson of Western Springs. This modern-day Justice Story apparently missed freshman civics, and seems to think that there is a right to life, liberty and a radio show, as he pronounces from the bench:
The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom of speech. With all the uproar about Imus and others recently, we should add an asterisk to the Bill of Rights that reads: "As long as it is politically correct."
I would like to thank Mitch for proving that half of America graduated in the bottom half of the class, and to both Susie and Mitch:

In Memoriam: KV


I was raised on Kurt Vonnegut, I've grown to middle age with him. I feel as if I know him better than my own father, who died shy of his 50th birthday, when I was in my mid 20s. It was easy for me to adopt Vonnegut after my dad's death. I was drawn to his ethos, which insisted that human beings can be decent, kind, and loving to one another independent of group-think organized religion and lockstep nationalism. He was the first important author with whom I fell in love (I can't include Poe, who scared the pants off me at age 9, or the transcendent William Blake - who had a profound influence on Vonnegut, but who I didn't learn to love until I was much older). So at some level his death represents a kind of re-enactment of my father's death, as it might have hit me had he lived til now. I will miss Kurt because he STILL had important things to say to me. He was still relevant, years after his "literary prime." As with the aftermath of my father's death, I know that I will be able to take solace in happy memories and lessons learned. I can revisit old works, still vibrant and full of ideas I've yet to ponder as I move closer to being an old man. But it'll not be the same.

Listen, Kurt Vonnegut is dead. So it goes.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

He really didn't say that, did he?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order," said after joining the ever crazier John McCain in his market "stroll" that
I candidly was not prepared for to find a marketplace where thousands and thousands of Iraqis were moving about like in normal everyday life. Like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.
See if you can guess which one is Bloomington, Indiana, and which one is Baghdad?


or

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Much ado about nothing

Well, the mass media has made a seamless transition from Anna Nicole to All Imus All Day, with a detour at American Idol and a kid with bad hair. A morning knucklehead racist says something characteristically stupid and America forgets all about that hell and handbasket thing. So the Justice department fired US Attorneys both to get rid of troublemakers now and install stooges for later, in key swing states for the 08 election. LARRY'S THE FATHER OF ANNA NICOLE'S BABY! The combat deployments of all army units in Iraq have been extended for three months. HE SAID HO! DID YOU HEAR THAT?

An entire nation is fascinated by small shiny objects.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Yosemite Romney

Mitt Romney has checked his dignity at the door and backtracked on every principled stand he has ever taken in order to appeal to the GOP's "Deliverance" wing. This one though is my personal favorite, his bizarre explanation of his new-found love for the NRA and the fact that he has never had a hunting license:
I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then.More than two times.
Come outta there ya flea bitten varmint before I blast the fir clean off a your carcass!

Monday, April 09, 2007

And on a lighter note

Washington's beautiful cherry blossoms--and some kid.


The time has come to do as commanded/requested

Some events have transpired over the past 7 months, and then again in the past 7 weeks, that have prompted be to come forth and blog. I changed jobs, which to a great extent removed the gag shackles of typing an opinion. No longer am I forced to sit by silently out of fear of clever retribution. Though while I have some specific insights on matters this doesn’t mean that I’m about to spout forth in some type of cathartic purge.

What happened more recently is that I’ve witnessed a blog-like website slip into obscurity as its' hosts lost interest and creative focus, and its visitors/contributors took a free run of the asylum. Kind of like what happens in the suburbs when someone is away from home for an extended period and the young person who lives down the street figures the empty house would be a great place to hold a good party.

This doesn’t mean I’ll be joining the "President is an idiot" choir. The lead singer here is a good one, and there are a couple of others here who can hold a tune as well. Which leaves pretty much any and every thing else open. Local politics? The mayor may wear Teflon compliments of the local major media outlets but the proposed Olympics bid will be the kind of boondoggle/white elephant that will forever change Chicago at the expense of anyone with a 606 zip code. Sports? I’m the one last September who was picking the Bears to be in the Super Bowl, and my sports depression over their losing (expected) lifted two weeks ago. There are a lot of other things going on that can be blogged and hopefully worth reading.

Anyway, as the moniker suggests I probably live on the other side of town from you, across the tracks or across the river. Does this afford me a better perspective than yours? More likely a different perspective. And when you sit far enough away there are some things you can see so clearly its’ scary. Other things from that same distance just might not matter much at all, it depends on if you’re thinking about it, or just sitting there.

And the Lord said..

According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus condemned the arrogant braying pharisee for his self-centered public prayer in the temple. Jesus said that "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Laura and I just had the honor of celebrating Easter Sunday with members of our Armed Forces. I had a chance to reflect on the great sacrifice that our military and their families are making. I prayed for their safety, I prayed for their strength and comfort, and I pray for peace.
You pray for their safety yet send them needlessly to battle. You pray for their strength, yet you don't supply them properly, serve them tainted food and putrid water provided by your corporate owners, and cut back on their care at home. You pray for peace yet continue a pointless war. Looks like there is a double order of humbling coming your way.

What the Imus flap is NOT about

You have probably heard about Don Imus and his idiotic "nappy-headed hos" comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Please remember that the one thing about this episode though. It does not involve "freedom of speech." The free speech we treasure refers to freedom from governmental suppression and prosecution. It does NOT involve a relationship with a private employer or access to a microphone.

Was it ignorant, racist and insulting? Of course. If I owned a radio/TV station, would I fire him? certainly. Should NBC fire him? I DON'T CARE. Why? I don't listen to him, and I don't invest in NBC's corporate family. It isn't my business. His employers will resolve it one way or the other, presumably based on rational business concerns. If he is dismissed, however, remember that no harm will have been done to "free speech."

Saturday, April 07, 2007

The kind of "mind" we're dealing with

From Glenn Greenwald, on Salon:

Neoconservative and war supporter John Podhoretz:
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

From Crooks and Liars:

Ann Coulter:
These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?

This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Georgie, you have to stay in for recess

First of all, see Doc's hilarious post before.

In that vein...

I almost never call for amending the constitution for dealing with the various issues of the day. If you look at the history of constitutional amendments, you see precious few changes over the course of more than two centuries.

You see the first 10, that almost can be considered part of the original document, the Civil War amendments, some that are housekeeping in nature and others that make profound changes.

However, an amendment is necessary--NOW.

We have this provision in Article II, Section 2:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The reason for this in 1789 was obvious. When the Senate was out of session, and vacancies occurred, it might take weeks for the Senate to convene again, and people were needed in those VERY FEW leadership positions.

In this instance, the Senate was adjourned for ONE WEEK and the president used SEVEN DAYS to short-circuit the confirmation process to name a piece of human filth (Sam Fox) that would not have been confirmed to an ambassadorship for the life of this Senate. That MUST end.

I read 'em, so you don't have to

I was browsing some righ wing blogs today when I came across this howler - "No President of one party ever tried harder to get along with the other than Bush - no one."

I mean, just, wow.

Spellcheck is sick

I just sent a note to my wife about the Greek cruise ship sinking off of Santorini. Spellcheck on my version of Outlook suggested that I replace my vacation destination:

with (YIKES!!!)



Thursday, April 05, 2007

The "I have no idea what I'm talking about" defense

Orrin Hatch: "My comments about Carol Lam's record as a U.S. Attorney were accurate, but I misspoke when making the point of discussing politically connected U.S. Attorneys. I accidentally used her name, instead of her predecessor, Alan Bersin, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton."

In other words, it would be accurate, in Senator Hatch's mind, to say "Orrin Hatch raped and murdered dozens of young boys in the late 1970's and early 80's. Oh, wait, I accidentally used his name, instead of convicted and executed serial killer John Wayne Gacy."

Does he have any idea how mind-numbingly stupid he sounds?

From the "Pants on Fire" File

The cretinous, reptilian Orrin Hatch on "Meet the Press:"

"Take Carol Lam, for instance. Carol Lam was raised on your program, Tim, by Schumer. Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17857501/page/3/

Interesting, except that Carol Lam had never been a law professor, was a career prosecutor, was appointed by W, was lauded by immigration officials and had never been anyone's campaign manager.

These people are scum.

Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The Vikings?

Blogging is like going to the gym. It is all inertia. It is easy to keep going while going, and it is very easy to not go once you stop. I'll try to do better.

If you can stomach it, it is funny/frightening to read our petulant 5-year old tantrum-throwing "president" at the base in California (where we used to train troops for desert combat, no time for that "training" stuff anymore.)

He actually brought out this old chestnut:
See, what changed on September the 11th is oceans can no longer protect the people in the United States from harm.
Good God, man. The Vikings didn't even have a compass, and did oceans protect Ireland and England from them? Ever hear of the War of 1812, or Pearl Harbor?

And then he goes all tech-y on us:
I had a meeting, a SVTS -- what they call a SVTS, it's a real-time video conference -- with Prime Minister Maliki.
Wow, that's inspiring.

Here's an oldie but a goodie:
Part of our doctrine is if you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists.
Hmmm--Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?

If you get this one, please explain it to me:
You know, after the Korean War, if you had asked somebody, can you imagine an American President being able to stand up in front of some troops and say the Far East is peaceful, a part of the world where we lost thousands of our troops in World War II and Korea is now a relatively peaceful part of the world, they would have said what a hopeless idealist that person is.
[confused dog look]

And of course, a half-dozen references to September THE 11th.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Why is this "news"?

From CNN.com's front page:

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God. I'm a scientist. I know lots of scientists who believe in God. This is just another of those pointless stories designed to feed the belief that there must fundamentally be some gulf between those who choose to be religious and those who choose to believe in science. Wacked out fundamentalism? That's an issue. A belief in God? There's no way to prove or disprove a matter of faith, so science cannot speak on the topic. This pretend idea that if one believes in God, one cannot believe in science, or vice versa, is ignorant, and fuels divisions between people in this country. Stop it.

Disappointing the Chimp

So the 15 British soldiers are getting released by Iran. This is unequivocally a good thing. My worry is that Chimpy will be upset - he didn't get to bomb anyone.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

'Nuf Ced

Harry Reid: "If the president vetoes this bill, he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."

Friday, March 30, 2007

Follow up question

to Texas State Senator Dan Patrick, who is proposing that the government pay women $500 if they give a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion.

Senator Patrick - How much money will you give to the parents who adopt that child, or any of the many children who need adopting but will grow up in foster care, or any of the children who grow up with one parent, or in poverty, or who are at risk for disease, or crime, or violence? How much money would you withhold from a President killing thousands of people in the name of ego and idiocy? How much money will you contribute to medical research that could save or immeasurably improve millions of lives? How much money will you allocate to people working to ameliorate the damages done to our environment by our civilization? How much money will you give to schools? To the un- or under-insured? To the elderly who can't find jobs to support themselves and still need to work at 70?

How about this - when you and your party begin caring about the living, call me.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Theater of the Absurd

President Bush recently decried the vote by the House imposing even a minimal timeline as "political theater."

Hmm..I've done a lot of theater. It generally involes a SET, PROPS and an AUDIENCE.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

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!"