Cognitive Dissonance Doesn't Even Begin to Cover This
So have you heard the one about the Michael Moore hata who has been begging for money to pay server costs to keep his blog going so he can continue to hate on Michael Moore? Yeah, and did you hear why he can't pay his own server bills? Because his wife is ill and they can't afford to pay her medical bills b/c their insurance is screwing them around! He writes:
I’m fairly broke, and my wife has been in the hospital way too often in the last month. They raised the cost of our health insurance by about $1500 a year and this year our mortgage increased as well. Now Donna needs tests that aren’t covered by the insurance.
Yeah. And what is Michael Moore's next film about? Well, it's tentatively called “Sicko” and it's a documentary about the failings of the U.S. health care and insurance industries. In February Moore asked for people to tell their health care horror stories:
So just to be clear, Michael Moore is making a movie about how our health care and insurance system ruins people's lives and this major Moore hata is begging for money to continue bashing Moore—money he doesn't have b/c the health care and insurance system has ruined his life.
What's the matter with Kansas? Nothing much—it's just cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Posted 08:35 AM | Comments (46) | TrackBack
The Roast
If you haven't seen Steven Colbert roasting Yubbledew (and just about everyone else) at Saturday's White House Correspondent's Dinner, watch it now (part II, part III). Words cannot describe...
Be sure you get to the latter part of the second clip in which Colbert makes obscene gestures to Justice Scalia. “Just talkin' some Sicilian w/my paisan.” Yikes!
Posted 08:17 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Happy Tinker Day!
From my inbox:
This year “Tax Day” falls on Monday, April 17, 2006. On that day we ask all conscientious taxpayers to wear black armbands in recognition that our tax dollars will be used to send and equip American soldiers to a hostile Iraq and Afghanistan where they will face death, psychological suffering, physical injury and inflict the same on fellow human beings, innocent and guilty alike.
Please understand that “Tinker Day” is not a protest; it is simply a peaceful expression of mindful tax-paying and an affirmation of human interconnectedness.
Seems like a great idea.
Posted 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Delay Embargo?
I'm certainly not sad to hear that Tom Delay is resigning his seat in the House, but here's a very little (possibly microscopic) tangent that has me bugged. I just heard a Washington Post reporter on the radio say that they learned this news yesterday around noon, but were “embargoed” and could not publish it until 10 p.m. because that's when Time Magazine was going to release the official announcement.
Huh? “Embargoed”? It doesn't really matter that we had to wait until last night at 10 p.m. to hear this news, but aren't we supposed to have a free press? What kind of screwed up media landscape do we have when major news organizations just sit on stories until they're given permission to publish them?
Posted 10:39 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
I say we make it a mantra
Yubbledew gave a press conference today. Here's my response:
The tools we're using to “protect” the American people shouldn't be used.
Oh, and your president says he didn't want to go to war. Really?
Posted 07:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The incredible tales of G.W.Bush & Co.
Three years ago on the imbroglio:
. . . .
Yesterday Ari Fliescher said, “the President hopes that people will continue with their normal lives.” Of course he does. We're not supposed to think about what's really going on, we're supposed to go about our “business,” proud of the fact that we live in such a “strong” country. We're supposed to “support our troops,” which seems to be code for “cease all criticism of anything other than the evildoers and what they've done.” It's easier for our troops to kill people when Americans are acting like it's just another day in the best of all possible worlds.
. . . .
The point is: This war was never inevitable until Bush made it inevitable. None of the reasons I've heard for going to war have been even slightly convincing, and I'm sick with the thought of U.S. citizens shopping in malls and going to movies and watching war porn while people die in our names. Why can't people remember that, despite all Bush Administration claims to the contrary, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11?
Three years later, I don't want to say I told you so. Instead, I just want to point out a simple fact: Those who pushed the war and tried to convince the world it was necessary turned out to be completely wrong—as wrong as wrong could be. Nearly every single thing those people said turned out to be incorrect. And whether they were wrong because they were lying on purpose, or because they were just relying on bad information, the fact remains that they were wrong. They have continued to be wrong on just about everything for the last three years.
Meanwhile, those who never believed the attack on Iraq was necessary or justified—they were right in nearly everything they said three years ago. For the last three years, most of their criticisms of the war have continued to be accurate and subsequent facts have shown that they were correct all along.
So now, today, shouldn't we listen to those who always opposed the war? If we have any desire to learn from our mistakes rather than repeat them, shouldn't we start listening to the people who have shown they have a grasp on what's really going on in the world?
Posted 07:51 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Is Bush above the law?
Is the President of the United States above the law? Apparently Senator Joe Lieberman thinks so. When asked about whether Bush should be censored for breaking federal law by ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without warrants or any judicial oversight whatsoever, Lieberman said:
So Lieberman agrees Bush broke the law, but all he cares about is rewriting the law to make Bush's actions legal.
Go Joe.
Lieberman's comments on this were the most outrageous I heard, but sadly, he's not alone. Yet, a majority of Americans support the censure. Is there only one spine in the Democratic party?
See Also: Sleepy Kid: “Watching the Democrats stumbling around in search of a ”message“ is the only thing more agonizing than watching the Republicans destroy this country.”
Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
A Public Service Announcement
(That's supposed to be animated to display all the different things no one could supposedly have anticipated since Bush was elected. I guess resizing it turns off the animation? I dunno; just click it to see the better animated version.)
Posted 10:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Habeas Schmaebeas?
I just heard the 3/10/06 episode of This American Life and I urge you to find some way to hear this program. It's episode 310, it's called “Habeas Schmabeas,” and it provides a horrifying summary of what the Bush administration has done by creating “enemy combatants,” declaring them outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, and locking them away indefinitely in Guantanamo where they can be tortured at will. The show is great because it puts these acts in their appropriate context and reminds us, as U.S. citizens and voters, that we are responsible for this.
It's sickening, really. The other day Dave! praised Molly Ivins for articulating his utter frustration with the Democratic party. I'm with both of them, and agree wholeheartedly with Ivins that “it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.” One of those stands must be against the whole idea of “enemy combatants” and the train of evils that has followed in its wake. I want a candidate for President in 2008 who will, immediately after taking office, grant full habeas proceedings to all prisoners in Guantanamo, who will forbid the U.S. military from declaring anyone an “enemy combatant,” and who will make clear the the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners of war (including those formerly known as “enemy combatants”).
What point have we reached that we can allow these things to go on in our names?
“We live in a different world now.”
In an article about his experience of being harassed by security for taking pictures at airports, Patick Smith writes of the phrase “we live in a different world now”:
The most important part of this is that, if our world is different today, it's less because of “the terrorists” than it is because of our response to them. Fear fear fear. I'm really no Hillary Clinton fan, but she sometimes cuts through the middle-of-the-road mediocrity of the “New Democrats” to say something that needs to be said, like this:
“Two weeks ago, [White House political director] Karl Rove ... was telling the National Republican Committee 'Here's your game plan, folks, here's how you're gonna win -- we're gonna win by getting everybody scared again,'” Clinton said. “This crowd 'All we've got is fear and we are going to keep playing the fear card.'”
The pattern is so well-established it's etched into our daily lives. I pray the Democrats will retake at least one house of Congress this fall if only to hold this administration accountable for all the damage it has done to our society and world.
*sigh* It's hard to to be so much of a pollyanna.
State of the Union, 2006
Wow, what a great speech the President gave last night! This was my favorite part:
Brilliant, don't you think?
But don't listen to me. Many others are saying it better:
- Salon War Room: Duty to speak with candor. And more on the same theme.
- Suburban Ecstasies: Observations (with jokes)
- Think Progress: everything from they posted yesterday.
- The wackiest 27 words from Bush's address.
Damn! I just feel so much safer and more hopeful, don't you!?
Posted 09:14 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Being Honest About Bush's Domestic Spying
Thanks to Seth Abramson of Suburban Ecstasies for both the most hilarious and possibly the most incisive little critique I've read of Bush's domestic spying program. A taste:
If you're offended by vulgar language, you probably won't enjoy it the rest of the post a great deal, but that aside, I highly recommend it. And thanks to Lyco for the suggestion.
Georgetown Law Isn't Buying the Spying
Law students at Georgetown, including our very own Scoplaw, turned their backs on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales yesterday as Gonzales attempted to defend Bush's domestic spying program. Check out Scoplaw's account and photos of the protest to see how much it rocked. Listening to the constant barrage of talking heads trying to say this program was “legal” and/or “necessary,” and that “the American people want us to do this”—such perfidy makes me furious. Hoorah to these Georgetown law students who sent a very clear and high profile message that there are many of us who just aren't buying the spin.
Posted 10:13 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Gore's Five Starting Points and Ending the Politics of Fear
Former Vice President Al Gore's speech today in D.C. was great. Although a bit long for my tastes, it outlined well the long list of disturbing and possibly criminal activities for which the Bush administration has been responsible in recent years. Gore focused much of his fire on the domestic spying in which Bush's NSA continues to engage, and he linked to the speech to this Martin Luther King Jr. Day by reminding his audience that King was himself the victim of an extensive (and illegal) campaign of spying and attempted character assassination by the FBI.
Gore also pulled no punches toward Congress, indicting the members of both houses for their passivity and complicity in the gradual dissolving of the checks and balances set out in the Constitution. He concluded with a list of five steps that should be taken immediately to begin to stop the runaway train of executive abuse of power:
Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President.
Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing -- especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security.
Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
As predicted, Gore did not call for impeachment, and although I continue to think that the NSA's domestic spying alone not only justifies but requires that admittedly extreme level of censure, if Gore's five demands were met in good faith I believe they would provide a good measure of the accountability current events demand.
In addition to his five demands, Gore made at least one more critical point about the risks and dangers that supposedly justify all the unconstitutional actions the administration has recently taken (domestic spying, torture, holding U.S. citizens and others w/out any due process, etc.):
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
So true. And while it may also be true that the dangers posed by terrorism are different in some ways from those we have faced before, they are not so different as to justify abandoning the values, principles, and laws that have brought us more or less safely through the trials of the past. Perhaps Jonathan Alter was correct when he said that talking about impeachment at this point is just a distraction; instead, we must call upon our elected leaders to live up to their oaths of office, maintain the checks and balances of our Constitutional system, and face up to the accountability built into that system. If impeachment ends up being part of the process, so be it.
Posted 05:04 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Taking Serious Abuse of Power Seriously
As I prepare to head down to the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) Constitution Hall for Gore's speech later today, I'm thinking about the big I-word—Impeachment—and found a few minutes of interesting reading. From a couple of weeks ago, the blog Ahistoricality pointed to some good links on the subject, including an argument that the way the Bush administration took us to war constituted a criminal conspiracy, and a good summary of the many conservative voices that brought up the possibility of impeachment fairly early after learning that the NSA has been spying on us. More recently, Jonathan Alter has asked, “What if we faced a constitutional crisis and hardly anyone noticed?” Speaking of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's views of presidential power and the current crisis, Alter puts the issue concisely:
Those who are talking about impeachment obviously think the answer should be “No.” Unfortunately, though he's right about the seriousness of the current state of legislative/executive imbalance, Alter goes on to call impeachment a “pipe dream and a distraction.” So what's his suggested remedy for this horrible imbalance? He doesn't have one.
That's why people are considering impeachment more closely—what else can be done? By far my favorite recent article on the subject is entitled simply “The Impeachment of George W. Bush” by Elizabeth Holtzman:
Holtzman goes on to lay out the case, citing as grounds for impeachment:
- warrantless wiretaps,
- subverting our democracy (lying to take us to war),
- failure to take care (for failing to provide troops w/necessary armor and other gear and for failing to have any real plan for getting out of Iraq once we'd gone in), and
- torture and other abuses of power.
Gore is not expected to call for impeachment today, but that's ok. He'll be calling for accountability, and that's what impeachment will be.
Finally it has started.
Posted 08:03 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
A call to arms?
John Nichols writes:
In a major address slated for delivery Monday in Washington, the former Vice President is expected to argue that the Bush administration has created a “Constitutional crisis” by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.
I'm going to be there so I'll let you know how significant and challenging it ends up being.
Posted 12:03 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Sue the Communications Companies!
I just heard a talking head on NPR suggest that phone companies could be liable for damages if they assisted the NSA in spying on Americans w/out warrants. The Patriot Act gives those companies immunity from suit if they cooperate w/court ordered wiretaps, but if there's no warrant, the phone company should be liable for invading your privacy.
Suing communications companies wouldn't be the same as holding public officials accountable for ordering this in the first place (impeachment is the only mechanism I see for that), but I'd love to see phone companies have to fork over serious damages for their part in this ongoing debacle. Maybe that would teach them how to say “no” the next time some “authority” asks them to do something that's illegal. Of course, how are you going to know you were spied upon so that you'll have standing to sue? Hmm...
Posted 07:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Why Domestic Spying Matters
Rumors are flying about whether the NSA's domestic spying program was eavesdropping on CNN reporter Christian Amanpour after NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell brought up the possibility. As America Blog points out, the consequences of such spying would be devastating to the democratic process. Was Bush spying on John Kerry and other Democratic opponents throughout the 2004 elections? Will we ever know? By circumventing established law and the Constitution by admitting it has and continues to spy on Americans without their knowledge and w/out any judicial oversight, the Bush administration has lost any shred of credibilty it might have had. If Bush denies that he spied on his political opponents, how can anyone trust that it's true?
I'll spare you an extended rant, but as the Huffington Post notes, Bush's domestic spying does not involve a “tradeoff” between security and civil liberties. Existing laws give the NSA plenty of room to get secret warrants and accomplish the same thing if they think it's necessary for U.S. security purposes:
Meanwhile, it appears some Democrats are taking this seriously and are accusing Bush of breaking the law. This is a new spin on viewing this domestic spying as a criminal act, but it sounds just as persuasive—if not more so—as simply arguing that Bush violated the 4th Amendment.
Posted 04:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Torture Poll: We Love It!
The last Ambivalent Poll asked: “If you could save a million lives by torturing one person, would you do it?” (Related post.) The final results were:
- 72% of respondents said unequivocally: “Yes.”
- 14.2% said: “impeach bush”
- 6.3% said:“The question is stupid. That's not a choice we really face.”
- 3.9% said: “I don't believe torture would save the millions lives; the information gained would not be reliable.”
- 3.1% said: “No”
I was in the minority with “No.” Shocker, eh? As L.'s brother might say, I guess I'm just a paper-pants hippie.
Posted 12:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
2006: The Year the Fourth Amendment Disappears?
Hi there. We just returned last night from our travels and we had a most excellent time relaxing and enjoying the company of family and friends. My loved ones spoiled me ridiculously so I have lots and lots of loot to wear, play with, and use in this new year, for all of which I am extremely thankful. Family and friends are the best part of life—something that's easy to forget in the day-to-day when you're far away from them. I'm very much looking forward to finishing law school and finding a job closer to the people I care about and who care about me the most.
Being immersed in all that family goodness for the last 10 days or so meant that I was largely tuned out of what was going on in the world. I tried to follow the domestic spying story but found that the Billings Gazette didn't seem to think it important enough to cover, other than to say the spying was more widespread than was originally thought. Instead I heard bits and pieces about the one-year anniversary of the tsunami, I learned that the Billings, Montana City Council seems pretty spineless, and more recently I heard repeatedly about an Iraqi child with spina bifida who has come to the U.S. for treatment. CNN Headline News seemed obsessed with that story the other day and curiously kept repeating that U.S. troops found the child during a raid on her parents' home. The message seemed to be that it's a great thing for U.S. troops to raid your home because then they can find your disabled child and maybe get her some medical help! Gee, CNN, when you put it that way, I'm thinking maybe we should all hope our homes get raided by U.S. troops! I'm sure they could find something they could help me out with.
The lesson I learned was this: If you depend on your local small-town newspaper and/or CNN for news of what's going on in the world, you're likely to get a really strange, fragmented, and incomplete picture. Oh, how I missed the internets!
And yet, now that I'm back and catching up on what matters to me most at the moment, I'm sickened to learn that just before Christmas 49% of Americans thought Bush's domestic spying was Constitutional and 50% thought it made the country safer. All I can say is that these people do not know their history. When the President starts spying on any American he wants and does so in secret and without any oversight, that can never make anyone safer and if it's only Constitutional if the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. But what's worse is the brazen way Bush continues to claim what he's done (and apparently is continuing to do!) is legal and necessary. Not only that, but he's trying to shift the focus from his own impeachable offenses:
No, Mr. President, Whoever “leaked” this to the press is a hero. the fact that you are unilaterally spying on Americans without their knowledge or consent and without any judicial oversight in contravention of the Fourth Amendment is what is causing great harm to the United States.
Oh yeah, Happy New Year!
*sigh*
p.s.: Thanks to Marshall for making my point better than I did in arguing that whether the domestic spying is legal is not the point in terms of this being an impeachable offense. Marshall writes in the comments to that post:
I could not agree more.
Posted 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Was Bush's Secret Spying Technically Legal? That's Not the Point.
Anthony at Three Years of Hell points out that law profs like Ann Althouse and Orin Kerr have suggested that Bush's secret spying program might actually be legal. Perhaps it won't surprise readers of this blog to hear that this future (fingers crossed) public defender doesn't need much detailed legal analysis to say that this program of warrantless searches of American citizens inside the U.S. is an abuse of power that Americans simply ought not tolerate. I can't think of a single thing that would justify this circumvention of existing law, espeically when you consider that existing law would have allowed the administration to do exactly the same thing w/the mere formality that they'd have to justify their actions before a captive court w/in 72 hours. FISA doesn't provide meaningful oversight, but it's more than zero and the zero oversight here is the problem. Sure, as Professor Kerr suggests, these warrantless searches might technically be legal as part of a “border exception” to the warrant clause or via other cracks in the layers of relevant law, but that possible technical legality is far outweighed by the inarguably negative policy implications of allowing the executive to do whatever the hell it wants under the cover of “war.” What comes immediately to mind is the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II. Was it legal? The Supreme Court said yes. Was it right? Hell no. The law cannot always anticipate the evil that men will do, but just because a law hasn't anticipated an action and explicitly named it illegal does not mean that action is ok or ought to be tolerated in our democracy.
That intelligent people are so eager to give the administration the benefit of the doubt here is yet another sign of how badly the Fourth Amendment has been eviscerated, both in law and in the hearts and minds of American people. I wonder if people like Ann Althouse— who says “that at the very least fair-minded observers should see that the problem is complex”— really think the dangers this sort of secret spying might prevent are greater than the dangers posed by an executive that does whatever it wants, consequences be damned? This problem is only “complex” if you are willing to grant that Yubbldew is free to violate the law (in principle, if not in technical fact) and the Constitution under the banner of this so-called “war” of his, and that's a possibility I categorically reject. Besides, none of us is a “fair-minded observer” here—we're citizens of a democracy and we should all demand that our elected representatives—the President included—adhere to their oaths of office and uphold the Constitution rather than finding ways to circumvent its protections.
So when do the impeachment proceedings begin?
Posted 10:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
What Yubbledew Must Say Before He's Impeached
The President's speech last night repeated the same song and dance we've been hearing for week—we not only can “win” in Iraq, but we already are winning!—but it was a bit different in that the President at least made an attempt to sound like he actually cared about and understood what is happening in Iraq. He didn't convince me, though, and he won't until he does the right thing: He must admit that he made a horrible mistake, that the only reason Iraq has become the front line in the “war on terror” is because of that mistake, and that if he had it to do over again, he never would have invaded Iraq. If Yubbledew said those things, I'd fall over dead in shock, but I would also give him three cheers for finally coming to grips with reality and for beginning to do what's necessary to win back the trust and confidence of the American people and the world.* I might even consider supporting a sort of “stay the course” policy because, well, as Colin Powell put it (I believe), we broke Iraq, so we have a responsibility to at least do what we can to make sure it doesn't continue in total chaos indefinitely.
But instead of really taking responsibility and admitting what a mistake the whole Iraq debacle has been, Yubbledew continues to bob and weave, hiding behind his charade of firm resolve to “stay the course” in order to avoid the abominable truth that more than 2000 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died because he made the most egregious and horrible mistake that a President can make. So long as Yubbledew remains so unable to accept reality, the “stay the course” policy seems ludicrous and the “pull out now” policy remains a legitimate option simply because doing so might in fact help stabilize Iraq by removing one of the main incentives for terrorism there.
But whatever the case about staying or going in Iraq, we all know that Yubbledew will never admit his mistake. Maybe he can't admit his mistake because, well, it wasn't a mistake. Mountains of evidence suggest that he knew all along that Iraq had no WMD and that he was unabashedly lying to the world in order to take over Iraq. I hate to have to admit that because even I, who have always loathed this worm of a man and his politics, would prefer to believe he's not that affirmatively evil, that he really did just make a horrible, horrible unintentional error. The man in the White House is definitely an evil-doer, but could he really possibly be that evil? My mind recoils in defense of my sanity, yet the evidence remains.
Yet, bad as the Iraq debacle is, for some reason it hasn't been enough to get him impeached. Now we have a new debacle which absolutely justifies impeachment—his administration has been spying on its own citizens! Will Americans demand accountability for this egregious breach of the law and the demands of the United States Constitution? How far will we let the madness go?
* Speaking of world trust, the speech contained more doublespeak as Bush said we must stay the course in order to show the world that America keeps its word. What about America keeping its word not to torture? What about America keeping its word to respect sovereign nations and diplomacy instead of unilaterally invading places for utterly inexplicable reasons? Do those things show the world that America keeps its word?
Posted 10:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Are Torture-Supporters Moral Relativists?
This is the hot topic from last week and before, but I'm just now getting around to it so: After months spent defending his administration's right and obligation to torture (often by proxy via Dick Cheney), Bush has agreed to support a ban on torture. Terrific! Still, it seems some people think this is just a wink/nod sort of thing, and that it's still ok to torture under certain circumstances. What do you think?
Please respond in the poll in the right column. Is it ok to torture, or isn't it? And if you claim that it's ok sometimes, but not usually, aren't you engaging in the dreaded “moral relativism” for which conservatives have long condemned liberals?
Oh, and just for the record, two weeks ago George Bush supposedly called the United States Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper!” Even if he didn't say it, he's provided ample evidence that that's how he really feels.
Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
That Damned “Liberal” Media
L. pointed this out to me: One of the things that makes the news of the illegal Bush Administration domestic spying even more disturbing is the fact that the NY Times sat on the story for at least a year. The Times has explained that:
Yeah, right. And did the Administration also argue, sometime before, oh, let's say, November 2, 2004—election day—that revealing that it had absolutely no respect for the Fourth Amendment might, um, not be good for its chances in that little political contest? Nah, that never would have happened. I mean, the Times wouldn't have sat on a story that could have totally changed election results, right? It would never do something like that.
Posted 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Asian Provocations
Asian Provacateur has been stirring up some very interesting trouble recently. For example, have you heard about the Chappelle Theory? Asian Provocateur has. This makes a certain sense, but.... What is Chappelle saying/doing now?
Asian Provacateur also notes that the Bush Administration has been working on a Nike commercial. That's what this piece by Jack Cafferty on CNN suggests. The video there is worth watching. Let me just add one thing: Who cares about his so-called “mandate” (that never existed). Want to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney? Just do it!
Posted 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Republican Myths of Merit
A friend of mine recently received the following “joke” from a Republican friend of hers:
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is you friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”
Of course, my friend didn't find this very funny. In fact, it made her kind of mad. So after giving the matter a bit of thought, she sent the following back to her Republican friend:
As professor Mitchell ends his lecture on the socio-economic factors that determine class structure in the US, he runs his chalky fingers through his thick, black hair and continues, “So, as you can see, in what many conservatives today call the 'good ole days', marginal tax rates on the wealthy were about twice what they are today, which essentially freed the lower classes from the burden of financially supporting those public institutions from which they had yet to benefit.”
The newest republican promptly raises her hand to protest, “But, professor, why should the wealthy pay more? Poor people would be wealthy too if they weren't so lazy and irresponsible.”
Professor Mitchell raises his eyebrows and grins. “And wealthy people are wealthy because they work hard?”
“Well, yeah. My dad works hard. He tells me all the time. Once he told me 7 times in just 90 minutes that his job was hard work.”
“I think I remember what you're father does, but tell me, how did he acquire his wealth?”
“I think he was part-owner of a baseball team for awhile.”
“And what did he do there? Did he make smart investments for the team? Did he mow the grass on the fields?”
“No, he mostly just talked to people. You know, he networked.”
The professor suppresses an urge to chuckle.
“Why was he so successful at networking? What made people want to talk to him? Was it his brilliant oratorical skill?”
The class laughs.
“No, I think he was already a well-known businessman.”
“Was he well-known for his hard work? For his business acumen?”
“I don't really know.” she admits.
“Well, was he a successful businessman?”
“He had four companies- he must have been!”
Again, laughter erupts.
“More doesn't always mean merrier. Do you know why he had four companies?”
“No.” She begins to wonder where her professor is going with this.
“Well, I do. They went bankrupt. Each and every one of them.”
“But that doesn't make any sense! Why would people continue to trust him if he couldn't keep any of his businesses afloat?”
“That's an interesting question. Why do you think people kept bailing him out?”
She thinks for a minute and answers, “Because he's a good man... trustworthy... affable. And he went to a prestigious university.” she smiles and continues, “Not as prestigious as ours of course- Hook em' horns! Go Bevo!”
The class erupts in wild applause.
“O.K. Settle down, class. So what you're saying is that your father is an all around nice guy.”
“Yeah, with a great education to boot.”
“And how does one get into one of these schools like the one your father went to?”
Exasperated now, she answers “You know, professor. The usual- good grades, test scores.”
“Hmmm.” The professor takes a deep breath and continues. “You know, not everyone that has good grades and test scores get into those colleges.”
“They don't?”
“Not always. Sometimes it helps to have a family member that has also gone there. It's called a legacy. And you get extra points for being one.”
“Like extra-credit points?” she asks.
“Yep. Except you don't have to do any work yourself to get them.”
“Well, that doesn't seem fair.”
“No? Do you know if your father was a legacy?”
“Actually, I'm pretty sure Poppy went there, too.” She is visibly upset now. “But once my dad got there, he made the most of his opportunity. That has to count for something, doesn't it?”
“I hate to break this to you, but I actually went to school with your father. And he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Even when he was sober. And the worst part was he seemed proud of that fact. It was his badge of honor. He was the stereotypical frat boy.”
Three guys from Delta Felta Thi cheer from the back.
“Really? He never told me that? He sounds just like my friend Audrey.”
“So you see, Jenna, sometimes it has nothing to do with how hard you work. Laziness and irresponsibility can lead to wealth and power, too. And sometimes hard work leads nowhere if you don't know the right people.”
The professor gathers his things and announces “Class dismissed. Don't forget, midterms are Monday after the break!”
Jenna sits in silence as the class files out the door. She thinks to herself “my dad sure has a lot of explaining to do.”
A few days later, back at the ranch, Jenna confronts her father.
“Dad, you convinced me that in our society, the great thing is that deserving people are rewarded with wealth and the undeserving remain poor. My professor proved otherwise. He showed me that sometimes even the most undeserving among us rise to the top with the proper connections.”
“What?!” He's surprised to hear the tone in her voice. Can't she see he's busy clearing brush? “Was he talkin' bout that lazy, good for nuthin' friend a yers? What was her name again?”
“You mean Audrey? Audrey Delay?”
“Delay??? You didn't say she was Tom's little girl! She's a great gal- why, you let her know that when she graduates I'd be happy ta have her as my deputy chief of staff. You know, that position's opening up again.”
“But dad!” she shouts. “She doesn't deserve that!”
And that's when Dubya puts an arm around his daughter's shoulder and gives her another wink.
“Jenna, honey, being a republican means knowing that you and your friends are ALWAYS the deserving ones.”
How would you have replied to the original “joke”?
Posted 07:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Their Lies Have Consequences
This a bit old so perhaps you've seen it; if not, you should. The White House is literally trying to rewrite history. Watch the short video linked here of an Oct. 31 press briefing where spokesperson Scott MClellan says “that's accurate” in response to a question about the Scooter and Karl's involvement in outing Valerie Plame. The sound is pretty clear and the way his lips move, he can hardly be saying anything else. Yet the White House insists McClellan actually said “I don't think that's accurate.”
Every time I write about bullshit like this I wonder why I bother. Still, I can't help it because I still have some small capacity to be shocked by what American citizens are letting this administration get away with. Lies upon lies upon lies. The latest is the new offensive to claim that “everyone agreed we had to go to war.” Talk about rewriting history!
But just as I'm shocked, offended, and angered by these lies, I'm also nearly struck dumb with awe at the sheer audacity of these people. Bush attempts to rewrite history by accusing his critics of attempting to rewrite history! Orwell would be so very proud!
It's really not enough that this administration has lost popular support. The crimes of Bush and Cheney are so heinous that they need to be run out of town on a rail (so to speak), and the way to do that is to impeach the bums. And how can we do that? We can elect a Congress that will hold these liars accountable. One year from now, impeachment proceedings could begin. To paraphrase Captain Picard, let's make it so.
Posted 06:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Watching Cindy Sheehan Get Arrested
Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night in front of the White House as a result of a protest against the War in Iraq. I was in class when the protest started, but since the White House is only about 4 blocks from GW, I biked over after class managed to catch the cops giving their “final warning” to the protesters. Click here for a short movie of the warning, as well as two law students (myself and a classmate who biked over w/me) sounding silly as we speculate about what actual law these people were supposedly breaking. Apparently you need a permit to lay down on the sidewalk, but don't tell the homeless of this city!
We hung around and watched a bit but since we were forced to stand across the street, it was hard to see much. The police zip-tied the protesters hands and forced them to sit up, then they slowly took them, one-by-one, to the two trucks they had there to haul them away. One strange thing I noticed was that someone seemed to be taking a picture of each protester just before he/she was placed in the truck. The photographer didn't appear to be wearing a uniform, so was that a press person, or a lawyer, or a cop? Not a major fact, but it just seemed odd.
Sheehan says she's going to repeat this protest for four days. I'll take a vote: Should I go join her?
In my “PI Lawyering” class last week we talked about whether getting arrested for civil disobedience could be a problem for being admitted to the bar or getting a job. I argued that it wasn't a crime of moral turpitude so it shouldn't affect bar admittance too badly, and that if an employer didn't like something like that, I didn't want the job. Obviously such a position would dramatically narrow the range of jobs available, but I think the bar admittance thing is really the bigger question. Does anyone know anything about this? Do arrests for civil disobedience create problems for bar membership?
Posted 10:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Miers Withdraws Herself
NPR is reporting that Harriet Miers withdrew herself from the nomination process for the Supreme Court. I can't find anything online yet, but it should be up in a few minutes.
UPDATE 9:11 a.m.: Ok, the news is confirmed here.
UPDATE 10:45 a.m.: “Harriet Miers” has blackened “her” blog in morning over “her” withdrawal.
More important, check out the posts over at TG's Political Wire on this today. Check out this progression of stories:
- Reports that the White House was planning to deflect attention away from the indictments that are almost certainly coming from Plamegate.
- Reports that the Miers nomination is seriously going to decrease contributions to the Republican party.
- A quote arguing that the Christian right has taken over the Republican party. (Note that Christian conservatives were leading the fight against Miers.)
- And finally, Miers withdraws.
Note that even Miers' letter of withdrawal shows how inappropriate she was for the Supreme Court:
Even as a nominee for the Supreme Court she still speaks of the White House as something she's a part of. And they were trying to tell us she'd be able to separate herself from that on the bench. Right.
I heard someone argue recently that the Yubbledewers never intended Miers to be confirmed; rather, they nominated her knowing she'd fail but knowing also that no one could live up to the standard set by John Roberts. Therefore, the strategy was to put up someone really bad, so that whoever they put up next will seem that much better and people will care less that the next nominee just isn't up to the Roberts level. I disagree that Roberts set such a high bar, although it's funny how much better Roberts looks compared to Miers. Perhaps that was the strategy: Nominate someone totally not qualified just to etch more deeply the impression that Roberts really is qualified.
Ok, I'll stop w/the baseless speculation. This news speaks for itself in enough ways you won't need my rants to put it into context. Although I will say one more cynical thing: Brace yourself because if you thought Miers was bad I'm betting you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Posted 09:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Republicans on the Run
Have you noticed what's going on these days? Yubbledew's approval ratings continue to plummet (with key supporters drifting), and there are so many different scandals and investigations and indictments and criminal proceedings involving Republicans at the moment that I can't even keep up with it all. Some people have suggested this is just the kind of stuff that happens in a second term, and it's true that during the Clinton years we saw plenty of scandals, indictments, and investigations. But that only throws what's happening now into sharper relief b/c during the latter half of the Clinton years the Republicans took control of Congress and therefore had a much better position from which to launch investigations. What's most incredible about all of this is that the Republicans control every branch of government, yet they still can't stop the investigations and indictments. Oh, and now Republicans are at war with each other over the Miers nomination.
No wonder Yubbledew is once again pulling out the “be very afraid” schtick to beat us with, as Arianna Huffington notes:
That is, until the details of exactly which “serious” plots the president was referring to came out. . . . In other words, it was a Top 10 list more suited to Letterman than a major presidential speech. . . . If this is the best the White House has, then I’m really scared. . . . When asked why the White House would include so many alleged, vague, and seemingly half-baked schemes in a triumphant list of thwarted terrorist plots, yet another federal counter-terrorism official said: “Everyone is allowed to count in their own way.” Especially if they are President of the United States. And have an approval rating of 37%.
The “be very afraid” routine may have gotten Bush elected, but it's looking pretty pathetic today. Can we have the 2006 mid-term elections now, please?
Posted 09:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Getting Green
The polar ice caps are melting, and that only speeds global warming. We're running out of oil and even Yubbledew is asking people to conserve. (I'm still in shock about that one.) We've got problems, people.
That's why one of the highlights for me at the D.C. Green Festival on Sunday was listening to Lester Brown, director of the Earth Policy Institute, and author of Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. The following are just some notes I jotted down while listening to him speak.
First, the Earth Policy Institute recently learned that for the first time China is now consuming more than the U.S. in four of five basic resources—grain, meat, coal, and steel. The only thing the U.S. still leads in is oil. (Surprise.) That's total consumption. If China catches up to us in per capita terms, which it will do by 2031 at its current rate of growth, China will need: 2/3 of the current global grain harvest, 300 million tons of paper/year (world output today is only 156 million tons/year), and 99 million barrels of oil/day (total world output today is only 81 million barrels/day). If Chinese citizens owned cars at the rate Americans own them, China would have a fleet of 1.1 billion cars; the current world car fleet is only 800 million cars.
The point of this is that the western economic model will not work for China. It won't work for India, which will have more people than China by 2031. It won't work for most of the world, and it can no longer work for us. We're running out of resources and the results are going to be catostrophic if we don't do something. (Speaking to this point, Brown also recommends Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond.
So what do we do? Plan B.
If everyone who owns a car in the U.S. owned a Prius we would cut daily fuel consumption by half. If we added a second battery to those Priuses and added a charging plug so we could plug them in at night (so they could run longer on electric only w/out the gas engine kicking in), the vast majority of daily driving in the U.S. could be powered by electricity alone. And if we invested massively in wind power, all of that electricity would be generated w/out polluting the environment or using up some non-renewable resource.
Biodiesel figures in somehow—comes from soybeans. Ethanol from sugar cane could also replace lots of our oil consumption. Brazil currently gets 40% of its automotive fuel from cane ethanol and it may soon get much more.
By 2020, 50-100% of European households could get their electricity from wind power, depending on how quickly Europe continues to invest in this resource. Just three states (North Dakota, Texas, and third I missed) have enough wind and land to build wind farms available to provide all U.S. energy needs via wind power. We just have to build the wind farms! (No need for the “nukuler” energy Bush wants to invest in.)
Brown said he's not discouraged about the future because often social change comes very quickly and we can't anticipate it. For example, look at what happened in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. One day it was the communist bloc, the next it was a bunch of democracies. Or look at December 6, 1941. If you had polled Americans on December 5, 1941 about whether the U.S. should get involved in WWII, the answer would have been a resounding “No.” But after December 6, that turned around completely. We also followed that by restructuring the economy almost overnight to produce all the ships, tanks, aircraft, guns, and ammo required for the war. How did we do that? We made the sale of private automobiles illegal and converted auto factories into munitions factories. So we've revolutionized our economy before on short notice; we can and need to do it again.
One way to make this happen is to force the market to be honest about the cost of our actions. For example, the cost to society of smoking is about $7/pack. The production cost of cigarettes is about $2/pack. So the total cost of a pack of cigarettes really should be $9/pack. In another example, the cost to society of burning a gallon of gas is about $9, so added to the current price at the pump, a gallon of gas should cost about $12/gal.
To convert our economy and our lifestyles to sustainable methods would cost money. But put it in perspective. The U.S. budget for Iraq is $400-500 billion and climbing. That's roughly equal to the total annual spending of the rest of the world combined. To do everything called for in Plan B would cost about $150 billion worldwide of additional spending.
And we need to do this. Terrorism is a threat to our future, but not as big a threat as climate change, population growth, water scarcity, or the lack of planning to deal with these issues. The key solution is grassroots political action. Saving civilization is not a spectator sport; we all have to be involved.
Reality Testing Yubbledew: Election '04 to Katrina
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are not satisfied with the Bush administration's response to hurricane Katrina. Some are saying that the response was so bad it's caused some sort of crisis of confidence in the ability of our government to do the right thing and protect American values and interests in times of great stress.
Of course, I'm thrilled that my fellow Americans are finally waking up to the fact that this administration is not only incompetent but nearly pathologically focused on its own agenda and interests at the expense of what's best for the American people and the rest of the world. Thank goodness people are finally waking up!
But, um, how is it that an administration can start a war based on lies, send thousands of American soldiers to their deaths, be responsible for killing thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, and increase hostility against the U.S. all around the world because of all this aggression—how is it that this administration could do all this and still win the 2004 election!? And why now, after the tragic lack of response to hurricane Katrina, are Americans finally saying “enough!”?
I think I understand this apparent mystery, but I'm not sure. First, a little psychoanalysis for you:
Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning With Unconscious Racism, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 317, 332 (Jan. 1987).
This is basically what I said after the 2004 presidential election—the horror of what the Bush administration had done in its first term was so great it created a sort of paralysis on the part of those who could sort of see what was going on. If there's a silver lining in the federal government's completely inept response to hurricane Katrina, it's that a majority of Americans finally became—at least for a few days—so shocked, so appalled, so horrified that the defensive mechanism that had previously forced them to deny how awful this administration is turned around and urged them to demand some accountability.
Bush's approval rating is now at an all-time low. How long will it be before our overly-developed psychological coping mechanisms overcome our critical faculties once more? Bush has now promised to spend “unprecedented amounts” of federal money to help rebuild the region affected by the hurricane. Can he buy his way out of this? And do we really want that, knowing that this administration has demonstrated that its number one spending priority seems to be to transfer as much federal money as possible into the hands of private corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel? In addition, it has already said that workers hired in the rebuilding effort will have to work for substandard wages. From where I sit, Bush's speech last night can do nothing to change the fact that this administration doesn't care about the average American; it cares about the corporate American, the only “person” it will ever love.
Be that as it may, the question remains: Why did Katrina wake a majority of Americans up when the Iraq war didn't? Does it have anything to do w/coping and repression? Was the horror of the lack of response to Katrina somehow greater than the horror of waging a war of aggression based on lies? If so, what would that say about our country? Or is it simply that the horror of the lack of response to Katrina was so immediate and obvious and unambiguous, whereas people were able to construct some sort of plausible rationale for accepting Bush's war?
Posted 09:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Kurt Vonnegut is my hero.
For the past week or so life around the imbroglio has been almost completely tv-free because, for various reasons, we temporarily had no cable. The cable has now been fixed, which allowed me to watch a recent episode of The Daily Show which featured an interview with Kurt Vonnegut. One Good Move has the interview available here, and it's totally worth your five minutes to watch. As others have noted, Vonnegut is still very much on his game, dishing out the dark irony better than just about anyone else does. A couple of choice quotes:
And:
Posted 06:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Katrina: Police Behaving Badly
Sean over at Objective Justice has been tracking news about police participating in looting in New Orleans. I was actually skeptical at first b/c the whole looting angle is something I expect the media is blowing way way way out of proportion because it gives it something sensational to talk about and because looting is perversely more palatable than “gee, this is a human tragedy and no one really seems to be doing much about it.” However, it seems pretty clear that the cops—at least some of them—are part of the problem. Salon reports that in the French Quarter the cops were using their guns and authority to protect their barbecue from hungry residents: