I was completely flabbergasted to hear that the Obama Justice Department (once again following in the bloody footsteps of the Bush Administration) actually argued to block the release of transcripts of Cheney’s testimony before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame treasonous-outing-for-political-gain case. Their argument? That it would inhibit future vice presidents from cooperating in investigations out of fear that their testimony will end up as fodder for The Daily Show. You can’t make shit like this up, you know.
Never mind that all politicians have figured out by now that they will never be prosecuted for anything they do in office, up to and including torture and murder.* That would be “looking backward, not forward;” being “partisan” and “vindictive”! Now they’re actually suggesting that politicians should be exempt from ridicule. . . by comedians?!?!?!
Pooow widduw Wichud Cheney! He might git his widduw feewings huwt!
Perhaps he should have thought of the remote possibility that he would be subject to public scrutiny—possibly even ridicule—before he went into politics. Or before he agreed to be a presidential running mate. Or before he became an international war criminal. Or before he WENT ON NETWORK TELEVISION time after time after time admitting his war crimes for the world to see and hear.
Thank goodness and reason that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called bullshit on that defense! (At least sort of. At least for now.)
Stay tuned for the next episode of As the World Turns. . . Totally Bonkers.
*obviously, blow jobs and gay sex are not protected by this unwritten Beltway rule
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Does the Right Want a Civil War?
This terrific article by Sara Robinson lays it all out there. It's truly a question which demands an answer (though, actually, I believe the question is largely rhetorical).
Friday, June 12, 2009
Why I Hate Kay Bailey Hutchison
Well, because she's a lying, disingenuous, partisan hack—and always has been.
While I must admit that Senator Hutchison’s office is one of the best I’ve ever dealt with as far as consistently responding to my communications, the response is usually something akin to: “Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding ‘Issue X.’ I think your position is utterly asinine, and you are obviously a stupid democrat asshole, but I appreciate hearing from you. You can be assured that I will do exactly the opposite of everything you suggest. Suck on that. Sincerely, KBH.”
I just received this response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office:
First of all, we all know by now—pretty much beyond any doubt—that “interrogation methods” (read: “torture”) were never “employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information.” Torture was used to elicit false confessions to give Bush/Cheney, their Neocon base, and Congressional enablers political cover for their imperialistic war of aggression in Iraq. It never had anything to do with national security. KBH knows that and knows everyone else knows it.
Next, she goes on to say, “I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country. . . .” This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have always maintained: KBH is evil, sadistic, hateful, and ignorant. Besides the fact that it is widely accepted by true experts in interrogation methods and in national security that “these techniques” neither yield reliable information nor serve to protect our country, this is an odd view for a someone who claims that her religious faith is very important to her role as a U.S. Senator (see this 2002 interview by Toby Druin in the Baptist Standard). As I wrote here, “Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!”
Third, her assertion that “I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent” is utterly absurd and patently false. Obviously, anyone who truly believes that criminal wrongdoing, violation of federal and international laws, and evisceration of the Constitution are “policy differences” has absolutely no business in the U.S. Senate. And anyone who’s under the impression that “prosecution of officials of any previous Administration” is “counter to historical precedent” must have failed history, civics, and political science courses and needs to give back those degrees from the University of Texas (maybe she was too busy practicing her cheers).
Finally, she certainly didn’t learn that “the prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition” in her law classes—even if she could whitewash the contorted opinions of Yoo, Bybee, Addington, et. al. as “legitimate legal counsel.”
I’m sorry, Kay. You’re obviously much more stupid than you think your constituents are. Your time pretending to represent me is up. Get the hell out of Washington!
While I must admit that Senator Hutchison’s office is one of the best I’ve ever dealt with as far as consistently responding to my communications, the response is usually something akin to: “Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding ‘Issue X.’ I think your position is utterly asinine, and you are obviously a stupid democrat asshole, but I appreciate hearing from you. You can be assured that I will do exactly the opposite of everything you suggest. Suck on that. Sincerely, KBH.”
I just received this response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding interrogation methods employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information from terrorist suspects. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
President Barack Obama and other Congressional and Administration officials have left open the possibility of prosecuting past Bush Administration officials in the Office of Legal Counsel and other offices that were involved in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” While I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country, I deem their use secondary to the larger issue.
I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent. The prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
First of all, we all know by now—pretty much beyond any doubt—that “interrogation methods” (read: “torture”) were never “employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information.” Torture was used to elicit false confessions to give Bush/Cheney, their Neocon base, and Congressional enablers political cover for their imperialistic war of aggression in Iraq. It never had anything to do with national security. KBH knows that and knows everyone else knows it.
Next, she goes on to say, “I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country. . . .” This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have always maintained: KBH is evil, sadistic, hateful, and ignorant. Besides the fact that it is widely accepted by true experts in interrogation methods and in national security that “these techniques” neither yield reliable information nor serve to protect our country, this is an odd view for a someone who claims that her religious faith is very important to her role as a U.S. Senator (see this 2002 interview by Toby Druin in the Baptist Standard). As I wrote here, “Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!”
Third, her assertion that “I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent” is utterly absurd and patently false. Obviously, anyone who truly believes that criminal wrongdoing, violation of federal and international laws, and evisceration of the Constitution are “policy differences” has absolutely no business in the U.S. Senate. And anyone who’s under the impression that “prosecution of officials of any previous Administration” is “counter to historical precedent” must have failed history, civics, and political science courses and needs to give back those degrees from the University of Texas (maybe she was too busy practicing her cheers).
Finally, she certainly didn’t learn that “the prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition” in her law classes—even if she could whitewash the contorted opinions of Yoo, Bybee, Addington, et. al. as “legitimate legal counsel.”
I’m sorry, Kay. You’re obviously much more stupid than you think your constituents are. Your time pretending to represent me is up. Get the hell out of Washington!
Monday, June 8, 2009
Exploring the (shallow) Recesses of the Conservative Mind
I just spent the weekend with scads of family members who are very religiously and politically conservative (not necessarily in that order of importance). I’m always amazed (sometimes even doubtful) that we actually share any DNA.
Before one even has a conversation with them, the script can pretty much be written by surveying the cars they drive. Suburbans, minivans, and Ford F150s rule the day—every one of them adorned with bumper stickers reading “W,” “Support the Troops,” “I’ll keep my Guns, Freedom, and Money. You Can Keep the ‘Change’,” and, of course, “Gig’em Aggies.” The one that really got me this time was a sticker bearing the words, “Annoy a Liberal; Read the Constitution.” My head started spinning like Linda Blair in The Exorcist; I had to stop and take deep, slow breaths, convinced that projectile vomiting was close behind.
To be sure, my family is made up of otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. Certainly they know HOW to read. But this was such a blatant, textbook case of Freudian Projection, I scarcely knew where to begin deconstructing the disconnect. I’m confident there are some conservatives who have actually read the Constitution. Some may even be able to quote a sentence or two. But these folks—the same ones who read the pornographically violent comic-book fiction of “Left Behind” as if it were a how-to manual, must think of the Constitution as historical fiction.
When I was growing up, preachers in my fundamentalist church were fond of decrying the “librul” christians for practicing what they called “cafeteria-style religion.” In other words, these semi-heathen, bound-for-hell, pseudo Christians, went through the bible picking and choosing the parts they like and passing over the rest, a la Sunday lunch at Luby’s. You’d think the fundamentalists might have seen a bit of selective literalism in their own practices. (These are, after all the folks who are militantly “Pro Life,” meaning, of course, pro UNBORN life. Anyone whose head has already popped out of the womb is deprived of such compassion—particularly Muslims and abortion doctors).
After witnessing eight years of the travesties of the Bush/Cheney Administration, endlessly cheered on by the radical “religious” right, it’s hard to imagine these folks as the defenders of the Constitution. In fact, I think the right is guilty of “cafeteria-style constitutional democracy.” I can just imagine that lunch line: “No that ‘right to a trial by a jury of peers’ bit, that’s a bit like brussel sprouts—leave that off my plate. That ‘illegal search and seizure’ thing, I’ll pass. Oh, give me a double helping of that ‘right to bear arms’ casserole; those guns are just so yummy! No, no, don’t want any of that ‘due process’ crap.”
Then, it really is hard to take seriously a group whose spokespeople are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly (who are so obviously and deeply unhinged that they must be one missed dose of Prozac—or would that be OxyContin?—away from being fitted for one of those lovely backward white jackets and locked away). And they think “24” and Fox News are for real while evolution is “only a theory.”
OK, let’s review the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America—the “Bill of Rights.”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We’ll give them credit for the “right to bear arms” in spite of the fact that they take it totally out of the context of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The rest… not so much (but, hey, one out of ten ain’t bad).
So, conservatives, if you want to have a discussion about the Constitution, I say, “bring it on!” (oh, wait, maybe that phrase elicits some extra-constitutional references, like maybe Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have the power to… declare war….”) I think my new bumper sticker will say, “Note to Conservatives: You go ahead and read it; we’re pretty busy protecting and defending it!”
Before one even has a conversation with them, the script can pretty much be written by surveying the cars they drive. Suburbans, minivans, and Ford F150s rule the day—every one of them adorned with bumper stickers reading “W,” “Support the Troops,” “I’ll keep my Guns, Freedom, and Money. You Can Keep the ‘Change’,” and, of course, “Gig’em Aggies.” The one that really got me this time was a sticker bearing the words, “Annoy a Liberal; Read the Constitution.” My head started spinning like Linda Blair in The Exorcist; I had to stop and take deep, slow breaths, convinced that projectile vomiting was close behind.
To be sure, my family is made up of otherwise intelligent, well-educated people. Certainly they know HOW to read. But this was such a blatant, textbook case of Freudian Projection, I scarcely knew where to begin deconstructing the disconnect. I’m confident there are some conservatives who have actually read the Constitution. Some may even be able to quote a sentence or two. But these folks—the same ones who read the pornographically violent comic-book fiction of “Left Behind” as if it were a how-to manual, must think of the Constitution as historical fiction.
When I was growing up, preachers in my fundamentalist church were fond of decrying the “librul” christians for practicing what they called “cafeteria-style religion.” In other words, these semi-heathen, bound-for-hell, pseudo Christians, went through the bible picking and choosing the parts they like and passing over the rest, a la Sunday lunch at Luby’s. You’d think the fundamentalists might have seen a bit of selective literalism in their own practices. (These are, after all the folks who are militantly “Pro Life,” meaning, of course, pro UNBORN life. Anyone whose head has already popped out of the womb is deprived of such compassion—particularly Muslims and abortion doctors).
After witnessing eight years of the travesties of the Bush/Cheney Administration, endlessly cheered on by the radical “religious” right, it’s hard to imagine these folks as the defenders of the Constitution. In fact, I think the right is guilty of “cafeteria-style constitutional democracy.” I can just imagine that lunch line: “No that ‘right to a trial by a jury of peers’ bit, that’s a bit like brussel sprouts—leave that off my plate. That ‘illegal search and seizure’ thing, I’ll pass. Oh, give me a double helping of that ‘right to bear arms’ casserole; those guns are just so yummy! No, no, don’t want any of that ‘due process’ crap.”
Then, it really is hard to take seriously a group whose spokespeople are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly (who are so obviously and deeply unhinged that they must be one missed dose of Prozac—or would that be OxyContin?—away from being fitted for one of those lovely backward white jackets and locked away). And they think “24” and Fox News are for real while evolution is “only a theory.”
OK, let’s review the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America—the “Bill of Rights.”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We’ll give them credit for the “right to bear arms” in spite of the fact that they take it totally out of the context of “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The rest… not so much (but, hey, one out of ten ain’t bad).
So, conservatives, if you want to have a discussion about the Constitution, I say, “bring it on!” (oh, wait, maybe that phrase elicits some extra-constitutional references, like maybe Article I, Section 8: “Congress shall have the power to… declare war….”) I think my new bumper sticker will say, “Note to Conservatives: You go ahead and read it; we’re pretty busy protecting and defending it!”
Thursday, June 4, 2009
A New Beginning--Obama's Speech at Cairo University
This is rather remarkable. Five months into his presidency, Obama has challenged Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, all the Muslim world, and the United States in ways that surpass all the efforts of the last four presidents combined.
I have not been silent in my criticisms of Obama’s embrace—and in many cases, expansion—of the abuses of power of the Bush administration. I caucused for Obama in my district and voted for him. It is our duty to support our elected leaders when they lead honorably. And to hope that a president fails (and to continually work to effect that failure) is nothing short of treason. However, I believe that We The People must constantly challenge our president and all our elected leaders and demand that they uphold our Constitution and represent us. That goes for a president of any party, no matter how eloquent and polished his or her demeanor or oratory. (And it is certainly refreshing to once again have a president—the “leader of the free world”—who can communicate with skills surpassing that of a kindergartener.)
This speech has its holes and incongruities. But it is extraordinarily bold and deserves much praise.
I have not been silent in my criticisms of Obama’s embrace—and in many cases, expansion—of the abuses of power of the Bush administration. I caucused for Obama in my district and voted for him. It is our duty to support our elected leaders when they lead honorably. And to hope that a president fails (and to continually work to effect that failure) is nothing short of treason. However, I believe that We The People must constantly challenge our president and all our elected leaders and demand that they uphold our Constitution and represent us. That goes for a president of any party, no matter how eloquent and polished his or her demeanor or oratory. (And it is certainly refreshing to once again have a president—the “leader of the free world”—who can communicate with skills surpassing that of a kindergartener.)
This speech has its holes and incongruities. But it is extraordinarily bold and deserves much praise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
