Dear Tennessee:
I know you do things differently down here. I've noticed that you call pasta "noodles," but I'm not judging you. Today when the waiter said to me, "oh, you don't got no coffee cup" I didn't giggle, because he was awfully polite. And I have found your countrysides to be luxuriant with verdure, your property values impressive, your regional literary tradition truly kickass. But I do have one teensy complaint.
Not one of your restrooms contains toilet seat covers. Not in the airport, not in the McDonalds, not in the gas station, the old folks' home, the pub, the steakhouse, the Cracker Barrel or the public restroom near the walking path by the river did I find them. It would seem, Tennessee, that you just don't "do" toilet seat covers. And I find that interesting.
Very interesting.
Yours Until Next Friday,
Tart
Let's Write A Letter
The Virtual Bar Is Open
<—— This is a just-opened bottle of pinot grigio. And I'm gonna drink it!
I don't know about you guys, but I was ready for an early Virtual Bar tonight. New posts will fall below.
So...what's on your mind? As always: Have a drink. Leave a link. Tell us what you think.
And then have another drink. I know you need it.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
Caption This Photo
and nobody likes me.
Vice President Dick Cheney … listens as President Bush makes remarks to the media … Friday, Sept. 29, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
A Little Clarification
Something I failed to make clear in my earlier post is that the Dems’ complete failure on the torture vote—silence the week before; no filibuster; split voting; general timidity against this astounding rubbish—makes me loathe to accept the premise that, even if the Dems win one House of Congress, they’ll deliver on the gossamer promise to stop this madness in its tracks.
The argument for tactical voting is predicated on the assumption that the Dems will do what we hope—block outrageous SCOTUS appointments, restore the rule of law, guarantee fair elections, etc.—but what if they don’t? That question is haunting me today in a way it hasn’t before, explicitly because of their performance regarding the torture bill.
If you totally believe that the Democrats will deliver, as I did before now, then of course voting Dem is the only principled option. But if you have concerns, as I do now, that voting for the Dems could mean tacitly voting for the Bush agenda, then voting Dem could mean complicity in what’s happening (which is what I’m referencing when I talk about my principles).
And that’s what I’m really thinking about today. Do I believe that the Democrats are still willing to mount a vociferous opposition, given the majority?
It’s taken as read by many people that they are. I’m not so willing, after the torture vote, to give them that benefit of the doubt. Not today, anyway. Which is why I said I need time and distance to consider the question from a different perspective.
(And, bear in mind, I’m coming at this from the perspective of someone who would be voting for an unchallenged Democratic Representative, so my vote is basically symbolic. The Dems have given me no alternative to my Republican Senator, who is also running unchallenged; obviously I won’t be voting for him. I might feel differently, even right this moment, if my vote would actually make a difference.)
Foley Resigns
(Background here.)
Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from Congress today after “ABC News questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former congressional pages under the age of 18.” In addition to the questionable emails sent to a 16-year-old former page, the IM messages, which “made repeated references to sexual organs and acts,” were also found.
The GOP will have to appoint a new chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which Foley will vacate with his departure. You can’t make this shit up.
(Thanks to Constant Comment for the link.)
Stuff Update
More stuff happens. Who can forget what a genius Donald Rumsfeld was way back when. CNN:
Donald Rumsfeld's Iraqi war plan worked beautifully for three weeks. U.S. troops quickly deposed Saddam Hussein and captured Baghdad with a relatively small force and with lightning speed.
But with Iraq on the verge of civil war three years later, the secretary of defense now admits that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended.
"Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is," Rumsfeld told CNN for the documentary, "CNN Presents Rumsfeld -- Man of War," which debuts Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.
More stuff happens. The old boxing adage says every boxer has a plan until he gets hit. Rumseld quite famously was a wrestler. Obviously he sees now there are a few more rounds to go.
Strange timing. The Rumsfeld special will immediately follow the Bob Woodward bookfest on CBS's Sixty Minutes, where the wooden one reveals again Andy Card and Laura Bush both wanted Rumsfeld out.
Hindsight: Back in November Rumsfeld denied there was an insurgency "This is a group of people who don’t merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I’ll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I’m sure you will."
Damn Dems
Part whatever in an ongoing series.
Greg at The Talent Show takes a lookat the 5 ½ Democrats up for reelection who voted for the torture bill. I’ll just give you a taste:
Graduating from the ranks of "Who's the hell is that guy?" is Thomas Carper of Delaware, who's in a tough reelection battle against Republican Jan Ting. How tough? Well, with little more than a month before election day, he's only got a 40-point lead over his challenger. That must explain why he was so quick to jump on the anti-habeas corpus bandwagon. Those wedge issues can be a bitch.Uh huh. Who couldn’t forgive someone for saving his ass by selling out America in such a tight race, eh? Cripes.
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald argues (and Maha agrees) that we still need to support the Damn Dems, because taking over at least one House of Congress is really our only conceivable option to “restore the rule of law to our country and to put an immediate end to the unlimited reign of the increasingly sociopathic Bush movement.”
I found his argument regarding the Supreme Court most compelling: “One of the five pro-Constitution Justices, John Paul Stevens, is 86 years old. If George Bush has free reign to replace Stevens, it will mean that the Supreme Court will be composed of a very young five-Justice majority of absolute worshippers of Executive Power—Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and New Justice—which will control the Court and endorse unlimited executive abuses for decades to come.”
That said, I must frankly admit that, in the wake of the stunning bipartisan passage of this historical and devastating legislation, I am feeling very torn between the dispassionate reasonableness such pragmatism demands and the passion of my own beliefs, which has left me reeling at the betrayal by the Dems who voted for this legislation and at the entire party who managed only to unite in their decision to stretch out and wait during the run-up to this vote—united in utter silence, until the very last moment, once the charade of Republican dissent had yielded nothing (again). Beautifully unanimous in their decision to do precisely nothing before the vote, and fractured during it, they should be truly, deeply ashamed of themselves, and there’s a part of me (a big part) that feels I would betray my own principles, that I would be ashamed of myself, to support them in the future, no matter how practical, how logical, how reasonable it may be.
There are plenty of people who use the excuse that no party really represents their interests to justify a lack of political participation, but many of these people just don’t care about politics, anyway. I do. I desperately want to vote for people I admire, people I respect. I want my vote to be for someone specific, rather than against an agenda. I want to proud of my vote. I want to vote my principles.
All I know today is that it is not the day to make my decision. I need distance and time from this moment to reflect on what it means to me to support or not support the Democrats—which, in my state, means not supporting anyone at all this election. I need to consider whether stubbornly holding onto my principles necessitates not supporting the Democrats, and, if it does, whether doing so is really worth it. Or whether a country that forces a choice between its salvation and my integrity even has a place for me in it anymore.
Mad as Hell, Not Taking Any More
I think the Democrats, in particular, these award-winning immoral cowards, haven't the slightest idea how large the response to their complacency towards Bush's mad power grabs is going to be.
Thunder on the Mountain: The Murderers of Democracy
Who are these people? Who are these useless hanks of bone and fat that call themselves Senators of the United States? Let’s call them what they really are, let’s speak the truth about what they’ve done today with their votes on the bill to enshrine Bush's gulag of torture and endless detention into American law.More at the link, including an audio file of the author (Chris Floyd) reading his post.
Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Sold our liberty to keep their coddled, corrupt backsides squatting in the Beltway gravy a little longer.
Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Cowards and slaves, giving up our most ancient freedoms to a dull-eyed, dim-witted pipsqueak and his cohort of bagmen, cranks and degenerate toadies. For make no mistake: despite all the lies and distorted media soundbites, the draconian strictures of this bill apply to American citizens as well as to all them devilish foreigners.
Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Traitors to the nation, filthy time-servers and bootlickers, turning America into a rogue state, an open champion of torture, repression and terror.
Who are they? The murderers of democracy.
Threw our freedom on the ground and raped it, beat it, shot it, stuck their knives into it and set it on fire.
Shakes and I have often discussed the "straw" moment, where the camel's back of Bush's plunder would finally be broken, and how amazed we were that this had not yet happened. We thought it would be the Downing Street Memo. Then, it had to be Katrina, for sure. Then, it had to be the wiretapping. None of these apparently were enough motivation. Sure, people were furious, and there's always been plenty of anger directed at the Democrats for their spinelessness, but this... this looks like a powderkeg.
I've never seen this much anger directed at the Democrats. People are enraged and feeling betrayed. Their attempts to lie low and appear "tough on terror" has backfired on these cowards.
Greg:
Is it just me or is every major Democratic defeat in the Senate always preceded by barn-burner speeches from Senators Kerry, Feingold, Dodd, Obama, Kennedy, Biden, and others? I'm getting tired of this shit. It's not enough to say the right things, you need to do the right things.It's time to get the talkers out of office.
This will not be forgotten in November.
More here and here.
Tip 'o the Energy Dome to This Modern World.
(I've had all I can stans, I can't stans no more!)
Shocker
Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq. Whoopty-shit. I’ve reached my threshold as regards getting my panties in a bunch over some fresh horror in the never-ending string of Bush Administration Fuck-Up revelations. When I know there’s no one who’s going to do a goddamn thing about it, it just doesn’t seem like there’s any point to getting angry.
When someone, anyone, holds these miscreants accountable for anything, that’ll be a headline to which I’ll have some kind of emotional reaction, other than disappointingly hollow resignation. I don’t care if it’s the GOP, or the Dems, or the American voters on election day, but until I see the merest suggestion that this fuck-up won’t be buried in a forgotten grave with all the rest, that the day might come when Bush can’t get away with anything and everything, I’m just going to report it without so much as a exclamation point.
I'm a Cool Nerd, Baby
78 % Nerd, 60% Geek, 47% Dork
Me? A nerd? I never would have believed it.
For The Record:A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Nerd and Geek, earning you the title of: Modern, Cool Nerd.
Nerds didn't use to be cool, but in the 90's that all changed. It used to be that, if you were a computer expert, you had to wear plaid or a pocket protector or suspenders or something that announced to the world that you couldn't quite fit in. Not anymore. Now, the intelligent and geeky have eked out for themselves a modicum of respect at the very least, and "geek is chic." The Modern, Cool Nerd is intelligent, knowledgable and always the person to call in a crisis (needing computer advice/an arcane bit of trivia knowledge). They are the one you want as your lifeline in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (or the one up there, winning the million bucks)!
Congratulations!
And The Threats Begin
Get this (bolds mine):
Gonzales Cautions Judges on Interfering
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is defending
President Bush's anti-terrorism tactics in multiple court battles, said Friday that federal judges should not substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.
He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.
"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.
And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.
"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot — and should not — be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches.
So.
The Constitution does not apply when pushing through a bill that many are calling unconstitutional. However, the Constitution does make the President all-powerful. He's the Decider.
Judges are not immune from public criticism. However, under this bill, the President is.
"Humility" applies to judges. However, it does not apply to the President.
These men have done nothing but spit on the Constitution since they came into power, and yet, they wave it in the Supreme Court's face when their power may be threatened in the slightest.
I'm living in a cuckoo clock.
Listen to Coturnix
He knows that of which he speaks:
Many of my friends and neighbors have not experienced, like I did in Yugoslavia of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the gradual transformation from a nice, sweet, prosperous, freedom-loving country into a bunch of thugs duking it out over land and religion. Tito was dead for ten years. Prime Minister was Ante Markovic. Thousands of small businesses were starting up every week. Small people were getting rich. There was ebullience in the air.Go read the whole thing.
Then, in a manner eerily reminiscent of BuchCo, thugs like Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic hijacked the government and started a civil war...
Rude and Crude in the Grand Old Party
Puellasolis passed on this link, which details not one, not two, but four incidents of George Allen spitting tobacco at women’s feet.
And the AP reports that Conrad Burns—who wasn’t content to simply call Arabs “rag heads” and challenge the legal status of the “nice little Guatemalan man” who does his house painting—is now laying in on Italians and mocking Swedes.
The Montana senator, facing a tough re-election fight against Democrat Jon Tester, was heading an aviation subcommittee hearing of the Commerce Committee when two FAA officials, Michael Cirillo and Nicholas Sabatini, introduced themselves as witnesses.Certainly not the worst things that Burns has ever said, but they reiterate the point that he just can’t see people as anything but their ethnicity. His office’s defense is that Burns doesn’t take offense to Robin Williams’ routine about Scotsmen. Yeah, well, neither do most Scottish-Americans—because he’s a comedian, not a sitting Senator.
"I'm wondering if that's all they're hiring," Burns said of the federal agency.
…Also during Thursday's hearing, Burns asked witness Matt Andersson, senior aviation consultant for CRA International, about the spelling of his name. Andersson said it's the Swedish spelling.
"Oh, ja," Burns replied in a mock Swedish accent.
Happy Xmas (Race War is Over)
The much-touted and widely-criticized "race war" portion of Survivor: Cook Islands has been abruptly halted. "Mixed-race" teams now the norm. If only the United States had abandoned segregation as quickly.
(Cross-posted.)
The Most Unpopular Kid on the Playground
Here's something to cheer you up... how is the rest of the world looking at us, now that we've embraced torture as an American value?
Finland:
Finland President Criticizes Proposed Terror Legislation
President Tarja Halonen says that it is a mistake for the US administration to try to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention banning cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners. She feels that in the war against terror, it is important not to become like those who do ignore international treaties.France:
"Non-democracy and violations of human rights are a contagious disease."
"I believe that results that have been achieved should not be broken. We must see the risks to security from a different angle", Halonen said in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat during the UN General Assembly.
Congress 'Capitulates' to Bush on Torture
The pressure exerted over the past few weeks by George Bush, to obtain a law from the Congress to validate decisions he made in the name of his "war on terror," is about to bear fruit.Colombia:
Republican senators who had resisted the White House say that they have reached a compromise that respects human rights. But the truth is that this apparent victory hides a capitulation on a vital point: the President of the United States sees himself as having the right to authorize the CIA to employ methods of interrogation that respect neither American law nor international law codified under the Geneva Conventions. It is quite clear, that the agency will still resort to torture, as it has very likely done for the last four or five years, in detention centers located outside of the United States and kept secret.
[...]
At a time when an "intelligence community" report, divulged by The New York Times, estimates that the Iraq occupation has not lessened the terrorist threat, but has, on the contrary, made it worse, Mr. Bush is using his usual card: to play on the fear of terrorism before thinking of ways to counter it. If the United States passes a law authorizing the use of torture, their enemies will have won a victory.
Bush as Bad as bin Laden? In Some Ways, Worse
Of course there are differences between Osama bin Laden, ringleader of a theocratic terrorist movement and George Bush, a popularly elected president of the most powerful democracy in the world. Nevertheless, the two have done comparable damage to the United States and the rest of the world: bin Laden with his insane and merciless crusade, Bush with his policy of illegal war and combat methods rejected under universal legal norms: illegal detentions, torture and kangaroo courts ...
Gee, and most of this was written before Bush got exactly what he wanted.
So much for good will.
(It's the end of the cross-post as we know it...)
Unbelievable
Shaker SpaceCowboy just reported back on having contacted the offices of his two Democratic Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez, for voting for the torture bill. Both offices explained that the Senators voted for the amendments, and when they failed, they felt compelled to vote for the bill, anyway, because their choice was vote for it or do nothing.
SpaceCowboy expressed his concern about war critics possibly being deemed enemy combatants. The Lautenberg staffer “seems to think that our rights of speech and assembly would protect us.” The Menendez staffer “thought my comment about anyone being seen as an enemy combatant was a ‘real stretch,’ and laughed.”
What kind of fucking responses are those to a constituent who’s genuinely concerned about his/her rights of free speech and assembly being suppressed, who’s reading an NIE that singles out leftist groups as a possible threat to US interests and watching his/her Senators vote for a bill that allows people identified as possible threats to have their legal rights withheld?
How will our rights of speech and assembly protect us, if we’re deemed enemy combatants by people who won’t even define precisely what methods they use to derive such definitions? If they will, fine—but explain how. How is it a “real stretch” to be concerned about being deemed an enemy combatant, based on the NIE and the administration’s insistence on conflating dissenters with traitors and terrorist-sympathizers? If it is, fine—but explain how.
This condescending bullshit is infuriating. Flippantly dismissing legitimate and genuine concerns after the passage of a bill that “sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the president to detain people indefinitely” is pathetic. Not only is it a rejection of the responsibility to care about the concerns of all constituents, not just those who agree with your decisions, but it is a patent refusal to acknowledge that this vote was bigger than the midterm elections, that it may have other repercussions aside from what ends up on the Senators’ voting records.
Can Senators Lautenberg and Menendez—and the 10 other Democrats who voted for this extraordinary bill—guarantee that our concerns are unjustified? Can they explain why we shouldn’t worry about the focus on leftist groups in the NIE? Can they even be bothered to acknowledge that our fears are worth addressing, or do they prefer to marginalize and belittle our concerns just like the administration and the GOP and the media?
In case it’s escaped their notice, we were the ones who were right about the Iraq War. It was they, not us, who voted for that mess. In fact, we’ve been right pretty much every step of the way about what Bush is going to do, how badly he’ll fuck something up, the ways in which he’ll skirt the laws, leaving Afghanistan, election tampering, the lurking catastrophe of cronyism, and every other huge disaster perpetrated by this administration. We’ve got a pretty good goddamned track record of looking down the road and seeing the final destination, and every time, we’ve been called paranoid and delusional and partisan and traitorous to discredit us, but we’ve been right nonetheless.
And we deserve some bloody answers. If we’re wrong this time—prove it.
Shakes, ready your resume
NPR wants to hire a blogger. I think Melissa should apply:
Host (Blogs), NPR News & Administration Hosts and writes for blog that serves as users' daily guide to the events of the day and notable stories on the network and the Web; uses news judgment and a lively prose style to present a singular perspective, writing and reporting original items and drawing other NPR reporter/correspondents and listeners into analysis and discussion; may also host a podcast of the day's top on-air stories; and may serve as a public representative of National Public Radio, Inc. Bachelor's degree or equivalent combination of education and experience. At least five years of journalism experience, preferably daily news; familiarity with the blog form and a passionate desire to join the blogger "A" list; demonstrated excellence as a writer and storyteller; demonstrated ability to communicate in a sparkling personality and unique perspectives in writing; demonstrated ability to understand the difference between having an attitude and taking a (political) stand in the written word; a broad range of general news knowledge; well-developed curiosity in a wide range of subjects; ability to work quickly and efficiently under deadline pressure; ability and willingness to relocate; proven ability to consistently work well with others, demonstrating at all times respect for the diverse constituencies at NPR and within the public radio system; and a desire to be part of a new NPR venture. Prefer broadcast experience, the ability to be a voice of a podcast; previous blog writing experience; and familiarity with and an appreciation for public broadcasting.You can use all of us as references! (You should know that everyone who ever used me as a reference has always gotten the job they sought. It's just a little gift I have.)
Bush Speaks
I’m watching Bush’s address on the war on terror, and he’s talking about how—get ready to be surprised, Shakers!—9/11 changed everything. And how he’ll keep us safe by listening to incoming calls from al-Qaida so we know when they’re going to attack us. Uh huh. He’s also describing our “side” as “the side of peace and moderation.”
Now he’s talking about all the plans that were thwarted because of information we gleaned from detainees. Absolutely no qualifications about the realistic probability that these attacks could have been carried out; for all we know based on what he’s saying, one of the detainees said, “We thought about attacking X,” but had no ability to actually do it (much like the “terror cell” broken up in Florida), but he’s calling it a victory. And we have to take his word for it.
Now he’s just said: “Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, we’re gonna find you, and we’re gonna bring you to justice.” Huge applause.
Now this: “Recently parts of a classified document called the National Intelligence Estimate were leaked to the press… It’s an indication we’re getting close to an election. The NIE analyzes the threats we face… Its unauthorized distribution has set off a debate about the threats we face, particularly here in Washington… [The argument that the war in Iraq has made us less safe] buys into the terrorist propaganda that they are attacking us because we are provoking them. I want to remind America that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.”
ARGH!
“We do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism… The terrorists war against us because they hate everything we stand for. We stand for freedom. We worship freedom… They can’t stand the thought that people get to go into the public square and express their differences with government.”
OMG.
They Know Jack
House Report Details 485 Contacts Between Abramoff Team and White House Officials:
A 95-page report, which was released by the House Government Reform Committee on Thursday evening, includes an analysis of more than 14,000 pages of documents provided to the panel by Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.Bear in mind, Abramoff is a liar free of the burden of ethics, who may very well have billed his clients for meetings with White House officials that never took place in reality, in order to charge higher fees by exaggerating his influence. So it’s very unlikely that the White House was as accommodating as “485 contacts between Abramoff team and White House officials” sounds. Just because Abramoff emailed someone at the White House doesn’t mean they responded every time—and probably didn’t. Abramoff is nothing if not a fantasist. But the report does note some things that appear certain:
…In total, the committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Abramoff and his lobbying team at the firm Greenberg Traurig from January 2001 to March 2004, with 82 of those contacts occurring in Rove¹s office, including 10 with Rove personally. The panel also said that Abramoff billed his clients nearly $25,000 for meals and drinks with White House officials during that period.
During the period examined by the committee, Bush administration officials repeatedly intervened on behalf of Abramoff’s clients, including helping a Mississippi Indian tribe obtain $16 million in federal funds for a jail the tribe wanted to build.Basically, the relationship between Abramoff and the White House appears to be not as awesome as Abramoff would have one believe, and more troublesome than the White House would have one believe.
Abramoff was able to block the nomination of one Interior Department official using Christian conservative Ralph Reed as a go-between with Rove, according to e-mails between Abramoff and Reed.
…The committee was able to uncover numerous times when Abramoff and his associates attended social events with senior White House aides using tickets or passes supplied by Abramoff. For instance, Abramoff attended an NCAA Tournament college basketball game with Rove in March 2002. Afterward, Abramoff told an associate that Rove was “a great guy” who told him “anytime we need something, just let him know” via Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston. Ralston worked for Abramoff before moving over to the White House.
And I highly doubt that anything will come of all this, unless it’s more trouble for Abramoff alone, because the GOP is not interested in pursuing it.
Torture Bill Passes 65-34
Twelve Democrats voted in favor: Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.).
One Republican voted against: Chafee (R.I.).
The lone Independent voted against: Jeffords (Vt.).
Greenwald:
Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the interrogation program and that the Intelligence Committee members (including him) therefore know nothing about it. His amendment to compel reports to Congress was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway, thereby legalizing a program he admits he knows nothing about (and will continue to know nothing about).That is all.
During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.
No Wonder They Love to Torture
Why not, when your victims are less than human and you can't tell them apart, anyway?
Trent Lott: Shining Example of a Human Being
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.The real people out in the real world? Who the fuck are you talking about?
"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."
I think the families with loved ones overseas dying for this lie of a war are "obsessing" on this, you smug little prick.
So are 60% of Americans.
So are the vast majority of Iraqis.
So is pretty much the rest of the fucking world.
You bastard.
Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.Of course you don't. You've never had to suffer. You've never had your family members tortured and shot by an occupying force. You've never gone without electricity for months. You haven't the slightest clue in the world what hardship is.
You sanctimonious, vicious scumbag.
"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israeli's and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
It's not hard for "Americans, all of us," to understand what's happening in Iraq. You, sir, have a problem with it, because you haven't got a drop of human feeling in your black, crusty heart. You have no idea what it's like to be anything other than a racist, rich, bigoted, overprivileged white man. You wave your bigotry like a flag when you refer to them as "those people," a term I'm sure you're used to using on your fucking porch in New Orleans, which I'm sure is rebuilt for you and Bush by now. You bastard.
"They all look the same to me." Welcome, Americans, to the new/old America. Where racism reigns supreme, and you have no rights unless you are in lockstep with Dear Leader.
This is what America has become.
A nation of racists and torturers.
And many Americans can't be bothered to care.
It is the nation of Trent Lott.
I weep for the future.
(Cross-posted in complete disgust)
Question of the Day
Can you recall any excellent compliments you've received?
One that sticks out right now was from a writing professor of mine, a rather intimidating man who taught in the prison system for ten years, has published several books, and is generally brilliant and frightening. He demanded a lot from his students, who once in front of the whole class called one of my stories "an utter failure," but by the end of the semester everybody in the class loved him because we knew he took us seriously. And because he encouraged us to go out, get drunk and talk about writing after class. Which we did, with relish. The thing about his honesty was that we began to take him seriously in return, and when he found originality or beauty in our stories, it felt so great. His calling that story a failure turned out to be more helpful than any half-hearted encouragements could have been. On the last day of class I said goodbye to him and he pointed to his head, then nodded to me and said "smart." That felt really good.
And one time a guy I knew told me, Tart, what's different about you is you're not a girl. You're a woman, and you know it. I was like, wow. I'm a woman! Finally!
Daily Round-up
Shakes: Two-minute nostalgia sublime
Spudsy: Barack’s Sorta Good Effort
The Heretik: Tool Time
Spudsy: No flowers and candy in Iraq
Shakes: Dems go soft on terror
Shakes: Reality still kicking Bush’s ass
Shakes: AWOL
Shamanic: They Write Letters, Part One
Spudsy: Habeas amendment defeated
Shakes: Target: Leftist Groups
Shamanic: And still the media doesn’t care…
Shakes: Ugly Intersection
Shamanic: They Write Letters, Part Two
Waveflux: All that’s missing is the plunk-plunk
Shakes: Dems make another deal with the devil
Shakes: Recommended Reading
Spudsy: Who do they think they’re kidding?
Shakes: Who does Foley think he’s kidding?
Shakes: Caption This Photo
Shakes: Fuck You
Shakes: What is this dark side?
"What is this dark side?"
I just got off the phone with Mama Shakes, and I was bitching to her about the torture bill, and telling her if she knocks on my door one day and no one answers, that she should look for me at Gitmo if there’s no forwarding address left behind.
She told me that one of our local papers had an opinion piece today that echoed many of my complaints, so I went to check it out. Here it is, in its entirety—and, mind you, this is a small paper in very conservative Indiana:
Recently, I read an article by the Rev. Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest, titled, "Is U.S. like Germany of the '30s?"Thank you, Joyce Niksic.
Greeley wrote, "Today, many Americans celebrate a 'strong' leader who, like Woodrow Wilson, never wavers, never apologizes, never admits a mistake, never changes his mind, a leader with a firm, 'Christian' faith in his own righteousness. These Americans are delighted that he ignores the rest of the world and punishes the World Trade Center terrorism in Iraq. Mr. Bush is our kind of guy."
Today, America is threatened by President Bush, who displays the same kind of dangerous self-righteousness as Adolph Hitler did in Nazi Germany. And, like the fearful, uninformed and ill-informed German people, many fearful, uninformed and ill-informed Americans choose to believe the fallacies and myths instilled in them by the Bush administration, i.e., Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Propaganda spread by Nazi ideologues was that communist Russia was the center of what Hitler referred to as the "Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy."
Sadly, many Americans today also believe Hitler was a communist and an atheist; he was neither a communist nor an atheist. In his book, "Mein Kampf," Hitler wrote, "Hence, today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
In fact, communists were the first group Hitler sought to destroy. He believed it was Germany's destiny and duty to destroy the evil Judeo-Bolshevists and save Western civilization from communism and the nefarious threat of the Jews. Like the Bush administration, Hitler instructed his generals that this was to be an ideological war to the finish, and German soldiers were not expected to fight according to the established rules of war.
Hitler's war against the communist East was not only to gain territory and resources for Germany. More importantly, it was a great ideological crusade for control of minds.
This fact is documented in "Mein Kampf," when Hitler wrote, "Thus, inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
Bush stated he would turn the clock back 50 years in America. It is clear he has accomplished his goal.
Like the Bush administration's criminal war in Iraq, this mode of operation provided Hitler's industrial corporate backers easy access for their "Internet," i.e., take control of the world and all its resources by rule of totalitarian force.
Further, Greeley asks: "Can this model be useful to understand how contemporary America is engaged in a criminally unjust war that has turned much of the world against it, a war in which torture and murder have become routine? Has the combination of the World Trade Center attack and a president who believes his instruction comes from God unleashed the dark side of American heritage? What is this dark side? I suggest it is the mix of Calvinist religious righteousness and 'my-country-right-or-wrong' patriotism that dominated our treatment of blacks and American Indians for most of this country's history. The 'manifest destiny' of America was to do whatever it wanted to do, because it was strong, virtuous and chosen by God."
Today, we should question in depth, were Hitler — and now Bush — true believers or merely politically dexterous theists in pursuit of their political agendas?
FU
President Bush counterpunched at Democrats on Thursday, saying their criticism of the war in Iraq has turned their party into one of "cut-and-run" obstructionists.In other words, war critics are the greatest danger to America. Not terrorists. But people who believe, right along with the 16 US intelligence agencies who concluded as much in the NIE, that the Iraq War is making us less safe because it is creating more terrorists.
…The greatest danger to America is not the U.S. military presence in Iraq, but rather a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn nation, Bush said.
Fancy that.
Caption This Photo
President Bush waves as he arrives to make remarks at a 'Bob Riley for Governor' luncheon at the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex in Birmingham, Ala. Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Who is Foley trying to kid?
No pun intended.
The story: Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) sent emails from his personal AOL account to a 16-year-old former Congressional page, asking him how old he is and what he wants for his birthday, and requesting a photo of him.
The concerned young man alerted congressional staffers to the e-mails. In one e-mail, the former page writes to a staffer, "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."The explanation: Congressman Foley’s office confirms he wrote the emails but claims they were “entirely appropriate and that their release is part of a smear campaign by his opponent.” The emails were “completely innocent” and “Foley is only guilty of being friendly.” Uh-huh. Also, it’s just their office policy to keep pictures of former interns, that’s all.
…The e-mails were sent from Foley's personal AOL account, and the exchange began within weeks after the page finished his program on Capitol Hill. In one, Foley writes, "did you have fun at your conference…what do you want for your birthday coming up…what stuff do you like to do."
In another Foley writes, "how are you weathering the hurricane…are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well…"
Let’s say that it is. Do they typically get copies of those pictures by personal requests from the Congressman’s personal email account? I doubt it.
And let’s also say, for shits and grins, that the Congressman was just “being friendly.” How many middle-aged men do you know that ask random 16-year-old kids what they want for their birthdays, and what “stuff” they like to do? Probably not too many, since most adults don’t give a flying shit about the daily happenings of teenagers they don’t know.
(Via.)
Fly, My Winged Monkeys
Just when I thought I couldn't get any more furious about the fun and games from this week, Crooks & Liars has to go and post this.
Seriously, who the fuck do they think they're kidding?
Damn Dems
Here’s why no filibuster:
The bill’s ultimate passage was assured on Wednesday when Democrats agreed to forgo a filibuster in return for consideration of the amendment. Any changes in the Senate bill, however, would have made it impossible for Republican leaders to meet their goal of sending the bill to the White House before adjourning on Friday to hit the campaign trail.So the Democrats cut a deal, exchanging their filibuster rights to get amendments heard which, if not passed, would make the bill that much more filibuster-worthy.
Fucking duh. They basically handed the GOP all the reason in the world not to pass the amendment. If they passed it, they would have had to delay sending it to the White House; if they didn’t, they met their goal—and in agreeing to “consider” the amendment, they guaranteed that the Dems wouldn’t filibuster.
Game over.
All that's missing is the plunk-plunk
Whether due to ennui, lethargy, or some other condition that rhymes with "whee," I have not been much in the mood lately for blogging on politics, culture, or on anything much more substantial than the state of my fantasy football team or a belated comparison of the candymakers Wonka. However, the latest report on Jeanine Pirro's foundering political fortunes is enough to momentarily rouse me from my torpor. Good heavens, what a high-profile mess. It strikes me that the Pirro campaign, with its attendant themes of frustrated political ambition, marital infidelity, and criminal intrigue (with a guest appearance by Bernard Kerik!), has devolved into perfect fodder for an episode of Law & Order. But which specific show in Dick Wolf's empire, I wonder? I vote for L&O: Criminal Intent: this storyline just begs for the full Goren treatment, with accompanying snarkiness from Eames. I smell Emmy!
(Cross-posted...sleepy now...)
Ask them why
The following Senators both voted against the Specter amendment to strike the habeas corpus provision of the Military Commission Act, and are up for re-election in November:
George Allen, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine, John Ensign, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Ben Nelson, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas
If your senator is on this list, please find a campaign appearance in which you can ask why he or she believes the President should have the right to hold anyone prisoner forever.
Allen, Burns, and Santorum are in big trouble. Jim Talent could be with a little pushing. How about Shakers from Missouri start sending letters to the editor at their papers explaining Talent's position: He wants to be the loyal subject of an American king.
Ugly Intersection
Chet: “An enormous majority of the American public—68%—either thinks that it's OK to torture people in at least some circumstances, or doesn't care enough to answer the question. Only 32% said it's never OK.”
More at the link, including a breakdown by religious affiliation. As I’ve said before, I can’t understand the reasoning of Christians who support torture, people who pray to a savior who, when facing certain torture and eventual death, fell to his knees and prayed that he might be spared.
And I also cannot begin to comprehend why anyone supports torture, other than simple hatred, since it doesn’t fucking work. Especially the way we practice it—rounding up people on the broadest of suspicions and hoping to extract information from them. The scenario that supporters of torture love to invoke to defend their position is the kind of crap that you see in the movies, or on 24, where agents capture someone whom they know to have information directly related to a plot, the thwarting of which will save lives.
“Tell me where the bomb’s going to be detonated, or I’ll squash your nuts between these bricks!”
“I give, I give! It’s going to go off at the Maple Tree Mall at 3:52pm central standard time!”
“What store, you scoundrel? What store?!” [Bricks are waved threateningly.]
“Outside the Cinnabon! Don’t hurt me!”
This is not the typical scenario with our detainees, whom our right to torture is currently being codified into law as we speak. Often, these are people with tenuous ties to suspected terrorists, or even proven ties to suspected terrorists—but rarely are we rounding up people mid-plot with detonators in their hands, left with the singular option to extract information from them by any means necessary to prevent an imminent explosion. We’re torturing people hoping to get information, the content and very existence of which we’re not even certain. Torture only works when interrogator and detainee both know that the detainee has a very specific piece of information that the interrogator wants. Otherwise, all kinds of bullshit might pour out of someone just to save themselves from further pain, whether they really know something we’d want to know or not. They’ll offer up names of other people who might not have any more information than they have, creating a never-ending cycle of useless “intelligence” that yields nothing but goose-chases and more futile torture—and angry victims.
Thus, irrespective of one’s opinions of the morality of torture, logically there’s no reason to support it, either. And yet here we sit, with 68% of America supporting it, and Congress about to pass a heinous bill in support of it, in a most spectacular intersection of the ignorance, fear, and hatred which has enabled the Bush administration since Day One.
Loose Lips
I think that Dana Priest and the Washington Post have a lot to be concerned about if this legislation passes, don't you? This is from a December 2005 White House press conference:
He's about to become "the decider" on what constitutes an enemy combatant. If Dana Priest and the editors at the Washington Post were helping the enemy, then surely they fit the bill.I'll be glad to answer some questions here, starting with you, Terry.
Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.
Filibuster. This. Bill.
Target: Leftist Groups
Per Paul’s post below, one of the most chilling aspects of the rejection of Specter’s amendment guaranteeing Habeas Corpus is, as I previously mentioned, that the underlying legislation allows “foreign civilians in the United States or even U.S. citizens” to be deemed enemy combatants and thusly “arrested and held without charge indefinitely on grounds that they supported hostilities against the United States.”
And lest there be any question that the administration is fixing to recognize any and all dissenters as enemy combatants, the recently declassified NIE report had a deeply disturbing tidbit tucked in at its end identifying terrorist threats other than the primarily discussed radical Islam: "Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint… We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."
Glenn Greenwald points out (via Echidne):
That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."Um, yeah.
Similarly, the administration has claimed previously that it eavesdrops on the conversations of Americans only where there is reasonable grounds (as judged by the administration) to believe that one of the parties is affiliated with a terrorist group. Does that include "leftist" groups that use the Internet to organize? This NIE finding gives rise to this critical question: Are "leftist" groups one of the principal targets on the anti-terrorism agenda of the Bush administration, and if so, aren't the implications rather disturbing?
In addition to the nebulous definition of “enemy combatant,” so too is the definition of “leftist group” entirely vague. Does a blog community qualify as a leftist group? Are only groups that have the means and intent to organize going to be targets of scrutiny? Does organizing a peace protest qualify? Is wielding a “leftist” idea going to be considered as hostile to the United States as wielding a weapon?
These are all questions to which we don’t have answers. (Although recent history of government agents infiltrating peace groups surely points in the worst possible direction.) What we do know is that if the answer to any of them is “yes,” those of us who are summarily identified as enemy combatants will not be guaranteed the right to have a federal court review the legitimacy of our imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism.
Your Leaders, Ladies and Gentlemen
Senate Kills Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill
The Senate just killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely along party lines.
Former torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), portrayed as a "maverick" by earlier bucking the White House on the issue of detainee treatment, voted against the amendment. The White House also opposes the changes the amendment would make to the bill. Sens. John Warner (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had also challenged the White House over the bill, joined McCain in voting against the amendment.
The Senate is expected to vote on -- and pass -- the entire bill later today.
Remind me again... what country is this?
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to TPM.)
They write letters
To the DNC:
I am writing to tell you that I will no longer support the DNC financially after the failure of Senate Democrats to filibuster the Military Commissions legislation pending before that body today.If you are one of the almost 40,000 Americans who purchased a Democracy Bond on Democrats.org, I urge you to contact them immediately about cancelling it. Maybe a financial threat will cause Reid and company to rethink their strategy on this travesty of a law.
I will no longer support any Democratic candidate monetarily.
By not filibustering this legislation, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is approving a law that will allow the Executive Branch to detain people at will at deprive them of habeas corpus rights indefinitely, while torturing them if it believes this is necessary.
You are sorry, sorry excuses for representatives of the American people. It's tragically unfortunate that the Senate Democratic leadership doesn't believe that the Constitution is worth defending.
I was a purchaser of a "Democracy Bond" last year, and I have encouraged others to purchase them. Happily, the credit card used for that is now expired and I will not be purchasing another one. I will make sure to spread the word that while Republicans will actively work to destroy the Constitution, the Democrats are eager accomplices in that betrayal.
And in case you missed it, McCain, Graham, and Warner all voted against the Spectre Amendment that would have reinstated habeas corpus rights for those who were unilaterally detained by the executive. That amendment failed.
AWOL
Love the lede to this story:
Army Spc. Suzanne Swift spent five months in a seacoast town hiding out, smoking cigarettes and reading. Meanwhile, her military police unit was half a world away in Iraq.Just lounging about, eating bon-bons while being derelict in her duty. She certainly isn’t made to sound like a woman who’s been repeatedly sexually harassed by her superiors…which she is.
Swift, who served in Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005, claimed she had been harassed or abused by three noncommissioned officers — two in Iraq and one at Fort Lewis.Hmm…could that be some of that administrative discipline I’ve heard so much about?
The Army said it was able to substantiate one allegation, involving an noncommissioned officer at Fort Lewis, and took disciplinary action.
But it said it was unable to substantiate allegations that an NCO in Iraq sexually harassed her and another forced her into a sexual relationship.So Swift has been arrested and charged “with being absent without leave and missing movement” and “could face a reprimand or a court-martial,” though, curiously, the Army says it will delay disciplinary action against Swift in order to conduct a "thorough, impartial investigation" into her allegations. If they haven’t already conducted a thorough, impartial investigation, how is it, pray tell, that they are able to say they were unable to substantiate her allegations? Why do I get the impression that, so far, the Army has asked her accusers if what she asserts is true, and their “investigation” ended when they said no? Why do I further get the impression that if Swift’s mother hadn’t been “traveling to talk to groups that have taken up Swift's cause,” no action on the Army’s part to find out if her allegations were true ever would have been taken, but disciplinary action against Swift certainly would have?
Apparently the Congressional women’s caucus which held hearings into widespread sexual harassment problems in the combat theater haven’t made the Army any more prepared to accept that Swift, or any other female soldier, might be telling the truth about her experiences when she makes such allegations, or any more inclined to protect them.
Reality Still Kicking Bush’s Ass
In case our own NIE wasn’t evidence enough that the theory Bush refuses to believe holds water actually carries it quite niftily, a research paper prepared for Britain’s Ministry of Defense has found that "The war in Iraq...has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world. Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."
Poodle-Boy continues to deny “a link between military action in Afghanistan and Iraq and Muslim radicalisation and extremism in the UK and abroad.”
Soft on Terror.
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.The New York Times may not blame Democrats for being frightened, but I do. In fact, their willingness to betray American principles out of the fear that doing the right thing will come back to haunt them in elections makes that oft-repeated claim of conservatives right: The Democrats really are soft on terror.
…We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
Not the terror that exists outwith our borders, but the terror that rules within. The Bush administration has spent every day since September 11, 2001 making sure that we are a phobic nation, paralyzed with fear and thusly complacent and compliant. They terrorized us into supporting an unnecessary war with mendacious imagery of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs, terrorized us into reelecting them with politically-timed terror warnings, terrorized us into going along with whatever subversion of our Constitution the Bush administration suggests is necessary to protect us.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the administration’s most reliable fearmongers during his tenure, gravely warned opponents of their terror strategy in December 2001, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.” It was the first step in marglinzalizing dissenters as traitors and terrorist sympathizers—a page right out of Third Reich second-in-command Hermann Göring’s playbook: “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
And so it has worked here.
The Bush administration has wrought a reign of terror used to coerce the American people into giving up their rights and freedoms, and confer upon the executive branch an unprecedented centralization of power. And fear of losing elections, of being seen as “soft on terror,” has made most Democrats go along with this effective coup nearly every step of the way. In the end, they have shown themselves to be what they most fear being seen as—unwilling and unable to stare terror in the face and stop it in its tracks. I’ve no doubt that a Democratic leadership would be better for fighting the brand of terrorism incessantly invoked by the Bush administration to cow us, the kind that induces in a cringing and teeth-chattering electorate images of swarthy men in turbans with bombs strapped to their chests. But the Dems have proven themselves patently incapable of fighting the brand of terrorism that haunts us at home, that emanates from the top levels of our government and wrenches from our hands the liberty and principles that Bush’s “war on terror” is meant to defend.
Too much time worrying about perceptions of their support for the War on Terror has left the Democrats hopelessly inept in fighting the War of Terror that’s being waged in America. And, quite frankly, being capable of fighting terror from foreign enemies is of no use if they’re incapable of saving us from the domestic terrorists who will destroy everything that was ever worth protecting.
Weren't You Supposed to be Greeting Us With Flowers or Something?
Iraqis Back Attacks on US Troops
WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.
The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.
The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:
_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.
_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
_Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.
_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.
This is how much I care.Is There A Doctor in The House?
Call the orthopedist! The number of broken arms from politicians in Congress trying to pat themselves so vigorously on their own backs is simply astounding. Who are all these weenies without backbone who just waved through this vast assault on the Constitution?
Is there a doctor in the House or in the Senate who can do some triage on the body politic? The bruising is severe.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.
How low can the high and mighty go? A lack of backbone allows our current lawmakers to sneak under the lowest bar possible. Democrats are now expected to cower as a bill that allows detention of anyone on the president's order gets jammed up our collective asses.
All the tools are out. Look for Democrats to be hammered if they don't approve of the President hammering all our rights to bits as he seeks the tools he needs for the Great War on
"It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
Somebody wake us from the nightmare. We must be dreaming, right? Our elected officials are there to protect we the people. They wouldn't use a last minute, pre-election moment of hysteria to jam a terrible law down our collective throats, would they? Damn.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
A dark vision? The nightmare seems to be coming true. The Quiet Coup continues.
The Shrill (but in a low key): "the principal theme and effect of this legislation is to systematically abdicate and destroy existing legislative and judicial checks and balances."
From the You Want the Truth, You Can't Handle the Truth Department: "The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it."
The struggle for decency and the rule of law continues. In the heat a sense of humor almost evaporates. A sense of outrage remains. Who knew Congress could so easily surgically remove its conscience?
Uh, Good Effort, I Guess...
Crooks & Liars has the video and rough transcript of Barak Obama's speech on the floor from yesterday:
Obama.. that’s a quote. we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detaineeed in New York, sent to Syria a rendition agreement, tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In this war where terrorists can plot undetected from within our borders, it is absolutely vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to detain and interrogate whoever they believe to be a suspect and so it is understandable that mistakes will be made, and identities will be confused.I'm really not sure how I feel about this. As a Chicago resident that voted for Obama, I've got to say I've been a little underwhelmed by his performance so far. (Yes, I realize he's a freshman senator.) Frankly, for an issue this important, I want a little more fire at the podium; not "mistakes will be made." And unless you're saying "fillibuster," this is all smoke and mirrors. This is a time for action. Stop being afraid of looking "soft on terror."
I don’t blame the government for that. this is an extraordinarily difficult war that we’re prosecuting against terrorists. and there are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person, but what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes mistakes. by giving suspects a chance, even one chance ngs , to challenge the terms of their denengs in court, to — detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the government has detained the right person, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.
Then again, I suppose I should be glad that a Democrat is willing to speak about this at all.
Question of the Day
Someone has offered to purchase you a one-way ticket anywhere in the world, wherever you want to go, and set you up with a decent job and legal residency status. Where do you go? Or do you stay where you are?
Daily Round-up
Shakes: Two-minute nostalgia sublime
Shakes: Fare thee well, America; nice knowing ya.
Shamanic: Paging Harry Reid
Spudsy: Bush the Body Language-Interpreting Referee
The Heretik: Laws are funny things…
Zack: Public Predations
Spudsy: Next Stop: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Spudsy: Stossel gets a spanking
Shakes: Ode to McCain
Misty: Banned Books Week
Spudsy: Wal-Mart Comes to Chicago
Shakes: So what do we do?
Shamanic: Dems Cave
Shakes: Reveling in the torment of a truth-teller
Shakes: What a meth.
Shakes: In which I offer my condolences to Minnesota.
Shakes: Caption This Photo
Shakes: Secure This, Mofos
Shakes: Ms. Pissypants
Secure This
Feel the economy, as it swells and throbs with awesomeness, fuck you straight up the ass:
The average cost of a family insurance plan that Americans get through their jobs has risen another 7.7 percent this year, to $11,500, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In only seven years, the cost has doubled, while incomes and company revenue, which pay for health insurance, haven’t risen nearly as much.In fact, incomes are down—and wages “make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, although corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s.”
All we ever hear from the Bush administration and the GOP is how they’re making us safer. But all they’re talking about (and speciously, at that) is safety from terrorism. There are all kinds of ways in which many Americans are much less safe than they were four years ago—and the rising cost and decreasing availabiliy of healthcare is one of them. Without healthcare, or shitty coverage that leaves you gravely exposed financially should disaster strike, you’re not safe, your savings aren’t safe, your house isn’t safe (and less safe than ever, thanks to the ass-sucking bankruptcy bill), and your dependents aren’t safe.
Fuck national security. How’s your domestic security, America? Is your job secure? Do you have guaranteed and affordable healthcare? Do you feel like you’ve got a safety net, or are you living on a precipice with nothing below but an abyss waiting to envelope you with a single misstep?
How about it, Security Moms? Does voting Republican ostensibly to keep your kids safe from terrorism even fucking matter if you can’t afford their bloody innoculations?!
Fuck!
Caption This Photo
"I’m gonna fuck the shit outta that thing."
President George W. Bush and Laura Bush view the U.S. Constitution with National Archivist John Carlin, second on left, and Senior Curator Stacy Bredhoff, second on right, while touring the National Archives in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Eric Draper.)
FYI
I just saw this at MetaFilter:
Feeling sick and thinking of buying over-the-counter cold medicine like Sudafed or Claritin-D? Be prepared to wait in line at the pharmacy counter, show a photo ID, and sign a log book. The nationwide restriction of medication containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine begins this weekend. Why? Those 2 ingredients are used to make meth. (NPR audio piece).And here’s a little extra doubleplusgoodness for you. The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which is part of the Patriot Act not only “bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine” and limits the “amount of pseudoephedrine that an individual can purchase each month,” but also requires stores “to keep personal information about purchasers for at least two years.”
Yay!
Nice
Page Six: “MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.”
Yeah, what a nut for wanting to get checked out at a hospital. Do you think the Rupert Murdoch-owned Post would be quite so sassy if it were one of the hosts of a show at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News that received a threatening letter with faux-anthrax? Something tells me if it were Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity who’d gone through this scare, we wouldn’t be hearing about lollipops, but musing about how the dirty liberal traitors in this country were becoming terrorists.
Yo, Hillary—do you think you can stop gallivanting at fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch now?
Meanwhile, David Neiwert reminds The Post that this horseshit is a federal crime.
Dems Cave (Wednesday Edition)
WaPo:
Republicans on Wednesday cleared procedural hurdles in the House and Senate on the way to giving President Bush authority to detain, interrogate and try terrorism detainees before military commissions.(cough)Assholes!(cough)House Republicans succeeded on a vote in blocking any Democratic amendments to the legislation. In the Senate, GOP leaders won an agreement from Democrats to debate the bill for less than a dozen hours and then vote on it.
And see how our brave Democratic leaders punt this abomination to the courts:
"I predict that the system created by this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts," Skelton said. "Our nation cannot afford to have any terrorist convictions overturned on judicial appeal."Then why, pray tell, PASS IT?
One word: Filibuster. This legislation is terrible. They know it. Wherever have their spines gone?
Wit’s End
If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm.What do we do? The GOP is on a crash course toward a fascist dictatorship, the Dems are happy to carry their luggage, the media is useless, most of the American people can’t even be bothered to pay attention to what’s going on, no less care, and those of us who do are screaming until we’re blue in the faces to no avail. Blogging about it, talking about it, writing our Senators and Representatives about it isn’t doing jack shit. So what do we do?
I don’t want to go down as a moral coward who did nothing, but I don’t know what to do. March on Washington? (Can we get there in time? Will the media cover it? Would it even make a difference?) Storm the local media? Leave the country?
I’m at a loss. I’m out of ideas.
All I know is that is it impossible for me to resign myself to this madness.
Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
So, the big retailers got their way, and today, the first Chicago Wal-Mart opened on the west side. (Bolds mine)
CHICAGO -- Self-professed "shopaholic" Julie Edwards arrived at Chicago's first Wal-Mart store two hours before its grand opening Wednesday -- and she wasn't alone.
Lines snaked around the mega-retailer's West Side building long before it opened, filled with residents excited to welcome the store, its bargains and its jobs to the area.
"I love this store," Edwards said. "It's about time we get nice stores in this neighborhood."
Bringing Wal-Mart to Chicago was a four-year journey that pitted unions and small business owners against politicians and activists eager to bring jobs to the city's economically depressed West Side.
More than 15,000 people applied for the 400 jobs at the new store, where an estimated 98 percent of workers live in the neighborhood, said store manager Ed Smith.
So, 98 percent of the workers come from an economically depressed area. And really, I'm trying not to be a complete cynic. That does mean that there are 400 jobs in the area that weren't there before. But, I'm afraid I do have to do a little balloon bursting.
The store's opening comes two weeks to the day after aldermen failed to override Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's veto of the city's so-called "big-box ordinance."Aside from the fact that Wal-Mart could well afford to pay their employees the wages and benefits that would have been guaranteed to them by the above measure, this "lowest wage" dancing doesn't answer important questions. What does the average person at the store make? Eight dollars? Nine? $7.45? Does anyone make ten dollars an hour, regardless of the measure's defeat?
The measure would have required large stores like Wal-Mart to pay workers at least $10 an hour -- plus $3 in fringe benefits -- by mid-2010. The rules would have applied only to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.
At the time, Wal-Mart officials cheered the measure's defeat, saying the aldermen who voted against it were supporting "valuable job opportunities and increased savings for the working families of Chicago."
On Wednesday, Smith said the lowest paid person at the store makes $7.25 an hour, and only two workers make that.
And do they have benefits?
Well, not so much, anymore.
Among the most striking findings outlined in Wal-Mart’s 2007 benefits booklet is the substantial health care cost a low-paid Wal-Mart worker would be forced to pay under the so-called ‘Value’ plan. A typical individual Wal-Mart worker who enrolls in the Value Plan will face high upfront costs because of a series of high deductibles, including a minimum $1,000 deductible for individual coverage, a $1,000 in-patient deductible per visit, a $500 out-patient surgical deductible per visit, a $300 pharmacy deductible, and a maximum out of pocket expense of $5,000 for an individual per year.Thirty percent of their total income. And that's if they make 10.11 an hour, which we know is what Wal-Mart was fighting against. As if that wasn't bad enough, how could anyone making under 20K a year afford to give away sixty percent of their total income for health care costs?
In total, when factoring the maximum out-of-pocket expense and the cost of the yearly premium ($598 a year for an individual under the Value Plan), a typical full-time worker (defined by Wal-Mart as 34 hours) who earns 10.11 an hour or $17,874 a year, would have pay nearly 30 percent of their total income for health care costs alone.
Incredibly, the health care cost burden actually worsens should an uninsured Wal-Mart worker enroll their family under the Value Plan. Again, because of multiple deductibles for each family member, and when factoring in the cost of the medical premium ($780) and maximum out-of-pocket expense ($10,000), a Wal-Mart worker whose family is insured under the “Value Plan” could pay as much as 60 percent of their total income towards health care costs under Wal-Mart’s most “affordable “health care” plan.
Well, I suppose you do without it.
As Ezra says:
More worryingly, Target has promised the same move. Which'll mean that the two largest retailers will both eschew traditional health care plans for low-cost (to the company), high-risk (to the employee), astonishingly stingy offerings. Now, of course, any retailers who seek to compete with them -- and that includes supermarkets, clothing outlets, and all the rest -- will be at a competitive disadvantage if they fund traditional health care plans for their employees. It also means producers will be under added pressure by Wal-Mart and Target to make the same shift in order to lower their labor costs and, thus, prices. If the producers refuse, Wal-Mart can simply replace them with their in-house brands. This is how a race to the bottom starts. This is how employer-based health security dies.It's also how sick employees die. And keep in mind, this new standard applies to new Wal-Mart employees. Like the ones at this new Wal-Mart that apparently, Chicago couldn't do without. 98 percent of them. All from a disadvantaged area.
I kind of got taken to task by some people for grousing about the "big box ordinance;" many people shared the opinion of the woman in the first article: "I want to see them make $10 an hour, but if they can't, at least they can make something," Edwards said. "They're creating jobs for our community."
And that is true. Jobs in the community have been created. And yes, at least they're making something.
But keep this in mind: It's very expensive to be poor.
There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don't have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don't think of ER's as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1,000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands.If Wal-Mart can come into an economically depressed area, the least they can do is offer a living wage, and provide a fair benefits package to the employees that work hard in their stores. However, they apparently are still too stingy to do this. As a result, although people will be making some money, the actual funds they are able to keep for living expenses, gas, food and health care will be whittled down to almost nothing.
So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check cashing. Also, think what some microcredit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?
For resident Donna Johnson, who used to travel to suburban Forest Park to shop at Wal-Mart, the West Side store represented unprecedented convenience.This is exactly how Wal-Mart works. By offering convenience, and the illusion of low prices, the inclusion of a big box store may seem to be, on the surface, a blessing for an economically disadvantaged community. I think opinions may change once local businesses begin to close, and workers realize they'll never be able to afford their health care costs. "Bargains" aren't going to change that.
"I think it'll make the neighborhood much, much better," she said. "People have to go so far out to shop. There's never been a store that has everything."
All of the "benefits" of this store's opening go to Wal-Mart.
(Cross-posts are frequently, secretly fond of each other...)
