Gettin’ Hip on the Judiciary, Part II

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III

Wilkinson sits, with Luttig, on the most conservative of the 12 federal appellate courts, and although he is described as a moderate conservative in most areas, and is, in all honesty, the least objectionable in the bunch, he still holds some views that I find in conflict with some very basic progressive objectives.

Two positions in particular caught my attention. First is Wilkinson’s views on abortion, which lean beyond what I would consider moderately conservative, as evidenced by his vote to uphold a state law granting parental notification when teenage daughters sought abortions. While in a perfect world, that law might make sense, we do not live in a perfect world, but instead one where fathers have been known to rape their daughters, and mothers known to kill their daughters for being pregnant. Anyone who supports compelled parental notification laws shows a fundamental disregard for the sometimes ugly realities of the world in which we live, and thereby disqualifies him- or herself from a place on the nation’s highest court.

Wilkinson also believes

that “affirmative action in a time of great growth of minority populations is creating ethnic separation rather than bringing America's peoples together as citizens.”

On its face, such an assertion is not necessarily objectionable; I have heard passionate arguments from liberals who stand to benefit from affirmative action that, in its current form, its divisiveness is more pronounced than its successes. However, delving deeper into Wilkinson’s thoughts on the matter unearths this little gem:

"We are discarding the melting pot for a cultural mosaic which aims not to promote the common bond of American citizenship but to accentuate the distinctiveness of racial and ethnic experience," Wilkinson said in a 1999 Richmond speech on the subject [of affirmative action].

Gets a bit dodgy there, doesn’t it? Cultural mosaic isn’t exactly a term that has negative connotations for a progressive, but clearly Wilkinson doesn’t share the sentiment. Instead he sees celebrating a rainbow of cultural and ethnic diversity as analogous to undermining the “common bond of American citizenship.” Of course, I share a common bond of citizenship with Pam (not to mention a similarly wicked sense of humor), which doesn’t seem beholden to or subverted by or in any way relevant to our differing backgrounds and experiences. So what does Wilkinson really mean? It seems that the “common bond of American citizenship” is little more than creative shorthand for “the dominant culture,” which is in turn shorthand for “white, straight, men,” whose culture is being victimized (or, more accurately, its dominance being diluted) by acknowledging diversity at the expense of their cultural primacy. In men like Wilkinson’s version of the melting pot, everyone melts and melts and melts until our uniqueness melts away and we’re all just like them.

Finally, Wilkinson shows up as the author of a decision giving the government broad authority to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without constitutional protections, a ruling later overturned by the Supreme Court. Superb.


Judge J. Michael Luttig

Wilkinson’s compatriot at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, has served as a law clerk for Antonin Scalia and worked on behalf of the first Bush administration to help secure Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court, which probably tells you all you need to know about him, but I’ll give you a little more grist for the mill. Via LifeNews.com (emphasis mine):

Luttig is widely considered one of Bush's top judicial prospects, especially given his young age, 50, and his ability to shape the direction of the court for years to come. He is considered the most conservative judge on one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation.

Bear in mind, that’s a source that likes him. At TomPaine.com, Luttig is described as the “most aggressively conservative member” of “the nation’s most aggressively conservative federal court of appeals.”

His record on abortion rights is appalling, and I could give you a slew of other cases demonstrative of his being a conservative ideologue (including his penchant for reversing subordinate colleagues on abortion cases at the behest of state authorities). However, this seems to sum it up perfectly and succinctly:

Asserting that Congress overreached its constitutional power, Luttig wrote the recent opinion striking down the federal Violence Against Women Act.

Thanks.

And although this has absolutely nothing to do with his abilities or suitability, and I freely admit I include it for no other reason than it irks me, Luttig is described as

ideologically self-conscious but not an egghead. This is an important consideration: George W. Bush reputedly disdains bookish intellectuals. Luttig is sufficiently smart to be a justice but sufficiently regular to be a good ol' boy. One can easily imagine the genial, politically well-connected Luttig getting along just great in an hour-long interview with President W.

Blech.


Judge Samuel A. Alito

Okay, I’m mucho busy at work today, and I’m also running out of steam, so I’ll make Alito quick.

One line, in fact:

Alito so closely emulates Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."

If that doesn’t make your blood run cold, then nothing will.


In all seriousness, this is a really overlooked issue on the Left. I know it’s dry and not very sexy, but look—part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because conservatives have been paying attention to the judiciary for decades now. They have law schools specifically designed to churn out conservative lawyers who are mentored into the judiciary. Meanwhile, we pay no attention, and wonder how the hell all this crazy shit is happening all over the country.

You know I never ask this, but please link to these posts if you’ve got a blog of your own, and encourage others to do the same. We’ve got to start paying attention to this issue. Waiting for a slew of ideologues to be paraded in front of Congress and hoping the Dems will have balls to filibuster isn’t enough. We’ve got to know what’s going on locally, on the state level, in the regional courts…long before these guys get to be possible SCOTUS nominees. We’ve got to inform ourselves, and we’ve got to care.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Gettin’ Hip on the Judiciary, Part I

The NY Times reports today that ailing Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist will likely be replaced by June, if not before. The most probable chain of events will be the elevation of an existing SCOTUS Justice to Chief Justice (Scalia? – ugh), with nominees put forward to then fill that vacancy.

Included on the list [of potential nominees] are Judges Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, John G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and J. Michael Luttig, both of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Another possible candidate is Judge Samuel A. Alito of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, who sits in Newark.

By no means is this a complete list, but it’s as good a place as any to start educating ourselves about the possible additions to the Supreme Court. As a side note, I found a lot more information in favor of these judges on conservative sites than opposing them on liberal sites, making this post that much more important. Lefty blogs are all but MIA when it comes to vetting judicial nominees, particularly on the lower courts. If we don’t like the direction this country is headed, we ought to be taking as keen an interest in the judiciary as the Right does—and has been for some time now.


Judge Michael W. McConnell

McConnell is a particular dangerous chap to our side of the aisle, both because he is extremely ideologically conservative, and because he has considerable support. If you’ve ever cared about any progressive cause, care as much about making sure this guy doesn’t get on the bench. So extreme is he in his opposition to the advancement of civil rights, that he actually supports backwards movement, having supported attempts to limit congressional authority to protect civil rights and argued for weakening both statutory and constitutional protections against race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-based discrimination.

His disregard, and in fact contempt, for key civil rights principles is readily apparent upon examination of his judicial résumé:

In response to the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision against Bob Jones University, which found, in response to the university’s racially discriminatory policies, that the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status, McConnell wrote a pointed criticism, saying that the Court failed to allow the university’s religious claims to trump civil rights protections. (Yes, you read that right—he believes religious beliefs should trump civil rights.) Specifically, he claimed that the “racial doctrines” of should have been “tolerated” because they were “church teachings,” and cited the decision as an “egregious example” of the Court’s failure to “intervene to protect religious freedom from the heavy hand of government.” McConnell has also extended this notion to include religious schools that accept government-funded vouchers, which, in his estimation, should be allowed to racially discriminate during their admissions processes, provided the discrimination is rooted in religious beliefs.

His reaction to the specific aforementioned case is only one among a number of frighteningly small-minded critiques of various decisions favoring the rights of women and minorities. (For further examples, see also Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Roberts v. United States Jaycees.) On abortion rights, he is, as you would expect, no better. He has repeatedly expressed his disdain for the Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade, which he has called “an embarrassment,” of “questionable legitimacy,” and a “grave legal error.” Additionally, he opposes the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, on the basis that, in his interpretation, it is unconstitutional. Via CivilRights.org:

In a recent article, he expressed admiration for a district court judge who refused to apply FACE because the defendants did not act with “bad purpose,” an element not found in the statute. McConnell’s statements of admiration for the “judicial nullification” of a federal statute that he does not agree with speaks volumes about his inability to fairly and impartially apply a range of civil rights statutes that may conflict with his views.

These are just a few brief examples of why progressives must aggressively oppose a nomination of Judge McConnell to the Supreme Court. The examples from which to draw, however, were seemingly endless.


Judge John C. Roberts

Roberts has quite a significant history in trying to undermine abortion rights, including, under the first Bush administration, co-authoring a Supreme Court brief as Deputy Solicitor General for Rust v. Sullivan which argued for the government’s ability to prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients.

Among Roberts’ other writings can be found articles in support of a more expansive reading of the Contracts and Taking clauses of the Constitution, holding positions that would restrict Congress’ means for environmental protection.

In addition to his judicial résumé, Roberts also has interesting political qualifications. He has been a political appointee under both Regan and the first Bush administration and is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

End of Part One. I’ll be back later with Wilkinson, Luttig, and Alito.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Tina, Come Get Some Ham

I’m going to go watch Napoleon Dynamite.


How was school?
The worst day of my life, what do you think?

If anyone wants to know anything about where I live, just watch this movie. I even went to a high school called PHS. That’s where Mr. Furious and I first formed our indissoluble bond, forged in the flames of gothy, petulant, isolationist angst.

We never had steaks thrown at us, though. The smallest of mercies.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Germany Gets It

It’s no coincidence that the Germans were some of the first to accept our apologies.

(Image via Francesca’s Liberal Wingnut Corner.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Julien’s List…

…has a new home. Make sure you update links, and if you haven’t been reading this super bloggrrl…time to start!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

And the Award for...

...the Best search term that brought someone to Shakespeare's Sister goes to:

"RAGEAHOLICS"

Yep. You've come to the right place, bub.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

God Save the Queen

The AP reports (hat tip Pam) that Britain has legalized civil unions:

The Civil Partnerships Bill passed by Parliament last year gives same-sex couples the right to form legally binding partnerships and entitles them to some of the same tax and pension rights married couples have.

[…]

"This legislation is going to make a real difference to these couples and it demonstrates the government's commitment to equality and social justice," said Deputy Minister for Women and Equality Jacqui Smith.

"It opens the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it for too long."

[…]

Separately Monday, the armed services said they will allow same-sex couples with registered partnerships to share family quarters.

[…]

"This is the moment we fought so hard for," said Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall. "At last, lesbian and gay couples can begin to plan their future lives together."

Nine European Union members allow same-sex partnerships, beginning with Denmark, which legislated for the unions in 1989.

In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

Translation of final paragraph: “Meanwhile, in the United States, social progress is retarded by Christian Evangelicals' collective chokehold on the GOP.”

Hmm, maybe this is why Washington fell so low on the list. If it hadn’t been for him and all his zany revolutionary shenanigans, we’d…



…well, we’d still be led by a crackpot who thought the Iraqi war was a swell idea, but at least we’d have legalized civil unions!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Everybody in the Handbasket; Destination: Hell

And it’s an express bus:

When Americans rate their greatest president, they do not agree on who tops the list, but seem to rank a half-dozen chief executives ahead of the nation's first. George Washington tied for sixth place in one recent poll and rated seventh in another.

[…]

Washington has been considered the "Father of His Country" by school children for generations. Shortly after his death in 1799, Congress adopted the description Henry Lee used in his eulogy of his fellow Virginian: "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

But in a poll commissioned by Washington College for President's Day, Americans rated Abraham Lincoln as the greatest president. A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll put Ronald Reagan on top.

Many young adults have only sketchy information about Washington, according to the college's poll.

Asked who was the greatest president, 20 percent of those polled chose Lincoln. Reagan was picked by 15 percent, Franklin D. Roosevelt by 12 percent, John F. Kennedy by 11 percent, Bill Clinton by 10 percent and George W. Bush by 8 percent. Washington was picked by 6 percent.

In the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Reagan had 20 percent, followed by Clinton and Lincoln in the mid-teens and then Roosevelt and Kennedy at 12 percent.

Personally, I always liked Millard Fillmore.

Happy President’s Day!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

My New Governor is a Doody Head*

(* Please substitute “lowdown, no-good, scum-sucking, ass-licking, shit-for-brains fuckwit” if you are over 18.)

Think Progress reports:

A number right-wing Washington, D.C. politicians have headed back to their states as newly-elected governors. And their behavior, once they leave Beltway fantasyland for the real world, shows just how out of touch today’s conservative ideology is with solving real problems.

[…]

But perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all is Mitch Daniels. As President Bush’s Budget Director, Daniels was a top point man in ramming massive tax cuts for the wealthy through Congress, and gutting spending for critical programs. Now, as governor of Indiana, he is facing the ramifications of his actions in Washington - and proposing exactly what he railed against.

See, you would have thought that any state with two brain cells knocking around among the entirety of its backwater, dumbshit, KKK-lovin’ populace would take a look at its dire financial situation (including a tanking economy, the hemorrhaging of jobs that weren’t even good to begin with, and out-of-control real estate tax increases to try to make up for the first two on the list) and would decide that Bush’s budget director probably wasn’t the best choice to fix our problems. But no. Mitch drove around on a bus and did heartwarming commercials starring Indiana’s endless fields of corn, while our former Democratic governor committed the unforgivable faux pas of dying right before the election. And all of us up in “the Region,” who vote blue for Evan Bayh and Pete Visclosky, are now stuck with the brilliant governing stylings of Mitch Daniels, who is not only a Bush loyalist and impending fiscal nightmare, but also an inveterate opportunist—what some on the other side of the aisle might even call a flip-flopper:

THEN:
“It’s especially risky to talk about let alone a jack up today’s level of taxation.”
- White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 2/5/02

NOW:
“Gov. Mitch Daniels called for a one percent income tax increase to help balance Indiana’s budget.”
- Indianapolis Star, 2/20/05

THEN:
“[Mitch Daniels] is truly committed to cutting back the size of government.”
- Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore on Daniels efforts to gut spending on safety net programs, 1/20/03

NOW:
“Instead of immediately shrinking state government [upon becoming governor, Daniels] expanded it, creating a Department of Child Services.”
- NY Times, 2/20/05

It would be one thing if Daniels had actually had some kind of change of heart, some epiphany that enabled him to embrace solutions that favor progressives…

[b]ut the sincerity of [his] ideological conversion is dubious – [he is] merely up against budgetary reality, and desperate for solutions.

The good news?

The actions of Daniels and his fellow converts, motivated by a need to address reality rather than push ideology, provides proof that the progressive agenda can better address America’s real-world challenges.

If only. Unfortunately, when Daniels’ progressive solutions work, they’ll just vote him back in, touting the brilliance of a Republican governorship. Blech.

(My apologies to the rare and wonderful liberals outside of "the Region." Keep fighting the good fight against the Hoosier mulletitudes.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

More on Iran

I’m on Iran today. Mainly because I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on, what’s going to happen, perhaps steal myself against what is inevitable. Bunch of stuff to cover here, and it’s kind of a mess, but the long and the short of it is that we’re well and truly fucked.

To begin, let’s visit with our good friend the Dark Wraith, who has, in his usual right-on and enviable style, spoken:

The Bush Administration has now called home the American ambassador to Syria. This is not a pretext for war against that country; it is, instead, as much as anything else a notice to the people of the United States that a situation of crisis is building once again in the Middle East, and the Americans must and will take the lead in resolving the looming threat. Syria poses no danger to the United States, but it does afford the neo-conservatives a means by which a message can be conveyed to Iran.

We are on the brink, once again, of war. This time, however, the enemy will not be a country eviscerated by years of debilitating sanctions. This time, the enemy will not be a nation with a Westernized military the vast majority of which stood down for us as we staged a violent and epic play for embedded reporters and enraptured television viewers. This time, the enemy will fight; and the battlefields will be slaughterhouses not only for Iranian soldiers, but for American soldiers, as well.

[...]

Iran is a country about to become a nuclear state. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. Iran with nuclear weapons is no counterbalance to the nuclear state of Israel; it is, rather, the partner for a gruesome dance of death traced across the blood-strewn floor of a new century. Iran as a nuclear state is no longer merely a meddling, regional menace; it is a global threat to Western culture.

Now, for those who find the idea of "Western culture" repugnant, the alternative offered by Iran and nations like it should transcend even the most terrifying visions of a world oppressed by the grotesqueness of what America and the Europeans have done throughout history.

[...]

The Bush Administration had more than four years to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Bush Administration had more than four years to shepherd, both openly and covertly, that country's moderates to permanent dominance in their halls of political power. The Bush Administration had more than four years to shut down the global traffic in components for nuclear weapons and precursors to the fuel of Hell's weapons.

The Bush Administration had more than four years to build a house that would keep America safe and at peace in a world of madmen.

That house was never built. And now, the bitter-hot winds of war are coming. And we are have no choice but to walk through the maelstrom to the other side, where the next tragedy of our leaders' failures will surely begin.

As unthinkable as it may seem, Iraq may, in the end, turn out to be little more than a minor skirmish preceding a cataclysm the magnitude of which we have yet to grasp. Iraq might only have been the first step in a long descent into madness of the Middle East.

And consider this: against a small guerrilla insurgency in Iraq, against an army that, as the Dark Wraith correctly noted, largely did not fight, we have heard but half-truths about the real cost of this war in troop injuries and deaths.

Information about the number of US casualities in Iraq is available on a web site of the Pentagon or known as the "War Hub" at www.pentagon.gov. This information covers only those who are officially US citizens enlisted with different military services. Hired security contractors, or mercenaries, and recruits who are not citizens who enlisted to obtain a "green card," are not counted or mentioned. A large number of the green card recruits are from Mexico and Central America. There are no organizations to look after their rights or help them once they're in Iraq. Most of them are buried in Iraq when killed. A videotape produced and distributed by the "Majles Shora Al-Mojahideen in Fallujah," one of the most important military wings of the Iraqi resistance, showed a burial site discovered outside the Iraqi city of Samara with tens of bodies in US military body bags. The dead where dressed in US uniforms. It is estimated that as many as 40% of the US troops serving in Iraq are green card recruits.

This is not the only incidence of mass graves for US troops being reported. Remember the Reuters cameraman who was killed by US troops, ostensibly because his camera was mistaken for a rocket launcher?

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops have shot and killed a cameraman working for Reuters news agency in Iraq.

The shooting happened at Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, where six Iraqis were killed in a mortar attack late on Saturday.

The US military said that soldiers had mistaken Mazen Dana's camera for a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

The 43-year-old Palestinian was described by Reuters as one of its finest cameramen.

His death brings to 19 the number of journalists and their assistants who have died in Iraq or have gone missing since the conflict began.

[…]

He is the second Reuters cameraman to be killed since US-led troops invaded Iraq.

Guess what he was working on?

"Mazen told me by phone few days before his death that he discovered a mass grave dug by U.S. troops to conceal the bodies of their fellow comrades killed in Iraqi resistance attacks," [Nazmi Dana, Mazen’s brother] said.

"He also told me that he found U.S. troops covered in plastic bags in remote desert areas and he filmed them for a TV program. We are pretty sure that the American forces had killed Mazen knowingly to prevent him from airing his finding."

[…]

Mazen's wife, Umm Hamza, did not rule out that the U.S. troops targeted her husband personally, noting they had agreed to give him a permit to film Abu Gharib prison and then he was directly shot dead by two U.S. tanks.

So how many troops, US citizens or not, have given their lives for the war in Iraq? We just don’t know for sure. (Suburban Guerrilla has more on this issue, including how combat vs. non-combat deaths are defined and delineated so as to lower the official governmental total number of combat fatalities. In brief, if your Jeep tips over and you die, it doesn’t count.) A more realistic number is likely 4,000 deaths and 30,000 injuries. And that’s with an army that didn’t stand and fight, in a country that had no weapons of mass destruction to use against our troops.

If (or, as it increasingly appears, when) we go into Iran, Iraq may well be a walk in the park by comparison.

Meanwhile:

The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers.

For the first time since 2001, the Army began the fiscal year in October with only 18.4 percent of the year's target of 80,000 active-duty recruits already in the pipeline. That amounts to less than half of last year's figure and falls well below the Army's goal of 25 percent.

Meanwhile, the Army is rushing incoming recruits into training as quickly as it can. Compared with last year, it has cut by 50 percent the average number of days between the time a recruit signs up and enters boot camp. It is adding more than 800 active-duty recruiters to the 5,201 who were on the job last year, as attracting each enlistee requires more effort and monetary incentives.

Driving the manpower crunch is the Army's goal of boosting the number of combat brigades needed to rotate into Iraq and handle other global contingencies. Yet Army officials see worrisome signs that young American men and women -- and their parents -- are growing wary of military service, largely because of the Iraq conflict.

To those who voted for Bush: This is what you voted for; the saber-rattling about Iran had started even before the election. You said you thought he’d keep us safe, mocking John Kerry’s vision of national security as forged through global alliances. So now you’ve got what you wanted; we’re on our own, with exhausted and overextended troops, at least one renegade nuclear power who knows we can’t do shit to stop them the way things stand, and a leader who lives, eats, shits, and breathes the philosophy that might makes right and the end will always justify the means.

Enjoy the Draft.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Establishment Clause Challenge from Outside the Establishment

There’s a really cool article today in the Washington Post about this:


Photo Credit: Sylvia Moreno, The Washington Post

What “this” is, is a monolithic Ten Commandments monument, found outside the Texas State Capitol building, where it has stood for more than 40 years. And the reason it’s in the news is because Thomas Van Orden has taken a case all the way to the Supreme Court about it, arguing that it violates the Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion. Van Orden, by the way, is homeless and destitute, a former attorney whose law license is suspended.

But never mind all that, Thomas Van Orden admonishes anyone who gets stuck on the fact that he sleeps nightly in a tent in a wooded area; showers and washes his clothes irregularly; hangs out in a law library; and survives on food stamps and the good graces of acquaintances who give him a few bucks from time to time.

What is important, Van Orden says, is "I wrote myself to the Supreme Court."

[…]

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear Van Orden v. Perry, a case born of Van Orden's daily meanderings around the Texas state Capitol grounds. There, between the Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, stands a 6-foot-tall, 3-foot-wide pink granite monument etched with the commandments and Christian and Jewish symbols. Carved in the shape of stone tablets, the monument was presented to "the Youth and the People of Texas" in 1961 by the Texas chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

One day in 2002, as Van Orden walked to the State Law Library in the Supreme Court building, where he seeks peaceful and dry refuge daily, the lawsuit dawned on him. Somebody had to challenge the state of Texas for what he believed to be a governmental endorsement of Judeo-Christian doctrine and a violation of the separation between church and state.

Why not him? As he likes to say, "I have time; my schedule is kind of light."

Van Orden is not anti-religious. In fact, he considers himself a religious pluralist who enjoys church; he just also happens to believe in a firm separation between church and state—a fine bit of nuance no doubt lost on his detractors.

But as Van Orden often says, he did not sue the Ten Commandments. "I sued the state ... to uphold the values found in the First Amendment."

Using “the public resources of the Texas State Law Library, a dollar here and there from friends and some small donations from supporters of his cause,” Van Orden has put together a case that may be, well, forgive the pun, monumental. It will be heard at the same time as McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a case brining a similar challenge, and the ruling on the cases could mean the difference between such religious imagery being rightfully banned from the public (i.e. governmental) sphere or an economic boom in the monument industry as every red state courthouse buys a granite-forged Ode to the Ten Commandments of their very own.

If it’s the former, we will have an industrious, ingenuous man who made the absolute most of his meager resources and his firm belief in God, country, and a separation of the two, to thank.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Maybe He’s Wrong This Time

Brilliant at Breakfast starts this post by reminding us that Scott Ritter was right, oh so painfully right, about Iraq.

Then we’re introduced to what he’s saying now:

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."

Good lord.

You know, some days all I can think is, “Damn the Democrats for not fighting harder for Al Gore. Damn us all.”

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Aggregatapalooza

This is supercool (via Corked Bats):

Dr. Laniac has syndication for most of the web logs that opposed Gonzales. This means that the last three to five updates from all of these blogs are clickable from that site. This is a great place to find out what the blogosphere is talking about.

You definitely need to check it out.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Buyer's Remorse

A few bloggers, including Digby, Atrios, and Armando at Kos, are already talking about the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that finds 60% of Americans

including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party "don't go too far." Just 34% want Democrats to "work in a bipartisan way" to help pass the president's priorities.

The people have spoken, the Left was right, time for Democrats to show some strength, and all that.

But here’s all I’ve got to say about it: It’s two months into his fucking term, you nitwits! Why the FUCK did you vote for him in November?!

Idiots.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend

TBogg on Gannongate:

While all of the other bloggers are relishing the idea of the Eight Inch Bulldog being deposed on his connections to the White House, I'm much more interested in hearing about his full-time job as an Escort with Benefits in the DC area. In particular, a "client" list or little black book.

That sound you just heard was Ken Mehlman's sphincter snapping shut so tightly that if you popped a briquet in his butt you'd have a diamond by Tuesday.

Yowza.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

RIP Hunter S. Thompson

Oh, I feel sick. This is just so, so terrible.

Hunter S. Thompson, the acerbic counterculture writer who popularized a new form of fictional journalism in books like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," fatally shot himself Sunday night at his home, his son said. He was 67.

"Hunter prized his privacy and we ask that his friends and admirers respect that privacy as well as that of his family," Juan Thompson said in a statement released to the Aspen Daily News.

Pitkin County Sheriff Bob Braudis, a personal friend of Thompson, confirmed the death to the News. Sheriff's officials did not return calls to The Associated Press late Sunday.

Juan Thompson found his father's body. Thompson's wife, Anita, was not home at the time.

Besides the 1972 drug-hazed classic about Thompson's time in Las Vegas, he is credited with pioneering New Journalism — or "gonzo journalism" — in which the writer made himself an essential component of the story.

An acute observer of the decadence and depravity in American life, Thompson wrote such books as "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" in 1973 and the collections "Generation of Swine" and "Songs of the Doomed." His first ever novel, "The Rum Diary," written in 1959, was first published in 1998.

Other books include "Hell's Angels" and "The Proud Highway." His most recent effort was "Hey Rube: Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and The Downward Spiral of Dumbness."

I just adored Hunter S. Thompson, crackpot though he was. God, what a better place we'd be in right now if there were more like him.

If you've never read him, pick up Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, and if you'd rather watch a movie, don't watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; get Where the Buffalo Roam, with Bill Murray as HST--it's a much better film.

Seeya on the flip side, Hunter.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Maher & Co. on Gannon

Gannongate on Bill Maher’s show here (link via Mahablog). Funny stuff.

Biden was great.

Robin Williams had the best line, I thought, even though it didn’t get much of a laugh. He wanted to know if Jimmy Jeff Gannguckerton’s screen name was “Gung Ho.” Ha.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Women Get Shit End of Stick...Again

I’ve been meaning to write something about this truly heartbreaking post at Baghdad Burning, but Digby’s already said it perfectly. (Make sure you read the original post first.)

This Iraqi woman has not been liberated. She is being slowly imprisoned, probably for the rest of her life, by a male dominated fundamentalist (that's a redundancy) religious political system that is going to ruin her life. You can feel it in her words. It's one of the saddest things I've read in the long trail of horrors that this Iraq misadventure has wrought.

[…]

Despite what the right wing would have everyone believe, one of the primary reasons liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan was to end the documented horrors that women suffered under the Taliban. Long before the Bush admnistration was negotiating with the Taliban or Republican congressmen were holding privatre meetings with Mullah Omar's lieutenants trying to make deals for pipelines, Hollywood liberals like Mavis Leno were spearheading the despised Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan. Everything about the Taliban was anathema to people like us who value freedom and equality. When that religious fundamentalist government enabled the direct attack on the United States there was every reason on both moral and national security grounds to support the invasion of that country. Life could not be much worse than it was under the Taliban.

Iraq was always much more complicated. […] Unless everything went exactly as envisioned by the starry eyed neocons, there was every chance that we would actually make many people less free by our actions.

It appears that this is happening. Not that anyone cares, mind you. If half of the Iraqi population sees a substantial loss of personal freedom from our liberation, it isn't really a problem. They are, after all, only women.

Even if Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction, would taking away women’s rights in Iraq have been an acceptable exchange for our perceived sense of safety? No.

The fact that he had none makes the situation all the more tragic.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Blogenlust has a New Address

Blogenlust has moved. Make sure you update your blogroll, and if it’s not on your blogroll, now’s as good a time as any to add it!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Presidential Portrait

The NY Times has an interesting article about some conversations secretly taped by a former confidant of the president’s, Doug Wead, during the time leading up to the presidency. In the end, it’s a bit of a whatever, as it does little more than further solidify our assumptions about Chimpy—that he is an inveterate opportunist, that he favors loyalty over competence, and that he’s an immature idiot.

However, here are some choice quotes for your consideration (emphasis mine throughout):

Preparing to meet Christian leaders in September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, "As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways." He added, "I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life. And that's a true statement."

[…]

Mr. Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr. Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it involved nothing more than "just, you know, wild behavior." He worried, though, that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his opponents for stirring rumors. "If nobody shows up, there's no story," he told Mr. Wead, "and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up." But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

He refused to answer reporters' questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."

He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. "Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don't do them," he said.

[…]

And he is cocky at times. "It's me versus the world," he told Mr. Wead. "The good news is, the world is on my side. Or more than half of it."

[…]

[I]n a conversation that November on the eve of Mr. Bush's re-election [as Texas’ governor], his confidence was soaring. "I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever," he told Mr. Wead. "The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn't that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me."

[…]

Mr. Bush knew that his own religious faith could be an asset with conservative Christian voters, and his personal devotion was often evident in the taped conversations. When Mr. Wead warned him that "power corrupts," for example, Mr. Bush told him not to worry: "I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check."

That’s a fabulous endorsement of religion. It’s clearly done wonders for keeping the president’s ego in check. Ahem.

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"

Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."

"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead.

Special rights. Don’t get me started.

When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters talking about Mr. Bush's "immature" past, Mr. Bush said, "That's part of my schtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes."

He said he learned "a couple of really good lines" from Mr. Robison, the Texas pastor: "What you need to say time and time again is not talk about the details of your transgressions but talk about what I have learned. I've sinned and I've
learned."

[…]

He complained repeatedly about the press scrutiny, accusing the news media of a "campaign" against him. While he talked of certain reporters as "pro-Bush" and commented favorably on some publications (U.S. News & World Report is "halfway decent," but Time magazine is "awful"), he vented frequently to Mr. Wead about what he considered the liberal bias and invasiveness of the news media in general.

Boo-hoo, said Time’s 2004 Man of the Year.

While Mr. Bush thought the conservative Christian candidates Gary L. Bauer and Alan Keyes would probably scare away moderates, he saw Mr. Ashcroft as an ally because he would draw evangelical voters into the race.

"I want Ashcroft to stay in there, and I want him to be very strong," Mr. Bush said. " I would love it to be a Bush-Ashcroft race. Only because I respect him. He wouldn't say ugly things about me. And I damn sure wouldn't say ugly things about him."

But Mr. Bush was sharply critical of Mr. Forbes, another son of privilege with a famous last name. Evangelicals were not going to like him, Mr. Bush said. "He's too preppy," Mr. Bush said, calling Mr. Forbes "mean spirited."

Recalling the bruising primary fight Mr. Forbes waged against Bob Dole in 1996, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, "Steve Forbes is going to hear this message from me. I will do nothing for him if he does to me what he did to Dole. Period. There is going to be a consequence. He is not dealing with the average, you know, 'Oh gosh, let's all get together after it's over.' I will promise you, I will not help him. I don't care."

Another time, Mr. Bush discussed offering Mr. Forbes a job as economic adviser or even secretary of commerce, if Mr. Forbes would approach him first.

Yep. Political opportunist, rewarder of loyalty above all else, ideologue, brat…that’s the President Bush we all know and loathe.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!