ABA Targets Bush’s Signing Statement Shenanigans

This is very interesting indeed. The American Bar Association’s board president has proposed a task force to review the 750 laws enacted and hence systematically ignored, and often completely undermined, by Bush, with the use of presidential signing statements, since he took office. Saturday, the board of governors unanimously voted to proceed with an investigation, led by a bipartisan “all-star legal panel,” which would seek to determine whether Bush’s signing statements violate Constitutional law.

They include a former federal appeals court chief judge, a former FBI director, and several prominent scholars -- to evaluate Bush's assertions that he has the power to ignore laws that conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution…

Bush has challenged more laws than all previous presidents combined.

The ABA's president, Michael Greco, said in an interview that he proposed the task force because he believes the scope and aggressiveness of Bush's signing statements may raise serious constitutional concerns. He said the ABA, which has more than 400,000 members, has a duty to speak out about such legal issues to the public, the courts, and Congress.

“The American Bar Association feels a very serious obligation to ensure that when there are legal issues that affect the American people, the ABA adopts a policy regarding such issues and then speaks out about it," Greco said. “In this instance, the president's practice of attaching signing statements to laws squarely presents a constitutional issue about the separation of powers among the three branches."
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and inveterate party hack Arlen Specter promised to hold hearings on the signing statements after the Globe’s original report back in April about the 750 violated laws, but since, as usual, his sad ass continues to drag, the ABA has stepped up to the plate. Perhaps they’ll manage to get something done, since our stinking cesspool of a GOP-led Congress can’t be arsed to give a shit about the Constitution—aside from trying to use it to codify discrimination against a large swath of the American populace whose great sin is being the most useful wedge issue the GOP has these days to distract struggling Americans from the realities of their pathetic, low-wage, no-healthcare, high-gas cost, crumbling-infrastructure, fucked-environment lives.

Open Wide...

An Inconvenient Truth

Saturday night, the Shaker meet-up to see An Inconvenient Truth brought together a dirty dozen composed of visiting Floridian Litbrit, Paul the Spud, Shakers Constant Comment, Doug, Claire, Michelle, Sarah in Chicago, bloggers Sean from Cosmic Variance, Driftglass, my girlfriend Miller, Mr. Shakes, and myself. It was a really wonderful evening, and I was so grateful to have the chance to put faces to names I’ve known for so long, to meet in person many people of whom I have been so fond for so long. And many thanks again to Sarah for finding us an inimitably delightful post-movie venue that indulged the desire for bangers, mash, and Branston Pickle.

The movie is stunning. As an avowed Gore fan, I am pleased to report from a personal perspective that he comes across not as the robotic, emotionless plank as which he has been frustratingly cast, but the intelligent, witty, passionate public servant I have always believed—and seen—him to be. As a rather alarmed and angry inhabitant of an endangered planet, I am obliged to report that the content presented by our exiled rightful leader makes for a film that ought to be required viewing for, well, everyone.

For a moment, I’m going to turn it over to Sean, because he’s a science guy and says what he says about the film very well:

There isn’t any scientific controversy over whether or not climate change is happening, or whether or not human beings are a major cause of it. That argument is over; the only ones left on the other side are hired guns and crackpots. But the guns are hired by people with an awful lot of money, and they’re extremely successful at sowing doubt where there shouldn’t be any…

Here is the point: We are taking an enormously complex, highly nonlinear, intricately connected system that we don’t fully understand and on which everything about our lives depends—the environment—and repeatedly whacking it with sledgehammers, in the form of atmospheric gasses of various sorts. Statements of the form “well, we don’t really know what that particular piece of the system does, so we can’t be rigorously certain that smashing it with a sledgehammer would necessarily be a bad thing” are, in some limited sense, perfectly true. They are also reckless and stupid. The fact that there are things we don’t understand about the environment isn’t a license to do whatever we like to it, it’s the best possible reason why we should be careful. And being careful won’t spell the doom of our economic system, bringing global capitalism crashing to the floor and returning us all to hunter-gatherer societies. We just have to take some straightforward steps to minimize the damage we are doing, just as we very successfully did with atmospheric chloro-fluorocarbons to save the ozone layer. And the best way to ensure that those steps are taken is to elect leaders who are smart and determined enough to take them.
After the film, Miller, Spudsy, and I were standing around talking about some of the attempts we’ve seen to discredit the film in various reviews, and I mentioned having seen complaints that what Gore presents is the “worst case scenario.” I don’t particularly consider that a flaw. To the contrary, I’d like the know the entire potential of the problem, and precisely what it will take to avoid it.

To be perfectly honest, I was not certain going into the film whether I would consider it worthy of recommendation. I was convinced that I would like it; it features a man I greatly admire speaking on a topic on which he is an expert and about which I am concerned. That didn’t mean it was going to be a great film or worthy of passing on a heartfelt endorsement to spend $10 to see it. Setting my biases aside, I can assure you it’s worth your time and money. It may be one of the most important films I have ever seen, ever been given the opportunity—by virtue of one man’s passion and willingness to trade on his name and risk more public criticism after weathering so much already—to see. It opens in wide release soon, and I truly hope you have the chance to see it.

As a side note, there is a book version, also called An Inconvenient Truth, which is a great companion piece, or a decent substitute, if the movie doesn’t play in your area. On a trip to the local Barnes and Noble yesterday, Litbrit and I engaged in a bit of guerrilla redecorating; while I stood guard, Litbrit relocated the cardboard display to a prominent position in front of a table featuring current affairs tomes from the likes of Coulter, Savage, and O’Reilly. It had been buried back behind the Christian Studies shelves, and we thought it would be better placed as a bulwark to the political screeds that do nothing to further either political discourse or real moral values, like protecting the earth.

One of the employees saw us. She just gave us a smile and went on her way.

After the movie, when we sat at our long table and lifted our glasses, we didn’t toast one another, or say cheers, or anything I’d ever toasted before (although I’ve longed to for many years)—we toasted Al Gore. And as we all took the first much-needed slugs of our drinks, I believe none of us were thinking of anything else besides how different things might have been. Perhaps some of us were even thinking how different they may yet be, if Mr. Gore takes this battle back to the frontlines of American politics. I know I was, anyway.

Open Wide...

Family Values

I love it:

Republican Jim Galley, who is running for Congress as a “pro-traditional family” candidate, was married to two women at the same time, defaulted on his child support payments and has been accused of abuse by one of his ex-wives.
I propose a Constitutional Amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage from Republican bigamists STAT!!!

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo

Part Two: The Hands of Skeletor

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo

Part One: The Hand of George

Open Wide...

News from Shakes Manor

Dateline Portage, IN—8:30pm CST. Litbrit has arrived safely, and we are now sufficiently juiced up on Champagne to be yearning for Mexican food (in solidarity with our undocumented immigrant brethren) and laying out elaborate fantasies about Al Gore that are decidedly unpresidential, but definitely fall under the header of “warming,” though not of the global sort.

There’s still time to make plans to join us tomorrow for the Shaker meet-up. Email me for details. For anyone who’s already gotten the info, we’ll be meeting in the lobby between 5:00 and 5:30. Just look for the short, round person, the tall, thin person with the lovely long hair, and the big, red-headed Scotsman, and you’ll be sure to find us. After the movie, well, who knows what mischief we’ll get up to…

To everyone who’s joining us, we’re looking forward to seeing you there, and to those who can’t make it this time…we’ll do it again soon!

Open Wide...

No, this isn't sexual at all... why do you ask?

I think the "Ex-Gay" movement is at best, ridiculous; at worst, dangerous. I shudder when I think of these people getting their hands on anyone that may be struggling with their sexuality and internalized homophobia, but when I watch this clip, I can't help but laugh my ass off.

Let's just say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Awwww.

The "Daddy" is Richard Cohen, who is actually quite dangerous, as Pam points out. So I feel kind of guilty for laughing at this.

But only kind of.

(Tip of the Energy Dome to Pam and Crooks & Liars. Photo thanks to Ex Gay Watch.)

(All week long we've been wondering who... left the green cross-post gown in the loo...)

Open Wide...

Science News

Very interesting: “An apparent crater as big as Ohio has been found in Antarctica. Scientists think it was carved by a space rock that caused the greatest mass extinction on Earth, 250 million years ago.”

To be filed under: Things You Won’t Find at the Creation Museum.

Incredibly dumb: “Oh those wacky College Repugs at Oklahoma U! Not content with wrecking the country with their unwinnable war, they want to wreck the planet too. Instead of reflecting in sober fashion on the fact of global warming, they're celebrating ‘Global Cooling Day’ and hosting ‘Global Warming Beach Parties.’”

To be filed under: One Million and One Reasons Republicans Suck

Open Wide...

Katie the MSM Messiah

Katie Couric says she hopes to end the “pretentious era” of news. She promises to bring a “humanistic, more accessible” approach to her job as CBS’ new evening anchor. Couric hasn’t laid out any specifics about her plan, but I have it on good authority that Phase One includes introducing a little girl-on-girl action at the end of each nightly broadcast.


Humanistic and accessible…
or worst. porn. ever?

Open Wide...

Fainting Couch Alert!

Virginity pledgers often dishonest about past:

Teenagers who take pledges to remain virgins until marriage are likely to deny having taken the pledge if they later become sexually active. Conversely, those who were sexual active before taking the pledge frequency deny their sexual history, according to new study findings...

"Psychology studies in a variety of contexts seem to demonstrate that people's memories of their behavior are consistent with their beliefs rather than their actual behavior," [study author Janet Rosenbaum, of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts] told Reuters Health.

I can't believe this! Surely the good Christian teens who take virginity pledges wouldn't ever lie! Obviously Ms. Rosenbaum is the liar. But what can you expect from a bastion of secular liberal extremism like Harvard?

Open Wide...

Batwoman Comes Out

A bunch of people have emailed me asking what I think about the much-discussed announcement that Batwoman is returning as a lesbian. Well, I think it’s fucking cool. As Mr. Shakes wrote last May, when discussing Marvel’s treatment of gay characters, “The liberal’s greatest weapon, pop culture, remains sharp and potent, and I find it encouraging that even under the Right’s rabid onslaught, it continues to be uncompromising. Until conservatives develop a sense of humor, we will continue to have an advantage in this area.” Snap.

Open Wide...

Keith Olbermann Goes Apeshit on O’Reilly

Fucking brilliant. And he’s totally right. Most of the time, O’Reilly’s legions of mistakes, misrepresentations, and manipulations of the facts are laughable. Saying, not once but twice, that American soldiers committed a war crime at Malmedy, when it was the other way around, and 84 captured American soldiers were murdered in cold blood by the Nazis, and invoking it—no less—as a defense of what happened at Haditha, is beyond the pale. And then to lie about it…and for Fox to change the transcript… Totally unbelievable. He is a repulsive piece of shit.

Open Wide...

BBC: New “Iraq Massacre” Tape

The BBC is in possession of a video that appears to contradict the US military’s official version of somewhere between 4 and 11 deaths of Iraqi civilians. The Pentagon is investigating. I’ve got nothing to say I haven’t already said.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What's your least favorite household chore?

(...asked the blogmistress up to her neck in laundry, which she loathes doing so thoroughly she just "took a break" from it to scrub the toilets)

Open Wide...

WTF?

No, really. WTF? Coming soon: Doggy voting!

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo


(And check out this one, passed on by Angelos. Ha.)

Open Wide...

Bye-bye, Democracy; it was nice knowing you.

RFK, Jr.'s piece on the 2004 election is up at Rolling Stone. It's a must read. Long, but good.

The only problem is that I have no idea WTF we're supposed to do about it.

Open Wide...

Attention New York: You Are Not Worth Saving

This just disgusts me on all levels. What, is Ann "New Yorkers are Cowards" Coulter now working for the Department of Homeland Security?

No Icons, No Monuments Worth Protecting (bolds mine)

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. (Click here for the actual document.) That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

The formula did not consider as landmarks or icons: The Empire State Building, The United Nations, The Statue of Liberty and others found on several terror target hit lists. It also left off notable landmarks, such as the New York Public Library, Times Square, City Hall and at least three of the nation's most renowned museums: The Guggenheim, The Metropolitan and The Museum of Natural History.

The form ignored that New York City is the capital of the world financial markets and merely stated the city had four significant bank assets.

I guess all that "We Love New York" support from America is dead and buried, huh? What a difference a few years and a President make. I guess they've also forgotten how hard the American economy was hit after the WTC crumbled.

I'm actually not all that surprised to see the U.N. not listed... we all know the Bush Administration would love to see that building wiped out. And yeah, the Statue of Liberty needs to go as well... it's French, after all, and it's giving too many of them uppity foreigners ideas about... *shudder* coming to America, or somethin'.
The formula did note a commuter population of more than 16 million around the city twice struck by fundamentalist terrorists and twice more targeted in plots halted in pre-operational stages. It noted the more than eight million residents and the largest rail ridership in the nation - more than five million. It is those commuters and rail riders who are expected to suffer most from the cuts since mass transit is listed on most DHS alerts as the top terror target.

So... New Yorkers lives are not worth saving. Go ahead and blow up the subways, terrorists! Somewhere, Ann Coulter is masturbating and moaning like a Stegosaurus stuck in the La Brea tarpits.
The report lists as classified "visitors of interest destination city," immigration cases, suspicious incidents and FBI cases. New York City is home to the largest FBI field office in the country, which actively monitors 24/7 the Iranian Mission. The city has also had the most significant terror trials in the nation and is home to one of the largest air hubs in the nation.

And yet, it is still not worth saving.

Even after 9/11.

You know something? I don't want to hear George fucking Bush utter "September the Eleventh" one more goddamn time. He's shoved that date in our face since the day after the attacks, and exploited it ever since, like a fucking freakshow barker. But when it comes to actually supporting the people that were affected by the attack, he couldn't give a good goddamn. Perhaps if Bush and these bastards at the DHS had to smell the destruction and breathe in fellow New Yorkers for weeks after the towers fell like we did, they wouldn't be so fucking callous.

Of course, I'm probably giving them too much credit.

I guess if New York wants that money, they'd better put up a statue of Dubya pretty fucking quick.

Damn these people. God damn them.

(Energy dome tip to Crooks & Liars, who remember that the Right is happy to use the Empire State Building when they want to fend off Chickenhawk accusations.)

(U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no cross-post, you're just ugly...)

Open Wide...

From Here to Haditha

This kind of shit is really beginning to piss me off.

The accelerating media feeding frenzy over the alleged killings of twenty-four Iraqi civilians in Haditha by US Marines last November is about to overwhelm American politics. Propelled by their most irresponsible war critics, the left will try use Haditha as it used My Lai thirty years ago: as a political tool to take apart America's support for the war and to shatter the legitimacy of our cause and the morale of our troops.
“The Left” doesn’t need to “use Haditha” to shatter the legitimacy of our cause in Iraq. The legitimacy of our cause was undermined from day fucking one when the administration cooked up our cause from cherry-picked intelligence. Even if we are to acknowledge the oft-cited defense of the intelligence issued by the Right—that everyone from Clinton to the bloody French also believed that Saddam had WMDs, so it was an “error,” as opposed to a rationale built out of whole cloth—the urgency with which we were told we must go to war, and the carelessness we took in doing so, are both the sole responsibility of the Bush administration. And once the WMD cause had been fundamentally subverted and exposed as false, the cause of a humanitarian intervention was tacked on as an afterthought. When all that remained was the idea of liberating the Iraqi people, the liberators allegedly going on a murderous rampage shatters any shred of legitimacy predicated on a humanitarian cause more thoroughly than anything the Left could ever make of the incident thereafter.

Why does something like the massacre at Haditha happen? A few bad apples is the conventional wisdom, but were those apples rotten before they got to Iraq—or have extended tours, dreadful conditions, insufficient troops and resources, and no end in sight taken their toll, causing some of the troops to snap? Smart money’s on the latter, which certainly doesn’t excuse what happened, but ought to be judiciously considered when trying to explain it, particularly as it suggests that troop morale is already shattered, at least in some quarters, and for reasons having nothing to do with what the Left makes of Haditha.

First, the left will use every tool at their disposal to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war. Abu Ghraib proved a propaganda bonanza for the terrorists and nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that want us to withdraw from Iraq in defeat. Haditha - regardless of what the facts may turn out to be - will be used ceaselessly and purposefully to eliminate American support for the Iraq war and to demonize anyone who still supports it.
The only “tool” the Left would need to “ensure” that Haditha becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war is logic—and anyone with an ounce of it will therefore draw the logical conclusion, propelled by the Left or not. Considering the incident was precipitated by a marine being killed by an insurgency that was never predicted nor thusly properly planned for by the administration, which has unknowably lengthened the conflict, contributing to the conditions which drive soldiers to madness, and considering that the incident was covered up not once, but twice, prompting a separate investigation into the malfeasance of leadership, it’s hard to see precisely how one could avoid Haditha’s being seen as synonymous with the entire Iraq war.

There’s a reason that events like My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha become enduring images of wars—and it’s not because the Left is so eager to use them to make a case about any particular war. It’s because there are a lot of people who find it incredibly easy to support a war in the abstract, when it’s all promises of rose petals and sweets, six months and a reconstruction that will pay for itself, set against the pressure of patriotism and a backdrop of fear that our very way of life will be forever changed if we don’t send the troops off to protect us. Eventually, perspective begins to creep back in, replacing visceral fear and blind nationalism. Long before Haditha, Americans were beginning to question this war, to doubt its architects and wonder if it had really been such a good idea after all. It’s was taking a lot longer than expected; it wasn’t going as planned; it was costing more than promised. All abstractions, but nonetheless real concerns. Casualties started to rise. Not so abstract anymore. Stories of soldiers doing things they weren’t meant to do at Abu Ghraib and Haditha made the realities of the true costs of war suddenly unavoidable. When abstract concerns crash headlong into images of the ugliness of war, people get uneasy. Support for the war isn’t then so easy, either.

War supporters know this. They know it isn’t really the devious machinations of the Left that undermines war, but reminders about how brutal war really is. It’s why they don’t like the media reporting on anything “negative,” why they hide soldiers’ caskets, why they relentlessly classify anything as innocuous as the reading of fallen soldiers’ names as antiwar. They know they must hide the reality of war in order to sustain support for it. They complain that there isn’t enough coverage of the good things happening in Iraq, but the belief that all the stories about hospitals being built or schools reopened will somehow persuade people it’s worth the tragedy necessitates a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Most people don’t work that way. They don’t offer praise for things you’re supposed to be doing. Making sure Iraqis have electricity isn’t impressive—it isn’t above and beyond; it’s the bare minimum. That people see it that way isn’t cruel or irrational; it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation that those things will be done. What people care about is what fails to meet their expectations, what surprises them. And a betrayal of the people we’re meant to be protecting is surprising indeed. You can’t hang the Left with the responsibility for human nature.

Haditha will become the Orwellian centerpiece of the Democrats' claim that they support the troops. "They've been there too long," Murtha and his ilk will cry. "We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." And then the Dems, feigning concern for our soldiers, will offer them psychological counseling when they return. The political fallout will be enormous, and it will damage both the ongoing war efforts and our troops' morale.
Feigning concern. I am sick and bloody tired of being accused of feigning concern for our troops. I understand that the only acceptable displays of troop support among war supporters are never questioning the war, bearing a yellow ribbon bumper sticker, and sending care packages to soldiers, and I accept that they genuinely believe that those are the best ways to show support, even though I disagree. I don’t believe that everyone who supports the war doesn’t hold a genuine concern for our troops; certainly there may be some who never stop to think concretely about the men and women who fight in Iraq, just as there may be some on the Left. But generally, I believe quite firmly that most war supporters have respect and concern for the troops. And I wish they would give me the same benefit of the doubt in return.

I support the troops by not wanting to send them to war when it’s avoidable. I support the troops by advocating for an appropriate number of troops who are properly armed and protected to complete the mission. I support veterans by demanding the VA be properly funded—including, yes, money for psychologists who can provide much-needed counseling to returning soldiers. I support the troops by taking a long look at their mission and being critical of it if they are, in its execution, left exposed, vulnerable, exhausted, overwhelmed, struggling against futility. When I criticize the war, it is because I support the troops, and care about their lives—not the opposite.

I am mindful of what war can do to a person. I have spoken to Iraqi veterans with the thousand-yard stare; I have worked with Vietnam veterans who are homeless 30 years after returning broken and dysfunctional from war. I am more grateful to, more admiring of, the men and women who put their lives on the line for my freedom than I can possibly convey. And, to a man, every last one of them has assured me without hesitation that my right to criticize any war is one of the many freedoms for which they were fighting. Not a single veteran to whom I have ever spoken has accused me of not supporting the troops, even those who support the Iraq war. Yet the war supporters on the Right cannot refrain from hurling accusations no veteran has ever come close to making to me in conversation.

The author of this piece is not some random rightwing nut. Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, and he is a contributing editor to The American Spectator. These attacks on the Left come from the architects of the conservative movement, and it is to them that I direct my solemn admonishment: Your failure to treat our differences as a legitimate disagreement, instead casting the Left as traitors, are not helping us win the war. In fact, they are not useful in any way aside from laying the groundwork to put the blame for the Iraq war failure at the feet of its opponents. But if you do sincerely care about the troops, with which I have credited you, then you will refrain from resorting, once again, to these tired claims of stab-in-the-backism and authentically address the failures of this administration, so we may prevent such inequity from befalling our troops ever again.

Open Wide...

Get Well Soon, Roger

Roger Ebert is having surgery to remove a cancerous growth on his salivary gland. This is his third such surgery, and he’s expected to make a full recovery.

I love Roger Ebert—and it’s usually when I disagree with him about a movie that he most makes me laugh. Although, if you’re ever in the need for something to make you chuckle, you can’t go wrong by heading over to RogerEbert.com and doing a search for all the films upon which he conferred zero stars. Those reviews are priceless. One of my favorites is his review of Freddie Got Fingered, which is a movie I actually like in a weird way for its brazen bizarreness, yet about which I also manage to agree with most of Ebert’s scathing review:

This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels. …The film is a vomitorium consisting of 93 minutes of Tom Green doing things that a geek in a carnival sideshow would turn down.
But the best one ever is his review of Pink Flamingos.

There is a temptation to praise the film, however grudgingly, just to show you have a strong enough stomach to take it. It is a temptation I can resist.
Ebert also notes he gives PF zero stars “because stars simply seem not to apply. It should be considered not as a film but as a fact, or perhaps as an object.”

Bless you, Roger Ebert. A speedy recovery, sir. I depend on you.

Open Wide...