Question of the Day
We’re getting to that time of year known as “Oscar season,” where all the good movies tumble into theaters at once to compete for the attention of the Academy. But before we get there…have you seen any Oscar-worthy performances so far this year, that might be forgotten?
Mr. Shakes and I finally saw Little Miss Sunshine, which I absolutely adored, and I wouldn’t hesitate to open up the Shaker nominations with a best supporting nod for Steve Carell.
Awesome
You can read the declassified NIE here. All four fucking pages of it. (Via.)
And guess what? Even the declassified four-pager notes: “We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” So how, pray tell, has the Iraq war not worsened the threat of terrorism, Mr. Deluded Nuts?
Also, check this out.
What Divides Us
Amanda just forwarded me the link to this article, which discusses how the legislation under consideration regarding “jailing, interrogating and trying terror suspects … contain[s] provisions on rape and sexual assault that turn back the clock alarmingly.” The basic problem is that the legislation narrowly defines rape as “forced or coerced genital or anal penetration,” which necessarily excludes a whole lot of acts that are nonetheless sexual assault, like “ordering a terrified female prisoner to strip and dance, which happened in Rwanda, or compelling a male prisoner to strip and wear women’s underwear on his head, or photographing naked prisoners piled together, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib.”
I actually read this article on Saturday (and groused about it to Mr. Shakes), but didn’t know what to say about it. It’s par for the course from the Bush administration, who have no regard whatsoever for human dignity, and are, in fact, seeking to find new ways to skirt provisions designed to protect it. That they would give not a piddly drip of dogwank about the brutal affront to human dignity that is sexual assault is wholly (though devastatingly) unsurprising.
In considering what I should—or could possibly—say about this newest bit of heinous devilry, it occurred to me that no matter how much we argue on behalf of humane treatment for detainees, and no matter on what premise (even that it will, in the end, keep us safer), our political opponents will not be persuaded.
The thing that divides us is not that they really believe, as they claim, that it is possible to “end” terrorism or magically transform the Middle East into a place where America has no enemies; they know, as do we, that there will always be people who endeavor to kill Americans. What divides us is that we see politics, diplomacy, the Geneva Conventions, international law, and the obligation to respect human dignity as the conduits through which we might try to effectively address those factors over which we have control that contribute to the rise of terrorism. And they see politics, diplomacy, and all the rest as bothersome obstructions to blowing the shit out of anyone who doesn’t like us.
So there is no effective argument to be mounted in defense of closing a loophole to prevent the sexual assault of detainees. Our opponents have no regard for the lives, or the dignity, of detainees. What divides us is their assumption that anyone who finds themselves in our custody already wants to kill us, and ours that someone who didn’t surely will, once shamefully made to dance naked like an absurd jester for a chortling court of despotic, gun-wielding captors.
College Republicans Act Like Assholes
Arlen at The Daily Background:
Yesterday while reading the conservative blog RedState, I stumbled across a video of College Republicans harassing a Democrat by making fun of him at a campaign event for Republican Michigan Senatorial candidate Michael Bouchard, where the Democrat was quietly videotaping Bouchard’ appearance…And here it is, with Arlen’s notes:
The College Republicans had videotaped their immaturity and even proudly called it “harassment” and posted a video of them slapping Bouchard and DeVos campaign stickers (DeVos is the Republican candidate for Governor in Michigan) on the body and clothing of the young Democrat, who was not causing a disturbance whatsoever. Commenters over at RedState found the unprovoked harassment “hilarious” and “funny as all heck.”
…I had the foresight to recognize that this video might just be taken down by the College Republicans, after realizing how immature they had acted, and that they had admitted to harassing somebody for their political beliefs. So I used a nifty little trick to capture the video from YouTube, which does not publicly allow downloading of videos, and saved it to my hard drive.
There’s more at the link, including Arlen’s attempts to get a comment from the Bouchard campaign.
I certainly hope those College Republicans were carrying their Liberal Hunting Permits.
Breaking Voting News
Senators Barbara Boxer and Christopher Dodd will be introducing emergency paper ballot legislation in the Senate, with matching House bill to follow.
BradBlog will update here as information is forthcoming.
This could be very good news indeed.
Bush to Reality: “Nyah nyah nyah nyah—I can’t hear you!”
President says NIE leak was political, denies Iraq has worsened terrorism. In other words, he’s the Decider, and he’s decided that Iraq hasn’t worsened terrorism, and because “we’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,” that means that no matter what the NIE says, the reality is that we’re safer, bitchez.
And worry not—the President plans on declassifying the “key judgments” of the NIE to prove that he’s right. No no no, you cynical liberal traitors; he’s not cherry-picking. He’s just “directed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don’t compromise national security.”
And anyone who suggests he ought to declassify the whole thing is obviously a terrorist sympathizer. Yeah, I’m talking to you, Osama bin Democrats.
Condi Part Deux
Earlier I said that Condi had to lie in order to defend the Bush administration against Clinton's "flatly false" claims that they "didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks." Well, I was wrong. It was no ordinary lie. It was a great, big, spectacular one.
Raw Story:
A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY has learned.There's more at the link. My apologies for glossing over your unparalleled talent for fallacious misdirection, Ms. Rice.
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."
...However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
GOP presidential hopefuls on gay marriage
From the Family Research Council's "Washington Briefing" last weekend:
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney: “The court focused on adult rights—they said if heterosexual couples can marry, then to have equal rights homosexuals have to also be able to marry. That court's mistake was they should have focused on the rights of children—because marriage is primarily about the development and nurturing of children.”
Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: “I tell people I'm actually just for keeping marriage in the only manner for which it's ever been known in any culture, in any civilization throughout all of history... Dear friends, until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying we've changed the rules, let's keep it like it is."
Ho ho ho.
(Hey, wait a second—didn’t Huckabee just call Moses gay?)
All right, let’s deal with this nonsense one point at a time. First, marriage being “primarily about the development and nurturing of children.” Well, you know, it is for some people. And for some people it isn’t—couples who want to remain deliberately childless, but still enjoy a lifetime commitment to one partner, or couples who are, for one biological reason or another, unable to have children and also can’t adopt, because one of them has a medical condition that precludes them or because they can’t afford it. So, right out of the box, Mitt’s categorization of marriage is flawed, at best.
Beyond that, there’s the little problem of his assumption that same-sex couples can’t (or shouldn’t) parent. See, here’s the thing: kids reared by queers do as well as their peers. (And here, and about a million other places.) Not only is the notion that children of gay parents are less well off than their straight-parented cohort a complete fallacy, but same-sex couples are more likely to adopt older children, children of color, and/or children with special needs than any other group. It’s not straight married couples, nor straight singles, no matter how devout or how pro-life or how pro-family who adopt “tough placement” kids in the highest numbers, but gays and lesbians. Thus, unless we’re talking about the “development and nurturing” only of perfectly healthy, biological children, it makes sense to encourage gay marriage and parenting on behalf of the most needy of our nation’s unwanted children.
Moving on to Huckabee’s claim now that we must keep marriage “in the only manner for which it’s ever been known in any culture, in any civilization throughout all of history.” First of all, I’d like to point out the irony that he followed that up with a very specific religious reference, as if every culture and civilization has been dependent on the Ten Commandments. A perfect showcase of his ignorance, not to mention a perfect lead-in to my rebuttal. As we have before, let’s turn to those wanton purveyors of the radical homosexual agenda, Oxford University Press bloggers William N. Eskridge, Jr. and Darren R. Spedale for a little clarification on the divergent cultures (some of which indeed did not care a whit about Moses or his graven tablets) who have recognized same-sex marriage.
As one of us demonstrated ten years ago, many cultures in the world have recognized same-sex relationships as unions or marriages. (Eskridge, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage chapter 2 [Free Press, 1996].) These include ancient Greece and Rome, dozens of African cultures (what anthropologists call “female husbands”), and Native American cultures. Same-sex marriages involving “berdaches” (men or women with cross-gender identification) were common in dozens of tribes.And, of course, Britain has done the same.
As our new book documents, in detail, modern societies are also recognizing same-sex unions. Denmark (1989) was the first, in its registered partnership law. Dozens of other countries and provinces have followed Denmark, with laws providing same-sex couples with most or all of the legal benefits and duties of marriage.
…The Netherlands (2001) is the first modern nation to recognize same-sex unions as “marriages.” Similar same-sex marriage laws have been adopted in Belgium (2002), Canada (2004), and Spain (2005). South Africa’s Constitutional Court has directed that country to follow in the next year.
When people like Huckabee yammer on about how marriage has always been between a man and a woman throughout the entirety of history, they may be displaying their own ignorance of its speciousness, but they are quite certainly relying on the ignorance of most Americans, who have no idea that the pablum they’re being spoonfed about the history of marriage is patently false. And it’s a lie the media is typically reluctant to counter.
But, for a moment, let’s pretend that the whole of human history had never seen a marriage between two people of the same sex. So fucking what? We’re not still hoofing it from state to state on foot or on horseback, but, as I recall, Moses didn’t come down from Ford Mountain to decree that we could start driving around in automobiles before we drove off into the sunset, either. And if you’re in need of a more Ten Commandments-relevant example, I also don’t remember any cloaked graybeards giving the Almighty’s consent to a reversal on his position on torture, either, yet that hasn’t seemed to stop Christian Conservatives from cheering on as we line up the evil-doers for a little waterboarding. Curious, isn’t it, how people like Huckabee are willing to be trailblazers when it suits their purpose—that is, when it limits the rights of people they don’t like, but not when it expands the rights of people they don’t like.
It’s all just so much useless twaddle, as usual, preying on the decidedly ugly streak in their constituents that manifests as Hatred of the Other: Rooted in ignorance, inflamed by the merest hint of the suggestion that somehow, some way, their rights will be undermined as rights are extended to others, in this zero-sum game of I Got Mine, and snugly wrapped in the gossamer illusion of protecting families, protecting children.
And in their world, gay families with children who might be better served by parents who can legally marry don’t even exist.
(Via Pam.)
Medved the Hacktastical Hackmeister
R-Far fondly remembers Michael Medved's loving defense of Mel Gibson after his anti-Semitic tirade, and wonders "what could Mel say that would drive Medved irrevocably from his side? Hmm..."
Mr. Gibson’s antiwar remarks immediately raised a red flag for conservative fans of his "The Passion of the Christ."For those of you keeping score at home: Booze-fueled anti-Semitic rantings = not offensive to conservative Christian sensibilities. Not supporting the Iraq war = offensive to conservative Christian sensibilities.
In a phone interview today, the conservative radio talk show host and columnist Michael Medved said: "If these antiwar comments are the beginning of an ill-considered, organized campaign to get back into the good graces of the Hollywood establishment that gave him the Oscar for 'Braveheart,' so he can show he’s not different from them and march arm-in-arm with Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, there will be a great deal of disgust from the people who have enjoyed Mel's movies in the past."
Go now in peace.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Bush’s Own Church Calls for End to Iraq War
I would say that’s gotta sting, but I get the impression he doesn’t listen to much of what his church has to say, and this is probably no different.
(Via The Rose City Rant.)
From the Mailbag…
Mad Kane has moved—so update your blogrolls!
The lovely Nancy in NY sends along this beauty in celebration of South Dakota’s finest, Bill Napoli. (A must-read.)
Shaker Patricia forwards this hilarious parody of one of my favorite things—the appearance of holy folks on all manner of earthly junk. (Latest here.)
MediaBloodhound interviews Dr. Ben Marble, he of “Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney” fame.
Ms. magazine has a petition of interest to reproductive rights advocates.
ACSBlog is running a five-part series on upcoming SCOTUS cases, written by leading legal experts. Part one is here.
And Morgan passes along this painfully funny parody of “Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Old Oak Tree.” Not work safe.
McCain Suckzzz
Pop Quiz, SAT-style:
McCain:Maverick::Melissa: __________
A. Tall
B. Thin
C. Blonde
D. Conservative
If you guessed either A, B, C, or D, you are correct. Because these are all things that I am not.
Like McCain is not a maverick.
McCain wants Bolton confirmed quickly (via C&L):
Sen. John McCain on Sunday urged quick confirmation for John Bolton as U.N. ambassador, saying the nominee is needed to talk back to "two-bit dictators" such as Venezuela’s president.What a rebel, what a free-thinker, what a maverick to support the nominee that the White House desperately wants.
McCain, R-Ariz., joined lawmakers from both parties in condemning Hugo Chavez’s speech last week at the United Nations in which the Venezuelan called President Bush "the devil."
"I would say that this is an argument to get John Bolton confirmed as our U.N. ambassador," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "He’s smart, he’s tough, he will respond to these guys. And he could talk back to these two-bit dictators who have the airfare to New York."
...McCain urged Democrats to support Bolton's nomination and branded Chavez "despicable."
And what a sterling example of integrity to condemn Hugo Chavez for calling Bush the devil. Calling Bush the devil is as bad as equating Hillary Clinton with the devil, and we all know how much McCain despises Jerry Falwell, who uttered that ridiculous equivalency.
Oh, wait a second. McCain only used to hate Falwell, once referring to him "an agent of intolerance" who exerts an "evil influence" over the GOP. (Gee, that's almost as bad as calling someone the devil, too, no?) But now he fellates that evil agent in preparation for a White House bid.
If history does indeed repeat itself, I'd say Mr. Chavez is in for a happy ending with Mr. McCain.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Casey Trouncing Santorum
Via Maria at 2 Political Junkies, who are on the Casey-Santorum race like Cheney on a wing-clipped quail, comes the news that Casey has opened up a 14-point lead in Pennsylvania over one the GOP's Most Odious Senators: Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.
Casey had a 14-point lead in the Quinnipiac University Poll, with 54 percent of likely voters saying they planned to vote for him compared to 40 percent for Santorum. One percent said they wouldn't vote and 6 percent said they didn't know. Casey had a seven point lead among likely voters in a match up between the two in the same poll on Aug. 15.The only thing I find unbelievable is that 40% of people still want to vote for Santorum.
Allen is Finished
And he’ll go not with a bang, but a whimper.
I’m often suspicious of reports like this, but this one seems right. Allen’s irreparably tainted. It’s not hard to imagine the campaign ads featuring video of him calling a brown-skinned man “macaca” and welcoming him to America, or a yearbook picture of him donning a Confederate flag pin, or a snapshot of him with the CCC. That’s a losing candidate—and whether he wins his reelection to the Senate or not, he won’t win the GOP nomination for the presidency in 2008. And we can all breathe a sigh of relief for that.
Condi Rebuts Clinton
In an exclusive interview given to the New York Post, Secretary of State Condi Rice "boils over at Bubba," accusing him of "making 'flatly false' claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks."
"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false -- and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.*cough*Aug 6 PDB*cough*
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.
Maha sets to work swiftly making hash of Condi's claims. Highly recommended.
Meanwhile, Creature at State of the Day picks out another of Condi's claims, that Iraq is part of a " longer-term strategy" which "may even have some short-term down side," and notes: "Thousands dead, billions out of our bank account, new extremists up the wazoo..." At least give Condi credit for euphemizing such a patent disaster with such a quaint turn of phrase as "down side."
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Question of the Day
Suggested by Constant Comment: If you had a time machine, where would you go to (past or future) for a day, a month, forever?
I'm sure there are other places/times I'd more like the visit, but the first thing that popped into my head was the year 2000, to have a talk with Gore about how the campaign was going to go and how things would turn out if he didn't do things differently. And because he's a tech-nerd and a visionary, he'd totally believe me when I said, "Al, I'm from the future..."
