Kill Your Television
This rant evolved from our decision last night to turn off Law and Order when we realized its plot line was once again "chick dies badly - men avenge her." We stopped watching CSI for the same reason. We like these shows (the actors, the visual style), but we don't want to waste our time on plot lines that work because they delight in a certain voyeuristic, sadistic representation women. These crime show plot lines, we think, share certain similarities to another narrative that the media is imposing upon us at the moment.
A chick in distress, at the mercy of her – how shall we say this – heathen captors – saved at the last minute by the intrepid and unsupported by any government program, white boy hero is as trite a narrative motif as one can find in the western tradition from Faye Raye in King Kong’s clutches, to Princess Leia in the control of old Darth Vader. And that’s all the LRWM’s* got to go with when representing the tragedy Mrs. Schiavo and her family suffer. It’s profoundly demeaning to all who are involved and to all who observe. But they keep going back to “saving Terry.” It should have made for great television.
Unfortunately for CNN (Fox doesn't care about profits, they only want your soul), someone in central casting sent the freaks to play the part of our hero (is it Randall Terry or the fat friar whose always spouting off) and his merry band. Moreover, they couldn’t even scrounge up enough freaks (NPR about 100 at the peak last week - ) for a really good spectacle, so the art, as it were, of the production was hampered by the absence of good crowd shots. Though small, their numbers included a registered sex offender and apparently a gentleman whose views on torture, while shared by the current administration, are generally considered beneath the standard of contemporary secular and Christian ethics. To really compound their problems, the fellow they cast as the villain, Michael Schiavo, played against type.
The production team really whipped and beat the facts to fit the story line, but American viewers couldn’t and wouldn’t buy Mr. Schiavo as a villain. Also, as Steve Gilliard has observed, the videos and stills of Mrs. Schiavo that were supposed to capture our sentimental attention, instead scared the bejeezus out millions of us who promptly called attorneys and download living wills with but one purpose – to make sure that our loved one’s let us go, to make sure they don’t leave us in such a state for more than a decade – if such a tragedy ever befalls us.
So they're stuck with a turd of a story, which the majority of their viewers, by a huge margin, hate. We’d love to know their ratings on this puppy. But cable can’t cut away from the death watch without appearing to respond to the poll numbers even more slavishly than Bill Frist and Tom DeLay (not seen or heard from since the grandstand collapsed around them).
We suppose as soon as they are able they will stampede their way to some other breathless death watch - not enough victims in the latest Indonesian earthquake to help, but the Pope appears to be failing fast and the "king is dead, long live the king" succession story will be the narrative that CNN clings to. We do not doubt that their coverage of the Pope's death and succession will fail to mention that the Vatican is a political entity that suppresses the civil rights and social position of women and gay folks within its own borders and works unceasingly to do the same in other countries. Nor will the talking heads allude to the thousands, if not millions, who have died of aids in the Third World because of the Vatican's position on condoms.
We need to stop watching the spectacles they so inartfully craft for us. As Jon Stewart observed, they're hurting America. Do something to help America. Kill your television.
*LRWM - lying right wing media
Thursday, March 31, 2005
We Would Like To Introduce Our New Friends
skippy the bush kangeroo has invited us to joing his talented and wittysaloon salon of regular posters. We were thrilled, we were honored and we said yes. And as a consequence we have met some of the nicest people in blogtopia (ysctp!*). They include the following folks, whom we heartily recommend to you, Gentle Reader:
As the great Mae West would have said, why don't you click over and see us sometime?
*(ysctp!) - yes, skippy coined the phrase!
skippy the bush kangeroo has invited us to joing his talented and witty
Holden Caufield at First Draft (where he is graced by the presence of Athena, Tena and Pie)
RJ at Night Light
Mimus Pauly at A Mockingbird's Medley
G.D. Frogsdong, whose blog bears the euphonius title: "Blanton's and Ashton's - Journalist ethics...ha! Try telling the truth" - and whose most recent post quotes Aeschylus' Agamemnon. On behalf of classicists everywhere, we thank you, G.D.
Cookie Jill, of the euphonius voice and inspirational blog, The Daily Cookie, is our hands on ass. editor.
of course, you all know the mighty marsupial, our fearless leader, skippy the bush kangaroo.
As the great Mae West would have said, why don't you click over and see us sometime?
*(ysctp!) - yes, skippy coined the phrase!
Category: questions we wish someone would ask
we wish someone would ask one of the famous television fundamentalist evangelical preachers exploiting the Schiavo tragedy, whether Mrs. Schiavo, a Roman Catholic, will go to heaven or hell when she dies. We believe the answer will surprise many Catholics.
we wish someone would ask one of the famous television fundamentalist evangelical preachers exploiting the Schiavo tragedy, whether Mrs. Schiavo, a Roman Catholic, will go to heaven or hell when she dies. We believe the answer will surprise many Catholics.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
But that would be criminal!
Yesterday we noted that il Ducetto's crew had forcibly removed citizens from attendance at one of his little "let's destroy social security" pep rallies. Scorpio, on his part, was outraged that citizens were being denied access to tax payer funded events on issues of national policy simply because they appeared not to share il Ducetto's opinion. Josh Marshall, citing a dKos diary's account, suggests that the Republican organizers of these events don't actually use Secret Service agents to boot citizens who have not drunk the kool-aid:
But that surely can't be true. Oh, there may be no remedy for the decision of the current administration to supress the rights of citizens to assemble and hear political debate (whether or not they agree with it), but dressing up and acting like a Secret Service agent is a felony - so there may well indeed be a remedy here. It is very much against the law to impersonate a federal officer or employee. The statute (18 U.S.C. § 912 (1994)) provides:
So, someone who dresses up like a Secret Service agent, and acting like a Secret Service agent forcibly removes a person who is excercising his/her right of lawful assembly, could be looking at some serious time in the pokey. And the folks who paid the imposter to engage in the charade, as conspirators, would, we assume, face similar liability.
Of course, we can't say we're suprised that they're crooks. But maybe those who are unlawfully booted from these events should be talking to the F.B.I., and maybe all of us should be asking to see i.d. the next time a republican tries to piss on our constitutional rights.
Yesterday we noted that il Ducetto's crew had forcibly removed citizens from attendance at one of his little "let's destroy social security" pep rallies. Scorpio, on his part, was outraged that citizens were being denied access to tax payer funded events on issues of national policy simply because they appeared not to share il Ducetto's opinion. Josh Marshall, citing a dKos diary's account, suggests that the Republican organizers of these events don't actually use Secret Service agents to boot citizens who have not drunk the kool-aid:
It seems the planners of these taxpayer-funded events hire rent-a-cops, dress them up to look like Secret Service agents and then have them boot people who don't seem Bush-true.
But that surely can't be true. Oh, there may be no remedy for the decision of the current administration to supress the rights of citizens to assemble and hear political debate (whether or not they agree with it), but dressing up and acting like a Secret Service agent is a felony - so there may well indeed be a remedy here. It is very much against the law to impersonate a federal officer or employee. The statute (18 U.S.C. § 912 (1994)) provides:
Section 912. Officer or employee of the United States
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee
acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended
character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing
of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than three years, or both. (emphasis supplied)
So, someone who dresses up like a Secret Service agent, and acting like a Secret Service agent forcibly removes a person who is excercising his/her right of lawful assembly, could be looking at some serious time in the pokey. And the folks who paid the imposter to engage in the charade, as conspirators, would, we assume, face similar liability.
Of course, we can't say we're suprised that they're crooks. But maybe those who are unlawfully booted from these events should be talking to the F.B.I., and maybe all of us should be asking to see i.d. the next time a republican tries to piss on our constitutional rights.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Oh darn, now we're going to have to change the secret handshake
Suburban Guerrilla leads us to Pam's House Blend who documents the atrocity - the Conservative Women of America have just figured out that dykes like Subarus. We're so, guilty on this one. But Suburu assures Pam's readers that we like the car because we're smart, not because were queer - which means that you too, straight Gentle Reader, can buy a Subaru. Maybe the CWA doesn't like Subarus because they're stupid. Maybe it has nothing to do with their homophobia.
Suburban Guerrilla leads us to Pam's House Blend who documents the atrocity - the Conservative Women of America have just figured out that dykes like Subarus. We're so, guilty on this one. But Suburu assures Pam's readers that we like the car because we're smart, not because were queer - which means that you too, straight Gentle Reader, can buy a Subaru. Maybe the CWA doesn't like Subarus because they're stupid. Maybe it has nothing to do with their homophobia.
Il Ducetto Can Persuade Anyone Who Already Agrees With Him
The trick is making it look to the rest of us like more than six people do. Rove finds it easier to accomplish this by autocratic, and we suggest, unconstitutional tactics.
KCTV5 - Secret Serv ice investigating removal of three from Bush visit - DENVER -- The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.
it never hurts to ask someone who knows something about the topic
prof. cole again - this time on the efforts of a state legislator in florida, who in his life before politics was a funeral director, to destroy florida's system of public college education. we heart juan cole.
via the Suburban Guerrilla we also find this letter from a professor at Common Dreams.
prof. cole again - this time on the efforts of a state legislator in florida, who in his life before politics was a funeral director, to destroy florida's system of public college education. we heart juan cole.
The per capita income in the United States is $37,800.
Florida's per capita income in 2003 was $27,610.
And what of Ocala, for which Mr. Baxley supposedly is working? "The per capita income for the city is $18,021. 18.1% of the population and 13.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 28.6% of those under the age of 18 and 9.8% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line." [--snip--]
Baxley may be happier without any of those intell-Ec-tu-al riffraff cluttering up his state. But maybe his constituents won't be. Knowledge workers, you see, are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Post-secondary teachers are the ones who train the people who found computer software, biotechnology and other companies key to the twenty-first century economy. They also train society's managers and middle managers. The more high-powered academics you have in your state, the wealthier your state will be.
Ocala, and Florida more generally, look to me like they would benefit from some biotech companies. But you know what? That requires being good in a little thing called biology. Baxley clearly can't think straight on that subject, being blinded by fanaticism. And he wants to make Florida inhospitable to high-powered biologists. The people of Florida, and more specifically Ocala, should give some thought to whether they really want this loud-mouthed ignoramus to plunge them into poverty and make them mule drivers and ditch diggers by his destruction of education in the state.
via the Suburban Guerrilla we also find this letter from a professor at Common Dreams.
it never hurts to ask someone who knows something about the topic
juan cole today observes:
juan cole today observes:
The war in Iraq is the most important problem facing the US in the eyes of the American public, according to a recent poll. Iraq is more important than the economy, terrorism or social security. You'd think the US media and the Democratic Party could take a hint and foreground Iraq. But they are letting it fade . . .
correspondence
The Agonist has drafted a letter to the National Press Club objection to its plans to offer a panel on blogging with Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Guckert and Wonkette as panelists in a discussion of JJ/GG's White House press accredidation scandal.
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, The Brookings Institution hosted a panel that originally included no liberal political bloggers and yet while including numerous conservative political operatives in the event. We registered our protest and the Brookings Institution's response was simply to invite a few liberal political bloggers to attend, yet not sit on the panel, as we had originally insisted upon.
Today, however, we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, nee Guckert has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
We think it's a good letter and if you have a blog you may wish to join your name to the list of signatories.
The Agonist has drafted a letter to the National Press Club objection to its plans to offer a panel on blogging with Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Guckert and Wonkette as panelists in a discussion of JJ/GG's White House press accredidation scandal.
Members of The National Press Club,We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies.
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, The Brookings Institution hosted a panel that originally included no liberal political bloggers and yet while including numerous conservative political operatives in the event. We registered our protest and the Brookings Institution's response was simply to invite a few liberal political bloggers to attend, yet not sit on the panel, as we had originally insisted upon.
Today, however, we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, nee Guckert has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us.
Please call Julie Shue at the The National Press Club and politely insist that they include John Aravosis of Americablog.org at their event. Here are there numbers: 202-662-7500 or 202-662-7501 or email at tglad@press.org and info@npcpress.org.
Sincerely,
Sean-Paul Kelley, http://www.agonist.org
DCMediagirl, http://www.dcmediagirl.com
Ezra Klein, http://ezraklein.typepad.com
Echidne of the snakes, http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com
Amanda Marcotte, http://www.pandagon.net
Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, http://www.BuzzFlash.com
Matt Stoller, http://bopnews.com
Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Lindsay Beyerstein http://majikthise.typepad.com
Shakespeare's Sister, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com and http://www.bigbrassblog.com
Bob Brigham, www.SwingStateProject.com
Dave Johnson, http://www.Seeingtheforest.com
Matt Singer, http://www.leftinthewest.com
Kos, http://www.dailykos.com
Kari Chisholm, http://www.blueoregon.com
Steve Gilliard, http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
Crooks and Liars, http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Brian Balta, http://balta.blogspot.com
That Colored Fellahttp://www.ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.com
Anna Brosovic http://annatopia.com/blog.html
skippy the bush kangaroo http://www.xnerg.blogspot.com
David Neiwert Orcinus http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com
Julien 's List http://www.educatedeclectic.blogspot.com
General J.C. Christian, http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
Laura Rozen, http://www.warandpiece.com/
Liza Sabater, http://www.culturekitchen.com
We think it's a good letter and if you have a blog you may wish to join your name to the list of signatories.
Monday, March 28, 2005
So Much For Egypt's Experiment With Democracy
Egypt reins in democratic voices | csmonitor.com: "Starting at dawn, the government arrested about 70 members of the Brotherhood in Cairo and three other cities. Among those, Brotherhood officials say, was Abdul Meniem Abu al-Futuh, a senior official who tried to lead protesters to parliament. A few hundred made it within half a mile of parliament, while about 2,000 gathered in Ramses Square in central Cairo."
We can't wait to hear how Condi will punt this.
Egypt reins in democratic voices | csmonitor.com: "Starting at dawn, the government arrested about 70 members of the Brotherhood in Cairo and three other cities. Among those, Brotherhood officials say, was Abdul Meniem Abu al-Futuh, a senior official who tried to lead protesters to parliament. A few hundred made it within half a mile of parliament, while about 2,000 gathered in Ramses Square in central Cairo."
We can't wait to hear how Condi will punt this.
We're Here, We're Queer and We've Got Our Own Police Squad
WaPo has a great and extensive article today on D.C's gay and lesbian liason unit. Can the reality tv show be long in coming? It's a fascinating article. One section offers us a sad glimpse into the human reality of "don't ask don't tell."
WaPo has a great and extensive article today on D.C's gay and lesbian liason unit. Can the reality tv show be long in coming? It's a fascinating article. One section offers us a sad glimpse into the human reality of "don't ask don't tell."
Inside a Northwest apartment, a 39-year-old man has been beaten by his male partner. The victim is a lieutenant colonel who works at the Pentagon and can't show up at a military hospital with injuries caused by same-sex domestic violence without risking his career.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
David Brooks, Religious Radical
In today’s NYT, David Brooks uses the term “social conservatives” to describe people who believe that the state should, in contravention of existing law, and at the price of legal definitions of marital rights that go back a very long time in the western tradition, impose the religious and moral values of a minority group on all citizens. Such folks have called upon a state governor to defy the orders of a state court judge and, that governor, indeed, appears to have sought to do so, thwarted only by the insistence of local cops on adhering to the rule of law.
Brook's use of the term “social conservative,” is, accordingly, tendentious and pernicious. It is, in fact, an egregious insult to social conservatives. These folks, whom Brooks champions, are religious radicals, not social conservatives, and they should be opposed on two grounds. First, they propose an abhorrent theology. Liberals are afraid to criticize this theology because they believe they will appear intolerant if they do. We think that liberals are wimps in this respect. The religious radicals who preach a god of fear and hate, have an absolute right to worship a god whom they imagine to be as angry and vengeful as Tanit and Ba’al of ancient Carthage, sometimes thought to demand the sacrifice of living children*. The rest of us are not merely entitled, but, in fact, obliged, to point out that such a conception of god is itself evil and unchristian (if we argue as Pudentilla does from a Christian perspective) and (we personally think) endangers the immortal soul of those who hold it. In a democratic republic, we are guaranteed the right to engage in such vigorous, indeed polarizing, theological debate. The religious radicals whom Brooks champions, however, don’t want to debate, they want to rule.
In resisting the political desire of religious radicals to impose the worship of their false god, some 21st century version of Tanit and Ba’al, who now demand we torture our children, rather than let them die with dignity, we engage, accordingly in a profoundly moral struggle, despite Brook’s efforts to paint resistence to the religious radicals as mere, self-indulgent temporizing. One need not get theological at all, however, to conclude that a struggle to defend a a society of laws, not men (and the horrid gods they can always imagine) is itself a resoundingly moral as well as an overtly political struggle. This second reason to oppose the religious radicals - on the grounds of moral politics - is as urgent as theological opposition to their perversity, which not merely offends God, but also threatens civil society. An insistence on constitutional process, as the Founders realized, protects us from the depredations and easy corruption of a state that can use religion as a sword to control its citizens. Passionate defense of legal process is, contrary to Brooks, a moral argument in and of itself.
Brooks accuses the “social liberals” of abandoning moral argument. We say, rather, that the religious radicals have no moral argument. Their fear of admitting human inadequacy when confronting the ambigious and daunting decisions that end of life offers in a technological age enslaves them to false gods who offer easy certainty in the mouths of hypocritical preachers like Randall Terry (who has rejected his own children and, his own church says, violated his marriage vows). Their high priests offer thundering absolutes, not moral argument that can admit to the complexity and difficulty of the human experience. They are entitled in a democratic republic to seek refuge in false and angry gods. But we are as equally entitled, indeed we are obliged, to point out that their refuge in absolutes is scarcely moral and not at all an argument.
[*note, some scholars dispute the evidence of Punic child sacrifice. A good summary of the dispute is here.]
In today’s NYT, David Brooks uses the term “social conservatives” to describe people who believe that the state should, in contravention of existing law, and at the price of legal definitions of marital rights that go back a very long time in the western tradition, impose the religious and moral values of a minority group on all citizens. Such folks have called upon a state governor to defy the orders of a state court judge and, that governor, indeed, appears to have sought to do so, thwarted only by the insistence of local cops on adhering to the rule of law.
Brook's use of the term “social conservative,” is, accordingly, tendentious and pernicious. It is, in fact, an egregious insult to social conservatives. These folks, whom Brooks champions, are religious radicals, not social conservatives, and they should be opposed on two grounds. First, they propose an abhorrent theology. Liberals are afraid to criticize this theology because they believe they will appear intolerant if they do. We think that liberals are wimps in this respect. The religious radicals who preach a god of fear and hate, have an absolute right to worship a god whom they imagine to be as angry and vengeful as Tanit and Ba’al of ancient Carthage, sometimes thought to demand the sacrifice of living children*. The rest of us are not merely entitled, but, in fact, obliged, to point out that such a conception of god is itself evil and unchristian (if we argue as Pudentilla does from a Christian perspective) and (we personally think) endangers the immortal soul of those who hold it. In a democratic republic, we are guaranteed the right to engage in such vigorous, indeed polarizing, theological debate. The religious radicals whom Brooks champions, however, don’t want to debate, they want to rule.
In resisting the political desire of religious radicals to impose the worship of their false god, some 21st century version of Tanit and Ba’al, who now demand we torture our children, rather than let them die with dignity, we engage, accordingly in a profoundly moral struggle, despite Brook’s efforts to paint resistence to the religious radicals as mere, self-indulgent temporizing. One need not get theological at all, however, to conclude that a struggle to defend a a society of laws, not men (and the horrid gods they can always imagine) is itself a resoundingly moral as well as an overtly political struggle. This second reason to oppose the religious radicals - on the grounds of moral politics - is as urgent as theological opposition to their perversity, which not merely offends God, but also threatens civil society. An insistence on constitutional process, as the Founders realized, protects us from the depredations and easy corruption of a state that can use religion as a sword to control its citizens. Passionate defense of legal process is, contrary to Brooks, a moral argument in and of itself.
Brooks accuses the “social liberals” of abandoning moral argument. We say, rather, that the religious radicals have no moral argument. Their fear of admitting human inadequacy when confronting the ambigious and daunting decisions that end of life offers in a technological age enslaves them to false gods who offer easy certainty in the mouths of hypocritical preachers like Randall Terry (who has rejected his own children and, his own church says, violated his marriage vows). Their high priests offer thundering absolutes, not moral argument that can admit to the complexity and difficulty of the human experience. They are entitled in a democratic republic to seek refuge in false and angry gods. But we are as equally entitled, indeed we are obliged, to point out that their refuge in absolutes is scarcely moral and not at all an argument.
[*note, some scholars dispute the evidence of Punic child sacrifice. A good summary of the dispute is here.]
Friday, March 25, 2005
What's Next? Mob Violence?
"I do not respect your position," said the republican preacher who had lost the nomination to to Arnie Vinick, the pro-life republican from California (hey, it's television) on West Wing this Wednesday. Arnie (played by Alan Alda) was about to offer him the vice-president's position on the ticket. Vinick acknowledged that they disagreed on abortion but said that he respected the reverend's position.
We think, by that, Vinick meant that he thought the preacher's core beliefs were not crazy and that his political position was the logical result of those core beliefs. Vinick doesn't share those beliefs but he respects the preacher's right to have them. This approach is rather how a democratic (deliberately small "d") republic works. We recognize that we can't and shouldn't drive folks who don't share our beliefs from political debate.
The preacher, responded, by saying, "I don't respect your position." We think, by that, the preacher meant that he didn't share Vinick's core beliefs, and indeed he condemned them. Therefore, he could not entertain the possibility of entering into political discussion with Vinick. Indeed, he could not enter into political alliance with Vinick because he he so disrepected Vinick's position on abortion. We are left to conclude the preacher didn't respect Vinick, period.
That's where we're at folks. The compulsory life types refuse to acknowledge that pro-choice types have a place in the political discourse. The hippy-dippy liberals tried the old pragmatic approach to no avail. You know, the one where the incidence of abortion is actually reduced (as it was under the Clinton years). Instead the compulsory life types prefer il Ducetto's rhetoric, the mere realia of rising abortion rates during his tenure, and the illogical sport of calling liberals "pro-death."
We should not kid ourselves any longer, as we have for years, that these folks are fringe elements. These folks have enough political juice to compel Republican leaders of Congress to intervene in a state court case in violation of every principle of constitutional interpretation Republicans have ever held. They have enough juice to inspire the Republican governor of one of our most populous states, positioning himself for a presidential run, to insert himself hopelessly into the middle of this controversy. Dear Lord, they have enough clout to compel Il Ducetto to end his vaction early!
John Gibson, of Fox News, Bill Bennet, the erstwhile Republican spokesman on morality, and Randall Terry, the guru of Operation Rescue, all agree - Jeb Bush should defy the courts, break the law, kidnap Mrs. Schiavo and compel her against her express wishes (as seven years of litigation have repeatedly found) to accept a feeding tube. Il Ducetto, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay have not condemned these incitements to violence and crime. Worse yet, Steve Gilliard reports that Ralph Nader has joined the calls to violence. Democrats should come out loud and strong, condemning these folks. The Republican silence, in contrast, would deafen.
But stop a moment and think of what the world we live in looks like: John Gibson, Bill Bennet, Ralph Nadar and Randall Terry share the same platform. The compulsory life types have flattened out our politics, raising some and lowering other voices of authority with the result that we can equate the auctoritas and gravitas of street thugs like Terry, establishment hacks like Bennet, media types like Gibson and the "gadflies" like Nadar.
Our problem is that when we think Republican, we think guys in suits who want lower taxes and less government regulation. We can't bring ourselves to think "republican" and summon Randall Terry's image to our mind. But that's what we should be doing. They control a significant portion of the Republican party. Its leaders dance to their tune. And they don't give the ass of one rat for concepts like "rule of law," "due process," or democratic governance. They know what's right and they'll tear down every law in this land to ensure they get it. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo, it appears that our constitutional and legal institutions have been strong enough to defeat their predations.
How will they respond? We shouldn't be thinking our fathers' Republicans when we ask this question. We should be thinking these guys.
(hat tip to the Suburban Guerilla)
"I do not respect your position," said the republican preacher who had lost the nomination to to Arnie Vinick, the pro-life republican from California (hey, it's television) on West Wing this Wednesday. Arnie (played by Alan Alda) was about to offer him the vice-president's position on the ticket. Vinick acknowledged that they disagreed on abortion but said that he respected the reverend's position.
We think, by that, Vinick meant that he thought the preacher's core beliefs were not crazy and that his political position was the logical result of those core beliefs. Vinick doesn't share those beliefs but he respects the preacher's right to have them. This approach is rather how a democratic (deliberately small "d") republic works. We recognize that we can't and shouldn't drive folks who don't share our beliefs from political debate.
The preacher, responded, by saying, "I don't respect your position." We think, by that, the preacher meant that he didn't share Vinick's core beliefs, and indeed he condemned them. Therefore, he could not entertain the possibility of entering into political discussion with Vinick. Indeed, he could not enter into political alliance with Vinick because he he so disrepected Vinick's position on abortion. We are left to conclude the preacher didn't respect Vinick, period.
That's where we're at folks. The compulsory life types refuse to acknowledge that pro-choice types have a place in the political discourse. The hippy-dippy liberals tried the old pragmatic approach to no avail. You know, the one where the incidence of abortion is actually reduced (as it was under the Clinton years). Instead the compulsory life types prefer il Ducetto's rhetoric, the mere realia of rising abortion rates during his tenure, and the illogical sport of calling liberals "pro-death."
We should not kid ourselves any longer, as we have for years, that these folks are fringe elements. These folks have enough political juice to compel Republican leaders of Congress to intervene in a state court case in violation of every principle of constitutional interpretation Republicans have ever held. They have enough juice to inspire the Republican governor of one of our most populous states, positioning himself for a presidential run, to insert himself hopelessly into the middle of this controversy. Dear Lord, they have enough clout to compel Il Ducetto to end his vaction early!
John Gibson, of Fox News, Bill Bennet, the erstwhile Republican spokesman on morality, and Randall Terry, the guru of Operation Rescue, all agree - Jeb Bush should defy the courts, break the law, kidnap Mrs. Schiavo and compel her against her express wishes (as seven years of litigation have repeatedly found) to accept a feeding tube. Il Ducetto, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay have not condemned these incitements to violence and crime. Worse yet, Steve Gilliard reports that Ralph Nader has joined the calls to violence. Democrats should come out loud and strong, condemning these folks. The Republican silence, in contrast, would deafen.
But stop a moment and think of what the world we live in looks like: John Gibson, Bill Bennet, Ralph Nadar and Randall Terry share the same platform. The compulsory life types have flattened out our politics, raising some and lowering other voices of authority with the result that we can equate the auctoritas and gravitas of street thugs like Terry, establishment hacks like Bennet, media types like Gibson and the "gadflies" like Nadar.
Our problem is that when we think Republican, we think guys in suits who want lower taxes and less government regulation. We can't bring ourselves to think "republican" and summon Randall Terry's image to our mind. But that's what we should be doing. They control a significant portion of the Republican party. Its leaders dance to their tune. And they don't give the ass of one rat for concepts like "rule of law," "due process," or democratic governance. They know what's right and they'll tear down every law in this land to ensure they get it. In the case of Mrs. Schiavo, it appears that our constitutional and legal institutions have been strong enough to defeat their predations.
How will they respond? We shouldn't be thinking our fathers' Republicans when we ask this question. We should be thinking these guys.
(hat tip to the Suburban Guerilla)
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Enough Already!
Scorpio was complaining the other day about snow. Maine today is receiving some flakes. With the greatest respect to Scorpio, we observe, "you don't know from snow."
Scorpio was complaining the other day about snow. Maine today is receiving some flakes. With the greatest respect to Scorpio, we observe, "you don't know from snow."
Burning the Constitutional Candle At Both Ends
Tired of the spectacle the "Reds" have made of the Schiavo family tragedy? How about returning to their obsession with compelling life at the other end of the spectrum - even if at the expense of an individual's right to privacy.
Gentle Reader, if you loved it Kansas, if Ashcroft's effort federal variation of the same rocked your socks, then via Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal Feminist Bias, we bring you the spectacle of a "Red" state attorney general sending subpoenas to Planned Parenthood in Indiana under the guise of an investigation into possible child molestation cases. Funny, we haven't read about the Indiana AG sending subpoenas to bishops and cardinals for their role in exposing children to child abusing priests in Indiana.
Tired of the spectacle the "Reds" have made of the Schiavo family tragedy? How about returning to their obsession with compelling life at the other end of the spectrum - even if at the expense of an individual's right to privacy.
Gentle Reader, if you loved it Kansas, if Ashcroft's effort federal variation of the same rocked your socks, then via Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal Feminist Bias, we bring you the spectacle of a "Red" state attorney general sending subpoenas to Planned Parenthood in Indiana under the guise of an investigation into possible child molestation cases. Funny, we haven't read about the Indiana AG sending subpoenas to bishops and cardinals for their role in exposing children to child abusing priests in Indiana.
Horowitz 1: Academic Freedom: 0
This is exactly how the "Reds" destroyed the SCLM - by scaring them into first temporizing and then abandoning their core principles. We would like to know who President Bollinger thinks will set the "limits" of academic freedom. We know who wants to. What about "Red" conduct leads us to believe that they would limit academic freedom in the service of some defendable, democratic value.
The New York Times > Education > Columbia Chief Tackles Dispute Over Professors: "Faced with complaints that Columbia University has tolerated anti-Semitism and intimidation in its Middle East studies classes, Columbia's president said last night that academic freedom has some limits when it comes to the classroom and the broader educational experience."
This is exactly how the "Reds" destroyed the SCLM - by scaring them into first temporizing and then abandoning their core principles. We would like to know who President Bollinger thinks will set the "limits" of academic freedom. We know who wants to. What about "Red" conduct leads us to believe that they would limit academic freedom in the service of some defendable, democratic value.
Il Ducetto Can Keep Opponents, But Not Terrorists Off Planes
But surely, "Reds" will feel safer if they don't have to confront people who disagree with them. And that counts for something.
Well after 9/11, 'no fly' lists a work in progress | csmonitor.com: "Almost 3-1/2 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a year and a half after Congress ordered law-enforcement agencies to consolidate and coordinate its terrorist screening processes, the status of the watch lists remains uncertain and is a cause of frustration for thousands of travelers as well as the nation's airlines."
Every day, thousands of people like Burke find themselves unable to do things like print a boarding pass and are pulled aside for extensive screening because their name, or a name that sounds like theirs, is on one of the watch lists. Even well-known lawmakers, like Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts, have found themselves caught in the screening dragnet.
But surely, "Reds" will feel safer if they don't have to confront people who disagree with them. And that counts for something.
Religious Fanaticism Defined
Parents' Side Has Vilified Husband: "
In these waning days of the conflict over who has the right to make a life-or-death decision for Terri Schiavo, neither medical facts nor judicial rulings have lessened the vitriol from those who have sought to demonize her husband for his contention that she wouldn't want to live this way. "
Parents' Side Has Vilified Husband: "
In these waning days of the conflict over who has the right to make a life-or-death decision for Terri Schiavo, neither medical facts nor judicial rulings have lessened the vitriol from those who have sought to demonize her husband for his contention that she wouldn't want to live this way. "
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The Absence of Complexity in Narrative Representation
demeans the human experience, we think. We observe the media's sports-contest style reduction of the Schiavo tragedy to a spectacle and note that it is able to do so only by broadcasting a narrative that simplifies the complexity of the record in this case (will the underdog parents save their daughter from the evil husband - film at 11). As corndog at dKos notes, the Guardian ad Litem's report honored this complexity. As a result, we think, regardless of one's religious or partisan identification, it would be hard for anyone who has read the report not to approach this case as tragedy, in the classic sense of the word. And such an approach compels us to feel compassion for each of the Schiavo family members rather than thoughtlessly root for any side in this case - as though there could be victors here.
Because of the wide reach of the media, moreover, the Schiavo spectacle is offered to the rest of us as a paradigmatic narrative to explain the human experience. As we noted yesterday, for those whose personal experience of a beloved family member's end of life experience was difficult, this media narrative is deeply insulting. And, mirabile dictu, polls indicate that Americans have rejected, by a large margin, the Schiavo narrative that the media and the "Reds" have offered them.
A void exists in the public consciousness between the rejected (by all but the "Reds") media narrative and the personal but unknown experience of millions of Americans. Perhaps the reason the media has refused to fill this void is that they can't - they only know how to tell the story as conflict between two sides with a david and a goliath: we report, you decide. Maybe vehicles of mass communication by necessity refuse the particular or only use it to project what the believe is a model for the universal. What we lack is a way to tell a muplicity of stories which undermine the very notion of universal model.
Reading the blogs today, we were struck by the fact that the internets might be a vehicle of mass communication which not merely permits, but indeed insists upon narratives of particularity, which refuse simplification and reduction. Here are some examples of those narratives:
Pericles, at dKos describes his experience as the husband of a cancer survivor. Carol Marin's describes of her father's death in a Sun Times column. Steve Gilliard highlighted a reader's description of her husband's death from cancer and the family dispute that arose around it. The comments in response to this post contain more stories. Holden at First Draft describes how his family grappled with end of life questions when his sister suffered an aneurysm. The comments to that post also recount experiences his readers have had when facing similar issues.
We think that by honoring the complexity of the particular experience we may promote more compassion and reason about these issues. That surely can't be a bad thing.
demeans the human experience, we think. We observe the media's sports-contest style reduction of the Schiavo tragedy to a spectacle and note that it is able to do so only by broadcasting a narrative that simplifies the complexity of the record in this case (will the underdog parents save their daughter from the evil husband - film at 11). As corndog at dKos notes, the Guardian ad Litem's report honored this complexity. As a result, we think, regardless of one's religious or partisan identification, it would be hard for anyone who has read the report not to approach this case as tragedy, in the classic sense of the word. And such an approach compels us to feel compassion for each of the Schiavo family members rather than thoughtlessly root for any side in this case - as though there could be victors here.
Because of the wide reach of the media, moreover, the Schiavo spectacle is offered to the rest of us as a paradigmatic narrative to explain the human experience. As we noted yesterday, for those whose personal experience of a beloved family member's end of life experience was difficult, this media narrative is deeply insulting. And, mirabile dictu, polls indicate that Americans have rejected, by a large margin, the Schiavo narrative that the media and the "Reds" have offered them.
A void exists in the public consciousness between the rejected (by all but the "Reds") media narrative and the personal but unknown experience of millions of Americans. Perhaps the reason the media has refused to fill this void is that they can't - they only know how to tell the story as conflict between two sides with a david and a goliath: we report, you decide. Maybe vehicles of mass communication by necessity refuse the particular or only use it to project what the believe is a model for the universal. What we lack is a way to tell a muplicity of stories which undermine the very notion of universal model.
Reading the blogs today, we were struck by the fact that the internets might be a vehicle of mass communication which not merely permits, but indeed insists upon narratives of particularity, which refuse simplification and reduction. Here are some examples of those narratives:
Pericles, at dKos describes his experience as the husband of a cancer survivor. Carol Marin's describes of her father's death in a Sun Times column. Steve Gilliard highlighted a reader's description of her husband's death from cancer and the family dispute that arose around it. The comments in response to this post contain more stories. Holden at First Draft describes how his family grappled with end of life questions when his sister suffered an aneurysm. The comments to that post also recount experiences his readers have had when facing similar issues.
We think that by honoring the complexity of the particular experience we may promote more compassion and reason about these issues. That surely can't be a bad thing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Jumping the Morality Shark
A conversation with our sister leads us to believe that the “Reds” finally, really, may have gone too far with the politicization of the Schiavo tragedy. “What do you think of the Schiavo thing,” I asked her?
Perhaps a bit of background is in order:
“What do you think of the Schiavo thing,” we asked her? “Well, what do you think,” she countered, we suspect not wanting a debate if it turned out that we disagreed. “It’s none of Congress’ business..” we began and you would have thought we had unleashed the floodgates in Amsterdam. “Exactly!” she interrupted. “I cannot believe the gall of those people. Do that have a single clue about the suffering these deaths impose upon people. Do they actually know any people – you know, human beings who suffer, who have problems and who don’t have a million bucks to make life easy for them?”
“Well,” we said. “And another thing, “ she interrupted. “Just what the hell do they bishops think they’re doing. You’ll never guess what they sent home from [Catholic] school with Patricia (her youngest daughter).”
“Don’t know..” we offered. She interrupted again. “A letter, not in an enveloped, xeroxed on an open page for every poor kid in that school to read, complaining how the Catholic rights of “poor Terri” – as if a one of them had ever met her, or fed her or changed her – were being trampled on by the courts. Patricia came in all fired up and I had to sit her down and explain how difficult these decisions were for families and how it was terrible arrogance for anyone to assume he had the right to put their two cents in in such a tragedy. I tell you I was never so angry. I called that principal up and gave that woman a piece of my mind, let me tell you. Exploiting school kids and total strangers.”
She was pretty much in full rant now. Bloggers who rant don’t really appreciate the art. The best rant, of course, is from someone who hates to rant, hates disagreement, distrusts debate. Because when she rants something in their soul that is conciously kept on a very short lease is loosed.
“Back off.” She almost shouted into the phone. “That’s what people need to do when they see a situation like this. They need to back off and give people the space to grapple with all these horrible choices. And you know, for everyone you make, you have to wonder what if I had done something different and you have to remember, for every single choice, the days when you never even knew people made decisions like this. I tell you they make me sick.”
While she paused to breath, we said we agreed and felt a lot of sympathy for every one involved and even though we thought we agreed with the husband we’d never judge the parents. “Well I will.” She said. “Who are they to make that poor woman’s body a door prize in some grotesque battle that’s filled their whole lives. Don’t they have other children and grandchildren?”
We said we thought the religious right types and the politicians were exploiting them. She would have none of it. “Do they think this circus is god’s plan. They could have said no. They asked for the god-damn cameras and their wretched 15 minutes of fame on Larry King. Screw Larry King, why aren’t they at her bedside asking God for the strength to let her go? God is it too much to ask that she die in peace and dignity. Would it kill the world if we turned off the damn television cameras and just said a prayer for her.”
We don’t know the answer to that question and in truth we do think our sister is a tad uncharitable here. But we note that she has the authority to say these things, and lacks the fear of offending folks, because she earned her own scars in the same battle.
About 4 to 5 million people in this country suffer from Alzheimer’s. They all have families and all those family members know that the “Reds” won’t be passing any laws to help them. Their problems are not the kinds of problems that laws solve. The politicians need to back off on this one.
A conversation with our sister leads us to believe that the “Reds” finally, really, may have gone too far with the politicization of the Schiavo tragedy. “What do you think of the Schiavo thing,” I asked her?
Perhaps a bit of background is in order:
We grew up in a house where there was conversation about politics every night after dinner. Our older brother turned out to be slightly to the right of Attila the Hun (the only Republican precint captain on the south side of Chicago) and Pudentilla grew up to be a liberal lesbian. Our little sister grew up to be the most ruthlessly non-partisan person we have ever met, who hates political disagreement. She is also a devout Catholic who is an active member of her parish. She voted for the wrong guy twice and she voted for Clinton twice. “I vote for the one I think will do the best job,” is her mantra.
She was also the person who ended up taking care of our Mom, who died of a congenital brain disease that manifests a lot like Alzheimers, only faster and far more cruelly (if that is possible). Since Pudentilla and her brother lived out of state, we deferred to her in all of the many health care decisions taking care of someone with such a disease requires. Sometimes, this was tricky, because she didn’t want the easy assurance, “I’ll support whatever you do.” She wanted a probing difficult discussion that would help her make up her mind. Then she wanted the sincere assurance, “I’ll support what you do.” But we muddled through. We all talked quite a bit and came to the conclusion that the best thing for our Mom was to sign a DNR order and forbid any extraordinary measures or feeding tubes, if that became necessary. Unlike Terri Schiavo, our Mom was able to eat if you fed her – which meant that she received excellent hospice care for the last several months of her life. Hospice won’t take you if you’re on a feeding tube, and they’ll only take you if a doc says you have less than six months left.
When our Mom died she had been unable to recognize us for more than five years, had lost the capacity to speak or understand language for more than three, suffered from a Parkinson type paralysis and was down to about 80 pounds. Four or five days before she died she lost the capacity to swallow food and water. Because of the help of the hospice folks she received excellent palliative care and pain medication. We all are as confident as one can be in such a situation that she did not suffer because of her inability to take food or hydration. She died, released from the cruelest prison that the frailty of the human body can impose upon the human spirit, with my sister at her side.
“What do you think of the Schiavo thing,” we asked her? “Well, what do you think,” she countered, we suspect not wanting a debate if it turned out that we disagreed. “It’s none of Congress’ business..” we began and you would have thought we had unleashed the floodgates in Amsterdam. “Exactly!” she interrupted. “I cannot believe the gall of those people. Do that have a single clue about the suffering these deaths impose upon people. Do they actually know any people – you know, human beings who suffer, who have problems and who don’t have a million bucks to make life easy for them?”
“Well,” we said. “And another thing, “ she interrupted. “Just what the hell do they bishops think they’re doing. You’ll never guess what they sent home from [Catholic] school with Patricia (her youngest daughter).”
“Don’t know..” we offered. She interrupted again. “A letter, not in an enveloped, xeroxed on an open page for every poor kid in that school to read, complaining how the Catholic rights of “poor Terri” – as if a one of them had ever met her, or fed her or changed her – were being trampled on by the courts. Patricia came in all fired up and I had to sit her down and explain how difficult these decisions were for families and how it was terrible arrogance for anyone to assume he had the right to put their two cents in in such a tragedy. I tell you I was never so angry. I called that principal up and gave that woman a piece of my mind, let me tell you. Exploiting school kids and total strangers.”
She was pretty much in full rant now. Bloggers who rant don’t really appreciate the art. The best rant, of course, is from someone who hates to rant, hates disagreement, distrusts debate. Because when she rants something in their soul that is conciously kept on a very short lease is loosed.
“Back off.” She almost shouted into the phone. “That’s what people need to do when they see a situation like this. They need to back off and give people the space to grapple with all these horrible choices. And you know, for everyone you make, you have to wonder what if I had done something different and you have to remember, for every single choice, the days when you never even knew people made decisions like this. I tell you they make me sick.”
While she paused to breath, we said we agreed and felt a lot of sympathy for every one involved and even though we thought we agreed with the husband we’d never judge the parents. “Well I will.” She said. “Who are they to make that poor woman’s body a door prize in some grotesque battle that’s filled their whole lives. Don’t they have other children and grandchildren?”
We said we thought the religious right types and the politicians were exploiting them. She would have none of it. “Do they think this circus is god’s plan. They could have said no. They asked for the god-damn cameras and their wretched 15 minutes of fame on Larry King. Screw Larry King, why aren’t they at her bedside asking God for the strength to let her go? God is it too much to ask that she die in peace and dignity. Would it kill the world if we turned off the damn television cameras and just said a prayer for her.”
We don’t know the answer to that question and in truth we do think our sister is a tad uncharitable here. But we note that she has the authority to say these things, and lacks the fear of offending folks, because she earned her own scars in the same battle.
About 4 to 5 million people in this country suffer from Alzheimer’s. They all have families and all those family members know that the “Reds” won’t be passing any laws to help them. Their problems are not the kinds of problems that laws solve. The politicians need to back off on this one.
A Curious Oversight
in the NYT coverage of Il Ducetto's "Let's Wreck Social Security" Rallies out west. While repeating without comment or analysis the dynamic duo's pablum, Ms. Kornblut neglected to mention (as this post from dKos documents) that Il Ducetto's minions prevented a young college student from attending the Tuscon rally (which your tax dollars paid for, Gentle Reader) simply because he wore a "young democrat" tee-shirt. We're used to "Red" cocooning by now. What we find disturbing about the story is this:
Now, we don't think there's much that's "newsworthy" in yet another "Kill Social Security" rally (even if Cheney, FOAL*, attends), but we do think that the fact that members of the administration are keeping lists of people they want to bar from participation in the debate is newsworthy. Perhaps some a journalist could cover the story.
*FOAL: "Father of a lesbian."
in the NYT coverage of Il Ducetto's "Let's Wreck Social Security" Rallies out west. While repeating without comment or analysis the dynamic duo's pablum, Ms. Kornblut neglected to mention (as this post from dKos documents) that Il Ducetto's minions prevented a young college student from attending the Tuscon rally (which your tax dollars paid for, Gentle Reader) simply because he wore a "young democrat" tee-shirt. We're used to "Red" cocooning by now. What we find disturbing about the story is this:
Twenty minutes later the staffer came back and said that Steven's name had been "recorded" and that no matter what he tried he would be denied access to the event.
Now, we don't think there's much that's "newsworthy" in yet another "Kill Social Security" rally (even if Cheney, FOAL*, attends), but we do think that the fact that members of the administration are keeping lists of people they want to bar from participation in the debate is newsworthy. Perhaps some a journalist could cover the story.
*FOAL: "Father of a lesbian."
Maybe They'd Be Able To Do Something About the Economy
if they bothered to hire anyone for jobs in the Treasury Department.
The New York Times > Business > Another Top Treasury Official Announces Resignation Plans: "The open posts include the No. 2 spot of deputy secretary, which became vacant when Samuel Bodman was named secretary of energy; the assistant secretary in charge of tax policy; and the assistant secretary for domestic finance, who oversees the department's issuance of federal debt."
if they bothered to hire anyone for jobs in the Treasury Department.
The Sound of Rats Leaving A Sinking Ship
If Babbling Brooks is turning on Norquist and Reed now, can the scandal that crashes delay be far behind?
It is no doubt uncharitable, but we wonder how many K Street cocktail parties the Babbler has attended in his day, only to notice now, as subpoenas fly, the excrement soiling the sides of his shiny loafers.
If Babbling Brooks is turning on Norquist and Reed now, can the scandal that crashes delay be far behind?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Masters of Sleaze: "Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?"
It is no doubt uncharitable, but we wonder how many K Street cocktail parties the Babbler has attended in his day, only to notice now, as subpoenas fly, the excrement soiling the sides of his shiny loafers.
Celestial Music Just Got A Heck Of A Lot Better
Pudentilla's dad introduced her to Mr. Short's music and she counts herself greatly indebted thereby. Our loss, heaven's gain.
The New York Times > Arts > Music > Bobby Short, Icon of Manhattan Song and Style, Dies at 80: "Bobby Short, the cherubic singer and pianist whose high-spirited but probing renditions of popular standards evoked the glamour and sophistication of Manhattan nightlife, died yesterday at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He was 80, and had homes in Manhattan and southern France."
Pudentilla's dad introduced her to Mr. Short's music and she counts herself greatly indebted thereby. Our loss, heaven's gain.
Tom DeLay Thinks God Sent Him Terri Schiavo
We mentioned this at skippy's place, but it appears either 1) that the Exterminator has gone off the deep end; or 2) he's a shameless, heartless, self-serving piece of pond scum (no disrepect to pond scum intended). The NYT says he opined the following at a meeting of social conservatives in D.C. while they were planning their assault on the constitution last weekend:
Our favorite part is the "Red" projection in his complaint about "personal attacks." Of course it's personal Tom, you personally violated so many ethical rules you had to fire the refs.
We mentioned this at skippy's place, but it appears either 1) that the Exterminator has gone off the deep end; or 2) he's a shameless, heartless, self-serving piece of pond scum (no disrepect to pond scum intended). The NYT says he opined the following at a meeting of social conservatives in D.C. while they were planning their assault on the constitution last weekend:
"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," Mr. DeLay told a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. A recording of the event was provided by the advocacy organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," Mr. DeLay said.
Mr. DeLay complained that "the other side" had figured out how "to defeat the conservative movement," by waging personal attacks, linking with liberal organizations and persuading the national news media to report the story. He charged that "the whole syndicate" was "a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."
Our favorite part is the "Red" projection in his complaint about "personal attacks." Of course it's personal Tom, you personally violated so many ethical rules you had to fire the refs.
They Don't Call It FrankenFood For Nothing
Birds 1: Greedy Corporate Orcs: 0
Guardian Unlimited | Life | Damning verdict on GM crop: "The long-awaited final results of the GM trials for Britain's biggest crop, winter oil seed rape, show that wildlife and the environment would suffer if the crop was grown in the UK, in effect ending the biotech industry's hopes of introducing GM varieties in the foreseeable future." [--snip--]
The scientific results made it clear that it is not the GM crops that harm wildlife but the herbicide sprayed on them. Fields containing conventional crops are sprayed with a herbicide which usually kills weeds before the crops emerge but herbicide-tolerant GM crops can be sprayed later.
Birds 1: Greedy Corporate Orcs: 0
Monday, March 21, 2005
Excerpts From The Guardian ad Litem's Report in the Schiavo Case
Now that all the shoutings gone federal, folks might want to consider reading the report before giving credence to assertions made in support of litigation or legislation. Among the GAL's findings:
Is part of the reason this tragic but ordinary case has become an extraordinary constitutional crisis the fact the members of Congress are willing to lie about it on the record and members of the press let their lies go unchallenged?
Now that all the shoutings gone federal, folks might want to consider reading the report before giving credence to assertions made in support of litigation or legislation. Among the GAL's findings:
Report Excerpts:
- Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.
- "Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as 'a nursing home administrator's nightmare'. It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore."
- Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
- The scientific quality, value and relevance of the testimony varied. The two neurologists testifying for Michael Schiavo provided strong, academically based, and scientifically supported evidence that was reasonably deemed clear and convincing by the court. Of the two physicians testifying for the Schindlers, only one was a neurologist, the other was a radiologist/hyperbaric physician. The testimony of the Schindler's physicians was substantially anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing.
The fifth physician, chosen by the court because the two parties could not agree, presented scientifically grounded, academically based evidence that was reasonably deemed to be clear and convincing by the court.- The current, generally accepted applications to terminal illness or persistent vegetative state define artificial feeding as artificial life support that may be withheld or withdrawn. In 1989, the Florida Legislature permitted the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration under very specific circumstances. In 1999, following extensive bipartisan efforts, life-prolonging procedures were redefined as "any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function." It is noteworthy that the general principle of artificial nutrition as artificial life support that may be removed in terminal and even vegetative state conditions is reflected in nearly all state's laws and within the guidelines of end of life care enunciated by the American Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious denominations.
- A legal analysis of the tens of thousands of pages of documents in the case file, against the statutory legal guidelines and the supporting case law, leads the GAL to conclude that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner. The disposition of the courts, four times reviewed at the appellate level, and once refused review by the Florida Supreme Court, has been that the trier of fact followed the law, did its job, adhered to the rules and rendered a decision that, while difficult and painful, was supported by the facts, the weight of the evidence and the law of Florida.
- Early in Theresa's care, neurological examinations were performed to assess her cognitive capacity. Competent medical practitioners determined that Theresa was in what has been consistently defined as a persistent vegetative state – a finding that throughout the litigation was not disputed by either side. Quite recently, the Schindlers have disputed that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state, and in the alternative, they have argued that even if she is, she deserves to live and be maintained via artificial nutrition and hydration.
- In the month during which the GAL conducted research, interviews and compiled information, he sought to visit with Theresa as often as possible, sometimes daily, and sometimes, more than once each day. During that time, the GAL was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities. When Theresa's mother and father were asked to join the GAL, there was no success in eliciting specific responses. Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent. There were instances during the GAL's visits, when responses seemed possible, but they were not consistent in any way.
- Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state. These data indicate that Theresa's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunken due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced thirteen years ago. The initial oxygen deprivation caused damage that could not be repaired, and the brain tissue in that area continued to devolve. It is noteworthy to recall that from the time of her collapse, and for more than three years, Theresa did receive active physical, occupational, speech and even recreational therapy. There is evidence early in her records of care that she said "no" during physical therapy session. That behavior did not recur and was not further referenced.
- By all measures in the literature, Theresa has beaten the odds in terms of surviving her persistent vegetative state condition. While younger persons fare better than older victims, life spans rarely, according to the American Academy of Neurology, exceed ten years following the onset of the condition. Persons who have been comatose have worse outcomes than those who have not. But Theresa has also far outlived any documented periods from which persons in persistent vegetative states have emerged in any functional capacity. The reasonable degree of medical certainty associated with her diagnosis and prognosis is very high.
- The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment. The GAL concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.
Is part of the reason this tragic but ordinary case has become an extraordinary constitutional crisis the fact the members of Congress are willing to lie about it on the record and members of the press let their lies go unchallenged?
Fact vs. Fiction
Memo to Vatican: The Da Vinci Code is a novel. It is a work of fiction. It does not make truth-claims. On the other hand, bishops and cardinals in America knowingly moved pedophiles from one dioceses and/or parish to another for decades without warning the flocks in question that their children were in danger. They have not been held liable under U.S. criminal law for their deliberate endangerment of children. That is a fact.
According AMERICAblog, it is also a fact that the Dallas News reported in 2002 that the Bishop of San Diego, who recently forbade the Catholic funeral of a gay man, was accused of sexually abusing seminarians in Minnesota. The diocese of Duluth paid the guy $100K and he withdrew his claim. The same bishop, when running the San Diego diocese lied to parishoners about sex abuse settlements in the diocese.
Maybe the Vatican should appoint a cardinal to investigate the facts about the scandal to the church American bishops and cardinals have engaged in for decades and leave the response to novels to book critics.
Guardian Unlimited Books | News | Vatican appoints official Da Vinci Code debunker: "With sales of over 18m copies in 44 languages, topping bestseller charts all over the world and earning its author more than �140m, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a global phenomenon. And now it has become the first book ever to have an archbishop dedicated to debunking its contents."
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, has been appointed by the Vatican to rebut what the Catholic church calls the "shameful and unfounded errors" contained within The Da Vinci Code. He is organising a series of public debates focusing on the conspiracy theories and what the Vatican sees as the blurring of fact and fiction at the heart of the thriller, the first of which will be held in Genoa tomorrow.
Memo to Vatican: The Da Vinci Code is a novel. It is a work of fiction. It does not make truth-claims. On the other hand, bishops and cardinals in America knowingly moved pedophiles from one dioceses and/or parish to another for decades without warning the flocks in question that their children were in danger. They have not been held liable under U.S. criminal law for their deliberate endangerment of children. That is a fact.
According AMERICAblog, it is also a fact that the Dallas News reported in 2002 that the Bishop of San Diego, who recently forbade the Catholic funeral of a gay man, was accused of sexually abusing seminarians in Minnesota. The diocese of Duluth paid the guy $100K and he withdrew his claim. The same bishop, when running the San Diego diocese lied to parishoners about sex abuse settlements in the diocese.
Maybe the Vatican should appoint a cardinal to investigate the facts about the scandal to the church American bishops and cardinals have engaged in for decades and leave the response to novels to book critics.
Republicans Expand Assault On Working Americans
Why some budget cuts get less attention | csmonitor.com: "It's hard being poor in America. It's not just the stagnant minimum wage, which Congress failed to raise this month, or the lack of unemployment insurance benefits for many, since legislators failed last year to extend them for the long-term jobless."
Future cuts in federal aid for the poor look even worse. President Bush's budget for 2006 would reduce spending on early childhood education and child care, home energy assistance and rental assistance, and nutrition assistance to pregnant women, infants, and young children, Washington experts say.
Now, Congress is deliberating whether to punch another hole in the biggest safety net of all for those with little income - Medicaid and the related State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Next to Social Security and Medicare, which serve all income brackets, Medicaid and SCHIP stand as Uncle Sam's biggest social program.
They support 1 in 6 Americans and cover 1 in 4 children. Among low-income children and parents, they provide health insurance for more than 38 million Americans. Medicaid is a critical source of acute and long-term care coverage for 12 million elderly and disabled individuals, including 6 million low-income beneficiaries of Medicare with medical problems not paid for by that health program.
Why some budget cuts get less attention | csmonitor.com: "It's hard being poor in America. It's not just the stagnant minimum wage, which Congress failed to raise this month, or the lack of unemployment insurance benefits for many, since legislators failed last year to extend them for the long-term jobless."
Future cuts in federal aid for the poor look even worse. President Bush's budget for 2006 would reduce spending on early childhood education and child care, home energy assistance and rental assistance, and nutrition assistance to pregnant women, infants, and young children, Washington experts say.
Now, Congress is deliberating whether to punch another hole in the biggest safety net of all for those with little income - Medicaid and the related State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Next to Social Security and Medicare, which serve all income brackets, Medicaid and SCHIP stand as Uncle Sam's biggest social program.
They support 1 in 6 Americans and cover 1 in 4 children. Among low-income children and parents, they provide health insurance for more than 38 million Americans. Medicaid is a critical source of acute and long-term care coverage for 12 million elderly and disabled individuals, including 6 million low-income beneficiaries of Medicare with medical problems not paid for by that health program.
A New Wafer Watch?
perhaps not:
Catholic Bishops Plan Drive Against Death Penalty (washingtonpost.com): "In the week before Easter, as Christians reflect on the execution of Jesus, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is launching a campaign to end the use of the death penalty in the United States.
Although the campaign reflects the consistent teaching of Pope John Paul II, it marks something of a shift in priorities for the nation's Roman Catholic bishops, who last issued a major statement against capital punishment 25 years ago."
perhaps not:
Because of the nuance in the church's teaching, McCarrick said, the bishops will not argue that capital punishment is inherently immoral. "Our job is to try to persuade our Catholic people and everybody of good will that the death penalty in America at this time is not necessary, it's not useful and it's not good," he said.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Palm Sunday
It appears that the Republican majority in Congress is ready to substantially and unconstitutionally intervene in the Terry Schiavo case, despite the fact that they are not, as Mark Kleiman has pointed out, willing to prevent hospitals from forcing the termination of life support in concious, terminal patients who have explicitly declared their desire to keep the life support systems on. Indeed the fellow who currently occupies the White House signed legislation in Texas when he was Governor that explicitly gave hospitals the right to cut the juice when the Medicaid/Medicare/insurance funs ran out. They are apparently motivated,at least in part, according to their talking points, by the political good will this stand will earn them among so-called "right to lifers."
The pastor at Pudentilla's church today asked all of us to pray today for Mrs. Schiavo, her husband and her parents, noting that the case set two ordinary, legitimate and human desires, which are not necessarily contradictory, in opposition to each other: the desire to live, and the desire to die with dignity. The Rev also pointed out that the tragedy such a conflict necessarily occasions was compounded by the fact that Mrs. Schiavo is not presently able to speak for herself. The pastor opined that it might be very difficult for each of us to discern God's will in this (indeed that is why we pray to God to show us His way), but that whoever spoke of any family member in this tragedy in anger, or without compassion, could surely not be speaking in God's name.
She also mentioned that those who waived palms and shouted hosannas at Christ's passing on Palm Sunday, got His message precisely wrong.
It appears that the Republican majority in Congress is ready to substantially and unconstitutionally intervene in the Terry Schiavo case, despite the fact that they are not, as Mark Kleiman has pointed out, willing to prevent hospitals from forcing the termination of life support in concious, terminal patients who have explicitly declared their desire to keep the life support systems on. Indeed the fellow who currently occupies the White House signed legislation in Texas when he was Governor that explicitly gave hospitals the right to cut the juice when the Medicaid/Medicare/insurance funs ran out. They are apparently motivated,at least in part, according to their talking points, by the political good will this stand will earn them among so-called "right to lifers."
The pastor at Pudentilla's church today asked all of us to pray today for Mrs. Schiavo, her husband and her parents, noting that the case set two ordinary, legitimate and human desires, which are not necessarily contradictory, in opposition to each other: the desire to live, and the desire to die with dignity. The Rev also pointed out that the tragedy such a conflict necessarily occasions was compounded by the fact that Mrs. Schiavo is not presently able to speak for herself. The pastor opined that it might be very difficult for each of us to discern God's will in this (indeed that is why we pray to God to show us His way), but that whoever spoke of any family member in this tragedy in anger, or without compassion, could surely not be speaking in God's name.
She also mentioned that those who waived palms and shouted hosannas at Christ's passing on Palm Sunday, got His message precisely wrong.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
A New Creed For The Judiciary?
via Crooks&Liars
The judge, Richard Kramer, author of the judicial opinion overturning laws that outlaw gay marriage, was referring to criminal cases, but it's not a bad motto for any jurist: common sense and humanity. Why would the "Reds" hate it? ( she asked rhetorically).
via Crooks&Liars
AP Wire | 03/15/2005 | Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee: "'It's all fascinating to me,' he told the Daily Journal. 'What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity.'"
The judge, Richard Kramer, author of the judicial opinion overturning laws that outlaw gay marriage, was referring to criminal cases, but it's not a bad motto for any jurist: common sense and humanity. Why would the "Reds" hate it? ( she asked rhetorically).
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Selective Reading
Yesterday a state court judge in California ruled that California laws that prohibit gay people from marrying are unconstitutional:
Since Pudentilla is as gay as a goose, she took no little interest in the case. Thus, when she read in Oliver Willis that folks at Wizbang were complaining about the decision she wandered over to see what the "Reds" were saying. The debate was lively with many participants who posted on multiple occasions and whose comments often fell into several of the categories listed below:
Our first reaction was to wonder why straight opponents of gay marriage use the phrase 'crammed down my throat' (which surely is an allusion to unbiblical sexual practices) to complain about gay marriage?
Our second reaction was to note the relative strength of support for civil unions.
Our third reaction was to wish that opponents of gay marriage would spare queers like Pudentilla the self-serving protest that "I have nothing against gays, myself." Sure you do, Sweetie-pie. You have something against gays enjoying the ability to marry and the vast range of economic and legal benefits that attach to that ability. And that something can only be explained if you think that there's something about queers and their relationships that is less deserving of those economic and legal benefits than straight folks and their relationships. Embrace your inner bigot and spare us the energy required to protect whatever interest you have in presenting yourself to the world as the tolerant well meaning white guy/gal next door. You're worse than ridiculous, you're boring.
Our fourth reaction was to wonder who gave the "Reds" all those copies of the Constitution without Article III: you know, the part that reads,
Since Marbury v. Madison (1803) this authority explicitly includes the right to overturn legislation because it doesn't accord with the Constitution. Because of this power, the tyrany of the majority is restrained. By definition decisions overturning legislation supported by the majority will be politically "unpopular."
We wonder at all the Red opponents of the judiciary and whether their attitudes will change as the demographic structure of the country changes and they find themselves in a distinct and identifiable minority population.
Our final reaction was to marvel at the intellectual pliability of those who argued that Loving v. Virginia didn't change the definition of "traditional" marriage. Because, you see, the parties in Loving were straight. So traditional marriage wasn't changed. Our inner historian is amazed at how quickly the radical transformation of the traditional definition of marriage effected by Loving has taken hold.
A tip to the bigots who now rely on Loving as a mainstay of traditional marriage. The state's argument in Loving was the society had always defined traditional marriage to exclude relationships between interracial couples. The couple was prosecuted for violating Virginia's ban against interracial marriage. The judge who sentenced them said the following:
Historians and social theorists are often interested in how "traditional" ideology is transformed. That the traditional marriage folks are so willing to obscure and thereby accept the fundamental transformation of the institution of marriage effected by Loving in 1967 in order to deny the relevance of Loving to a debate about marriage less than 40 years later, suggests that despite the Nuremburg Amendments of the last election cycle, a change is gonna come.
Yesterday a state court judge in California ruled that California laws that prohibit gay people from marrying are unconstitutional:
Peppering his decision with references to past state and federal judicial rulings outlawing interracial marriage and other forms of racial discrimination, Kramer wrote that a long tradition of recognizing only heterosexual marriage does not justify the two state laws - Family Code sections 300 and 308.5.
"Same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before," he said in the decision, which was a ruling in six consolidated lawsuits from San Francisco and Los Angeles that were filed both by gay marriage advocates and foes.
The judge also said the state's domestic partnership laws, which grant same-gender couples nearly all the rights and obligations of married heterosexuals, are an inadequate substitute.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal," Kramer said.
Since Pudentilla is as gay as a goose, she took no little interest in the case. Thus, when she read in Oliver Willis that folks at Wizbang were complaining about the decision she wandered over to see what the "Reds" were saying. The debate was lively with many participants who posted on multiple occasions and whose comments often fell into several of the categories listed below:
complaints about activist judges overturning the laws, not interpreting them: 2
a subcategory of above discussing the impeachment of judges: 3
a subcategory of above insisting that gay marriage would only be legitimate if brought about by submission to the "will of the people" via legislation: 10
a subcategory of above rejecting the role of the judiciary in restraining a tyranny of the majority and insisting that majority rule is the rule: 2
criticism of judician fiat argument on the grounds that the Constitution protects citizens from the tyrany of the majority: 4
denial that gay people are denied marriage rights because the have the right to marry people of the opposite sex: 3
insistence that allowing gay people to marry will overturn the traditional institution of marriage: 8
a subcategory of appeals to the traditional Christian basis of heterosexual marriage (and concern that churches will be compelled to "recognize" gay marriage - look at Canada!): 6
argument that supporters of gay marriage were bigoted and trampling on the rights of religious people: 3
description of gay marriage as "evil": 1
insistence that marriage is not a right but a privilege (and therefore not subject to equal protection analysis): 5
insistence that denial of marriage rights to gays didn't demean them: 3
criticism of commentors suggesting they were hypocritical, bigoted and or/on the wrong side of history: 4
assertions that the commentator has nothing against gay people: 5
comparisons of gay marriage to bestiality and incest and polygamy: 5
arguments against such comparisons: 3
argument that Loving v. Virginia did not apply to gay marriage because the parties were straight: 3
concessions that civil unions would be ok: 6
difficult to categorize but quite unhappy about the decision: 2
Our first reaction was to wonder why straight opponents of gay marriage use the phrase 'crammed down my throat' (which surely is an allusion to unbiblical sexual practices) to complain about gay marriage?
Our second reaction was to note the relative strength of support for civil unions.
Our third reaction was to wish that opponents of gay marriage would spare queers like Pudentilla the self-serving protest that "I have nothing against gays, myself." Sure you do, Sweetie-pie. You have something against gays enjoying the ability to marry and the vast range of economic and legal benefits that attach to that ability. And that something can only be explained if you think that there's something about queers and their relationships that is less deserving of those economic and legal benefits than straight folks and their relationships. Embrace your inner bigot and spare us the energy required to protect whatever interest you have in presenting yourself to the world as the tolerant well meaning white guy/gal next door. You're worse than ridiculous, you're boring.
Our fourth reaction was to wonder who gave the "Reds" all those copies of the Constitution without Article III: you know, the part that reads,
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..
Since Marbury v. Madison (1803) this authority explicitly includes the right to overturn legislation because it doesn't accord with the Constitution. Because of this power, the tyrany of the majority is restrained. By definition decisions overturning legislation supported by the majority will be politically "unpopular."
We wonder at all the Red opponents of the judiciary and whether their attitudes will change as the demographic structure of the country changes and they find themselves in a distinct and identifiable minority population.
Our final reaction was to marvel at the intellectual pliability of those who argued that Loving v. Virginia didn't change the definition of "traditional" marriage. Because, you see, the parties in Loving were straight. So traditional marriage wasn't changed. Our inner historian is amazed at how quickly the radical transformation of the traditional definition of marriage effected by Loving has taken hold.
A tip to the bigots who now rely on Loving as a mainstay of traditional marriage. The state's argument in Loving was the society had always defined traditional marriage to exclude relationships between interracial couples. The couple was prosecuted for violating Virginia's ban against interracial marriage. The judge who sentenced them said the following:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Historians and social theorists are often interested in how "traditional" ideology is transformed. That the traditional marriage folks are so willing to obscure and thereby accept the fundamental transformation of the institution of marriage effected by Loving in 1967 in order to deny the relevance of Loving to a debate about marriage less than 40 years later, suggests that despite the Nuremburg Amendments of the last election cycle, a change is gonna come.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Il Ducetto's Plan To Gut Social Security Grows Even More Unpopular
Cokie ("still an idiot") Roberts was blathering on NPR this morning on how vulnerable Dems will be to charges of obstructionism on Social Security, despite the fact that the very polls (commissioned by Republicans in the House and Senate) she was reporting on indicated that the public does not blame the Democrats for opposing Il Ducetto on this issue. Only on the D.C. cocktail party circuit, Cokie. Where people whose retirement security depends on Social Security live, folks are thinking Il Ducetto's plan is a bad idea.
We reiterate. Il Ducetto has no plan to solve the Social Security solvency problem. He has a plan to destroy Social Security through private accounts financed through payroll taxes which will not improve Social Security solvency and will require benefit reductions. When the electorate learns about Il Ducetto's plan they hate it. They Dems don't want and don't need to compete with Il Ducetto in the game of "let's destroy Social Security."
Contrary to the conventional wisdom in D.C., Democrats should not offer a "plan," they should continue to educate the public on the nature of Il Ducetto's plan and reinvigorate the historical consensus in favor of Social Security that the program has enjoyed everywhere but within the confines of Republican and conservative think-tanks and the Republican party's congressional caucus.
More than a few bloggers agree with us. Ask Matt Yglesias (quoted with approval by Atrios), Oliver Willis, Josh Marshall (who points out that in following Bill Kristol's advice to obstruct Clinton's health care reform - because it might be successful - the Republicans suffered no "obstructionism" backlash), and the Suburban Guerrilla (who points out that even the 'support our President' faction of Blue Dog Democrats refuse to walk Il Ducetto's plank on Social Security).
Skippy the Bush Kangeroo (who coined the term "blogtopia") notes that NBC is in the tank on this one, deliberately misrepresenting Bill Clinton's statements about Social Security reform. Mike at Maine Politics notes that even in such an honest and earnest state as Maine, Republicans are writing misleading letters to the editor, misrepresenting their own identities and making false state statements about Social Security.
DemfromCT at DailyKos notes that this point in the Social Security debate could be a Harry Truman moment. Brad Plummer, subbing for the Political Animal, himself, at Washington Monthly skewers George Wills fallacious argument that Social Security fosters government dependency.
Obviously, the reality based community agrees, the Democrats should ignore the Republicans in the corner who are begging them to save their sorry posteriors, and continue to educate the public on the why the Republican plan to destroy Social Security is very, very bad for them.
Support for Bush on Social Security Wanes, Poll Finds (washingtonpost.com): "Nearly six in 10--58 percent--say they are more inclined to oppose administration's reform plans as they learn more about it. Only a third say they are more receptive to Bush's proposals as more details become available."
Cokie ("still an idiot") Roberts was blathering on NPR this morning on how vulnerable Dems will be to charges of obstructionism on Social Security, despite the fact that the very polls (commissioned by Republicans in the House and Senate) she was reporting on indicated that the public does not blame the Democrats for opposing Il Ducetto on this issue. Only on the D.C. cocktail party circuit, Cokie. Where people whose retirement security depends on Social Security live, folks are thinking Il Ducetto's plan is a bad idea.
We reiterate. Il Ducetto has no plan to solve the Social Security solvency problem. He has a plan to destroy Social Security through private accounts financed through payroll taxes which will not improve Social Security solvency and will require benefit reductions. When the electorate learns about Il Ducetto's plan they hate it. They Dems don't want and don't need to compete with Il Ducetto in the game of "let's destroy Social Security."
Contrary to the conventional wisdom in D.C., Democrats should not offer a "plan," they should continue to educate the public on the nature of Il Ducetto's plan and reinvigorate the historical consensus in favor of Social Security that the program has enjoyed everywhere but within the confines of Republican and conservative think-tanks and the Republican party's congressional caucus.
More than a few bloggers agree with us. Ask Matt Yglesias (quoted with approval by Atrios), Oliver Willis, Josh Marshall (who points out that in following Bill Kristol's advice to obstruct Clinton's health care reform - because it might be successful - the Republicans suffered no "obstructionism" backlash), and the Suburban Guerrilla (who points out that even the 'support our President' faction of Blue Dog Democrats refuse to walk Il Ducetto's plank on Social Security).
Skippy the Bush Kangeroo (who coined the term "blogtopia") notes that NBC is in the tank on this one, deliberately misrepresenting Bill Clinton's statements about Social Security reform. Mike at Maine Politics notes that even in such an honest and earnest state as Maine, Republicans are writing misleading letters to the editor, misrepresenting their own identities and making false state statements about Social Security.
DemfromCT at DailyKos notes that this point in the Social Security debate could be a Harry Truman moment. Brad Plummer, subbing for the Political Animal, himself, at Washington Monthly skewers George Wills fallacious argument that Social Security fosters government dependency.
Obviously, the reality based community agrees, the Democrats should ignore the Republicans in the corner who are begging them to save their sorry posteriors, and continue to educate the public on the why the Republican plan to destroy Social Security is very, very bad for them.
Bad News For Bloggers?
Apparently print sales, which support web infrastructure, are declining, while web readership booms. Web readers, however, refuse to pay for services. It's a business model conundrum of the first order.
We admit to conflicted feelings on this issue. We use the web editions of newspapers throughout the U.S. and the world like a utility. And we doubt that we would pay for them. We paid for the NYT crossword puzzle for a year, but discovered that while we did the puzzle every day when we bought the paper, we did it once a week when we read the paper on line. Conversely, we did subscribe to Salon, when we realized we read it every day. We certainly couldn't afford to pay for all of the papers we read on the web.
If the papers start charging, we would confront the necessity of prioritizing. We read some papers every day, some papers on a weekly basis and some papers only when we are tracking country wide and/or world wide coverage of a topic. We sit and watch the ads the NYT site occasionally puts up on the theory that it may forestall the dreaded day when they and their ilk start charging. Perhaps the solution is a bundling service not unlike a cable provider, where a monthly fee determines the number and kind of papers to which you could subscribe. But the papers would have to get their acts together for this to work efficiently.
For those who blog on politics, this is going to be a big deal. Bloggers have a reflexive relationship with the web based papers. We could all probably just refer to stories in print papers, but we think the rhetorical effectiveness of political blogs arise from the fact that a reader can actually go check the linked source. This allows, indeed invites, response and commentary and correction. Without this easy linking ability, political blogging may stop in its tracks. This would be an unfortunate result, because, in our opinion, political blogging is potentially the most democratic (small 'd') innovation in political discourse since the newspaper.
The New York Times > Business > Media & Advertising > Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?: "Consumers are willing to spend millions of dollars on the Web when it comes to music services like iTunes and gaming sites like Xbox Live. But when it comes to online news, they are happy to read it but loath to pay for it."
Apparently print sales, which support web infrastructure, are declining, while web readership booms. Web readers, however, refuse to pay for services. It's a business model conundrum of the first order.
We admit to conflicted feelings on this issue. We use the web editions of newspapers throughout the U.S. and the world like a utility. And we doubt that we would pay for them. We paid for the NYT crossword puzzle for a year, but discovered that while we did the puzzle every day when we bought the paper, we did it once a week when we read the paper on line. Conversely, we did subscribe to Salon, when we realized we read it every day. We certainly couldn't afford to pay for all of the papers we read on the web.
If the papers start charging, we would confront the necessity of prioritizing. We read some papers every day, some papers on a weekly basis and some papers only when we are tracking country wide and/or world wide coverage of a topic. We sit and watch the ads the NYT site occasionally puts up on the theory that it may forestall the dreaded day when they and their ilk start charging. Perhaps the solution is a bundling service not unlike a cable provider, where a monthly fee determines the number and kind of papers to which you could subscribe. But the papers would have to get their acts together for this to work efficiently.
For those who blog on politics, this is going to be a big deal. Bloggers have a reflexive relationship with the web based papers. We could all probably just refer to stories in print papers, but we think the rhetorical effectiveness of political blogs arise from the fact that a reader can actually go check the linked source. This allows, indeed invites, response and commentary and correction. Without this easy linking ability, political blogging may stop in its tracks. This would be an unfortunate result, because, in our opinion, political blogging is potentially the most democratic (small 'd') innovation in political discourse since the newspaper.
3 Years Later, Aviation under Il Ducetto Still Vulnerable to al-Q
Maybe we should audit the books and find out what folks are doing with the billions we've spent on aviation security, besides employing Reds and their friends.
The New York Times > Washington > Government Report on U.S. Aviation Warns of Security Holes: "WASHINGTON, March 13 - Despite a huge investment in security, the American aviation system remains vulnerable to attack by Al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups, with noncommercial planes and helicopters offering terrorists particularly tempting targets, a confidential government report concludes."
Maybe we should audit the books and find out what folks are doing with the billions we've spent on aviation security, besides employing Reds and their friends.
Ole Yellowcake Hadley Is Now Plagarizing Richard Clarke
So taxpayers, your money has been spent to send a message out to local law enforcement based on no specific information. Now we do not object to anti-terrorist types sharing their speculation with the folks who actually will be responding to terrorist acts. But don't you think Hadley should at least be required to point out that Richard Clarke's article in the February Atlantic has already pointed out (to a national audience) everything that ole Yellowcake has said.
If we were cynical we'd say that Il Ducetto's boys wanted to elevate Zarqawi to "bin Laden status," because they believe they have a shot at capturing Zarqawi, and they have long since given up any hope of capturing bin Laden. If they persuade us that Zarqawi is as bad as bin Laden, then we'll think they're great when they capture Zarqawi. So a lot of tax payer money is being spent builting up Zarqawi, who's done bupkus in the U.S., as a threat to the homeland in the hope that we'll all forget about bin Laden, who masterminded the most significant and successful attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, but can't be found by Il Ducetto's boys. This is what we would believe if we were cynical.
Yahoo! News - Qaeda Ally May Target U.S. Theaters, Schools -Report: "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's chief ally in Iraq (news - web sites), may be planning attacks on 'soft targets' in the United States including movie theaters, restaurants and schools, Time magazine reported on Sunday." [--snip--]
Hadley said movie theaters, restaurants and schools "are the kinds of targets we know that al Qaeda has traditionally been concerned about."
"But we, at this point sitting here, do not have evidence of a specific operation by Zarqawi's organization targeting those kinds of targets. We just don't have that kind of information at this point," Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition."
So taxpayers, your money has been spent to send a message out to local law enforcement based on no specific information. Now we do not object to anti-terrorist types sharing their speculation with the folks who actually will be responding to terrorist acts. But don't you think Hadley should at least be required to point out that Richard Clarke's article in the February Atlantic has already pointed out (to a national audience) everything that ole Yellowcake has said.
If we were cynical we'd say that Il Ducetto's boys wanted to elevate Zarqawi to "bin Laden status," because they believe they have a shot at capturing Zarqawi, and they have long since given up any hope of capturing bin Laden. If they persuade us that Zarqawi is as bad as bin Laden, then we'll think they're great when they capture Zarqawi. So a lot of tax payer money is being spent builting up Zarqawi, who's done bupkus in the U.S., as a threat to the homeland in the hope that we'll all forget about bin Laden, who masterminded the most significant and successful attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, but can't be found by Il Ducetto's boys. This is what we would believe if we were cynical.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
We Have Found A Home In Blogtopia (TFTTS!*)
skippy has added our humble site to his blogroll. Our gratitude is to great for words to express.
*TFTTS: Thanks for the term, skippy!
skippy has added our humble site to his blogroll. Our gratitude is to great for words to express.
*TFTTS: Thanks for the term, skippy!
Never Think The Reds Have Gone As Low As They Can Go
Note, these proposed cuts are in addition to the cuts that Il Ducetto has already proposed, which will reduce by 300,000 the number of people eligible for food stamps. Hmm', subsidies for corporations or school lunch programs - which will the Reds cut? Let us think about it, for a nano-second.
Yahoo! News - Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to PoorWASHINGTON - Cuts in food programs for the poor are getting support in Congress as an alternative to President Bush (news - web sites)'s idea of slicing billions of dollars from the payments that go to large farm operations. [--snip--]
The president wants to lower the maximum subsidies that can be collected each year by any one farm operation from $360,000 to $250,000. He also asked Congress to cut by 5 percent all farm payments, and he wants to close loopholes that enable some growers to annually collect millions of dollars in subsidies.
Instead, Republican committee chairmen are looking to carve savings from nutrition and land conservation programs that are also run by the Agriculture Department. The government is projected to spend $52 billion this year on nutrition programs like food stamps, school lunches and special aid to low-income pregnant women and children. Farm subsidies will total less than half that, $24 billion.
Note, these proposed cuts are in addition to the cuts that Il Ducetto has already proposed, which will reduce by 300,000 the number of people eligible for food stamps. Hmm', subsidies for corporations or school lunch programs - which will the Reds cut? Let us think about it, for a nano-second.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
We Guess He Missed Signing Death Warrants
We suppose if poli-sci students ever wanted to build an analytical model for the creation of pariah states, Dr. Rice will have surely provided them a wealth of data.
U.S. Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases:By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
The Bush administration has decided to pull out of an international agreement that opponents of the death penalty have used to fight the sentences of foreigners on death row in the United States, officials said yesterday.
In a two-paragraph letter dated March 7, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it -- along with the rest of the Vienna Convention -- in 1969. [--snip--]
Some said the decision would weaken both protections for U.S. citizens abroad and the idea of reciprocal obligation that the protocol embodied.
We suppose if poli-sci students ever wanted to build an analytical model for the creation of pariah states, Dr. Rice will have surely provided them a wealth of data.
Condi, Send Silvio the Script, Subito!
We hate it when a perfectly good cover story falls apart.
Europe - AP: Italy PM Disputes U.S. Version of Shooting: By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer
ROME - Disputing Washington's version of events, Italy's premier said that an Italian intelligence agent who was shot to death by U.S. troops in Baghdad had informed the proper authorities that he was heading to the airport with a freed hostage.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi also told lawmakers that the car carrying agent Nicola Calipari and a just-liberated hostage was traveling slowly and stopped immediately when a light was flashed at a checkpoint, before U.S. troops fired on the car.
We hate it when a perfectly good cover story falls apart.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Bread and Circuses
via Kyhber900's diary at the Daily Kos:
If this is true, than the little spider hole stunt was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and a fraud perpetrated against the American people. What an efficient criminal class we have governing the country.
via Kyhber900's diary at the Daily Kos:
13WHAM-TV ROCHESTER || NEWS
A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated. [--snip--]
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.
He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting." [--snip--]
If this is true, than the little spider hole stunt was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and a fraud perpetrated against the American people. What an efficient criminal class we have governing the country.
Theology and Geography
Our experience shovelling out from the latest (but according to the doomsdayers at the weather channel not the last) snow storm this morning leads us to conclude that had Jesus been preaching in the small town in Central Maine where Pudentilla is fortunate enough to live, the parable of the good Samaritan would involve a fellow very like our very nice neighbor who, on his the way to dig his daughter out on his John Deere 420, merrily waived Pudentilla and her partner away from the end of the driveway and promptly plowed us clear in about 15 minutes, refused offers of coffee and as he rode away up the hill called out, "you girls have a nice day." That is our neighbor, a man for whom the word "mensch" was invented.
Our experience shovelling out from the latest (but according to the doomsdayers at the weather channel not the last) snow storm this morning leads us to conclude that had Jesus been preaching in the small town in Central Maine where Pudentilla is fortunate enough to live, the parable of the good Samaritan would involve a fellow very like our very nice neighbor who, on his the way to dig his daughter out on his John Deere 420, merrily waived Pudentilla and her partner away from the end of the driveway and promptly plowed us clear in about 15 minutes, refused offers of coffee and as he rode away up the hill called out, "you girls have a nice day." That is our neighbor, a man for whom the word "mensch" was invented.
No One Talks About Handcrafted Snowbanks
Here in the small town in Central Maine in which Pudentilla is fortunate enough to live, woodworkers often debate the relative merits of pursuing their craft with handtools and power tools. The phrase "handcrafted" carries a certain cache among "people from away" who idle away their summer afternoons on shops along Route 1.
This debate never arises when Mainers shovel out from yet another blankety-blank blizzard. A foot of fresh fall and mega drifts. And if one more native tells us "if ya cahnt take the wintahs you don't deserve the summahs" we shall reconsider our attitudes about gun ownership.
Here in the small town in Central Maine in which Pudentilla is fortunate enough to live, woodworkers often debate the relative merits of pursuing their craft with handtools and power tools. The phrase "handcrafted" carries a certain cache among "people from away" who idle away their summer afternoons on shops along Route 1.
This debate never arises when Mainers shovel out from yet another blankety-blank blizzard. A foot of fresh fall and mega drifts. And if one more native tells us "if ya cahnt take the wintahs you don't deserve the summahs" we shall reconsider our attitudes about gun ownership.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Heads You Win, Tails I Lose.
via Americablog
So if you take their risk (in pursuit of promised but not guaranteed rewards), you get lower benefits and if you don't take their risk you still get lower benefits. Another "Red" public policy at work. As Scorpio would say, "No Deal!"
via Americablog
Yahoo! News - Personal Accounts Tank in Polls, GOP Says: "Republican officials briefed by White House aides have said even younger Americans who decide not to establish a private account would receive a lower government guaranteed benefit."
So if you take their risk (in pursuit of promised but not guaranteed rewards), you get lower benefits and if you don't take their risk you still get lower benefits. Another "Red" public policy at work. As Scorpio would say, "No Deal!"
Turning Another Corner In Iraq
via The Raw Story
via The Raw Story
News
RAF Hercules that crashed killing 10 'was hit by missile'
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor - 08 March 2005
A missile fired by insurgents from the ground probably destroyed an RAF Hercules C-130 cargo plane in Iraq with the loss of 10 British special operations servicemen, an interim report by Ministry of Defence accident investigators has revealed.
The findings, outlined to MPs by Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, raised fears within the MoD that the insurgents could possess a new missile capable of hitting aircraft flying above 15,000 feet.
Things Angelina Jolie Has Taught Us
Listening to Ms. Jolie on NPR this afternoon, we learned that pending in Congress right now is a bill with bipartisan support entitled, "The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005." The bill apparently seeks to allow minor aliens (i.e., children who are not documented and not accompanied by a parent or guardian in the U.S.) to be accompanied by a guardian ad litem in the presence of tribunals which will determine their refugee status.
We want to know two things. First, who is the heir of the Inquisition who thought it was appropriate to subject minor children to legal proceedings without the presence of attorneys to represent their interests? Second, to which circle of hell will this miscreant be consigned?
Of course we always have an extra question: into what moral dustbin have those who prevented enactment of this law last year deposited the last shreds of their conscience?
Listening to Ms. Jolie on NPR this afternoon, we learned that pending in Congress right now is a bill with bipartisan support entitled, "The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005." The bill apparently seeks to allow minor aliens (i.e., children who are not documented and not accompanied by a parent or guardian in the U.S.) to be accompanied by a guardian ad litem in the presence of tribunals which will determine their refugee status.
We want to know two things. First, who is the heir of the Inquisition who thought it was appropriate to subject minor children to legal proceedings without the presence of attorneys to represent their interests? Second, to which circle of hell will this miscreant be consigned?
Of course we always have an extra question: into what moral dustbin have those who prevented enactment of this law last year deposited the last shreds of their conscience?
JDs Say Rummy's Boys Are Pissing On The Constitution Again
Rummy's boys deny and/or declined to comment on the charges. We assume the "reds" will ask why they should believe someone Il Ducetto's deemed an enemy combatant. Which leads us to ask why we should believe anything Rummy's boy say - until they find the WMD. Pudentilla thinks the United States was a better country when it was ruled by laws, not men.
The New York Times > Washington > U.S. Eroding Inmates' Trust at Cuba Base, Lawyers Say WASHINGTON, March 7 - Defense lawyers for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, say the military has been working to undermine the inmates' trust in them.
In one case, a lawyer said, a military interrogator recently told a detainee that he should not trust his lawyers because they are Jews.
Another lawyer, Marc Falkoff of New York, whose firm represents several Yemenis at Guantánamo, said some of his clients had told him that a person who said he was a lawyer and had civilian clothes had conferred several times with some detainees. That person, Mr. Falkoff said his clients had told him, later appeared at the detention center in uniform, leading the inmates to distrust anyone claiming to be a lawyer and acting in their interest. [--snip--]
Having a law enforcement official pretend to be a lawyer to a prisoner or having an interrogator urge someone to distrust his lawyer would be unconstitutional in the United States, where due process and the right to a lawyer are guaranteed. But whether and to what extent the Constitution applies at Guantánamo and its detention center have always been murky.
The military chose Guantánamo to house hundreds of people it deemed unlawful enemy combatants expecting that the site would be beyond the reach of the Constitution. But in June, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could challenge their detentions in federal courts.
Mr. Falkoff said another problem he had encountered was that inmates, after speaking with their lawyers, were frequently punished to make such consultations less appealing. In several instances, he said, prisoners' trousers were confiscated after lawyers' visits and they were given shorts to wear instead.
"They understand it as a punishment," he said, adding that it made it difficult for the prisoners to kneel and pray. "They feel it's a humiliation directed at them."
Rummy's boys deny and/or declined to comment on the charges. We assume the "reds" will ask why they should believe someone Il Ducetto's deemed an enemy combatant. Which leads us to ask why we should believe anything Rummy's boy say - until they find the WMD. Pudentilla thinks the United States was a better country when it was ruled by laws, not men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)