How it works - or, "Mike Allen, scumbag"


Mike Allen isn’t a racist – but he’s willing to appeal to racist sentiments to get what he wants – which is the privilege of the corporate media front men, who call themselves journalists, to define the terms of political debate in Qmerica and to identify who may properly participate in the debate.

Via Atrios and the Poorman we learn that Mike Allen has penned an article about Barak Obama, who announced that he’s running for presidenct today, for The Politico. The piece concentrates not on Obama’s programs and policies, which might interest the voters, but on the nature of the press coverage that Obama has received.

We know Mike Allen doesn’t like that coverage because he calls it hagiography (greek for “life of a saint”).

The charismatic illinois senator has enjoyed a lifetime of hagiography, starting with an 800-word story in the new york times the day after his election as the first black president of the harvard law review.

It’s not clear whether Mike Allen thinks that the election of the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review is unworthy of news coverage, but surely to characterize the coverage of Obama in his political career as hagiography is simply wrong. You know, as in didn’t check the facts wrong. Indeed, on February 12, 1996, the Chicago Sun Times ran an article about obama with the headline “candidate not what he seems, foes insist” which included the following graph:

Adolph reed jr., a progressive Northwestern University Professor of political science, condemns obama as a politician with "impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics." Robert T. Starks, another academic-activist who serves as chairman of the task force for black political empowerment, says obama is the tool of forces outside the black community.

Ouch. We obtained this evidence of the absence of hagiography in the media coverage of Obama by doing a lexis-nexis search on illinois news sources for the year 1995-1996 using the search term “Obama.” we teach latin. Mike Allen, a real live trained professional journalist either neglected to do this research or he chose to ignore the evidence because it didn’t comport with what he wanted to say – and what Mike Allen wants to say, by definition, is more important than what the facts are.


Allen is not concerned with legislation that Obama has offered or policies he has proposed. He concludes that obama’s policy record is “aenemic” even as he ignores obama’s legislation on U.S. policy in Iraq and notes without discussion proposals he has made about health care and energy policy. Iraq, health care and energy policy – what has Obama proposed? Are his proposals sensible? What do critics of his proposals say about them. Gentle reader Mike Allen doesn’t tell you this information – obtaining it would require him to, what’s the word, work.

Instead Mike Allen is going to write an article about how the media is going to cover Obama. The burning question:

Why has he sometimes said his first name is arabic, and other times swahili?

As Brad DeLong has pointed out, Arabic profoundly influenced the development of Swahili because there were a lot of Arabic traders in the part of Africa where the language Swahili developed for a very long time. Could you discover this information by using the google? Yes.

The google entry "arabic swahili" returns the web site "list of swahili words of arabic orgin" with the following text:

Swahili is a language that fuses african bantu with arabic. Arab sailors and traders have established links and ties with East Africa for centuries, their language strongly merged with the local language to produce a creole derivative.

And wow, when you google "arabic swahili barak" you come to a web site of a guy who's obsessed with language origin, who notes,

I said to myself I wasn’t going to quit studying the Hebrew words until I find one I could relate to. And there it jumped out at me: baruch. I suppose the Arabic word is barak, and I know the Swahili word is baraka, meaning blessing. It’s like six degrees of separation."

Now a few google's might suffice for the dirty f'ing hippies like us, but being a big time journalist and all, Mike Allen might have thought to call up somebody in an arabic or african languages department at a local university and ask them if it was true. Georgetown, is a university in Washington, D.C. You may have heard of it. It has such a department. For Mike Allen, it’s a local call.

But remember gentle reader, journalism as Mike Allen practices it, is not about facts. It is not about providing readers information about issues that affect their daily lives. It is not about testing the assertions and rhetoric of those who vie for political power. Journalism, as Mike Allen practices it, is the privilege of the corporate media front men, who call themselves journalists, to define the terms of political debate in America and to identify who may properly participate in the debate

And Matt Stoeller tells us what Mike Allen’s problem with obama is. Last week, writing on obama, Mike Allen gives us this little, personal, anecdote:

As Obama left the hotel reception, smiling and saying, "thank you again," I introduced myself and said, "Good evening, Senator, may I walk with you?" he replied, "You can walk with me. That doesn't mean you can ask questions." I chuckled, thinking he was kidding. "But you can certainly walk with me," he added. The senator then underscored, "I'm sorry. I'm not answering questions."

If Obama won’t talk to Mike Allen, when Mike Allen wants to talk, then Obama is contesting the privilege of Mike Allen to define the terms of political debate in America and to identify who may properly participate in the debate. And that is an unforgiveable sin.

Obama’s sin transcends the realm of fact checking Gentle Reader, and it must be punished. And Mike Allen, while the cinders of the faux madrassa hit piece pushed by the republican propagandists, Insight Magazine and Fox News, still glows, gently fans the, “don’t forget, Obama, black, Islam” racist thread that run through media coverage of Obama. Now Mike Allen may not believe that the fact that Obama is black or that his father was a Muslim should disqualify Obama from pursuit of the presidency – to believe so, would, after all, be racist.

But Mike Allen’s little process story here works because it pushes the same racist buttons that the madrassa story pushed and the “Barak Hussein Obama” meme before it pushed. Evidence? Here are two comments (from the same poster) from those responding to the story:

And you can even deny this person is a muslim. But calling a fish a duck doesn't make him a duck. The man was born to a muslim family, went to a muslim "school", and his middle name is (and he has never tried to deny it) hussein. No, i am sorry, but he is a muslim. Just like i was raised catholic, but i don't go to mass anymore...for all intents and purposes i would be called a catholic.

His very obvious, if not very public muslim background is troubling to me. We are in a time when the single biggest threat to our safety and security as a nation is radical islam. No, i am not saying that obama is a radical, or even a practicing muslim, but its simply inconceivable to me that we would elect him at a time like this.

Now pulling wacky comments from the thread doesn’t prove that Mike Allen is a racist. But is it plausible to assume that Mike Allen doesn’t think that the arabic/swahili bs won’t push the same buttons that the madrassa and “barak hussein obama” memes did? We think not.

We think that Mike Allen knows full well the racists buttons he’s pushing, and he’s pushing them either because he wants to, or because he doesn’t care if rousing racist sentiment is simply the cost that Mike Allen must pay in order to get what he wants - the privilege of the corporate media front men, who call themselves journalists, to define the terms of political debate in america and to identify who may properly participate in the debate. Too bad for Obama. Too bad for America.

Which makes Mike Allen a scumbag.

We Write Letters

here

Another Nail in the Cross

Our local public radio just ran a news bulletin describing a protest led by Paul Madore, a local bigot who calls himself a Christian and perennially unsuccessful candidate for public office. According to the news report, Madore organized a boycott yesterday of a fundraising dinner a local Democratic party organized to raise funds for the heating bills of poor people. The point of the protest? The dinner took place at the parish hall of a Catholic church in town. Two of the state legislators who helped organized the event had voted in support of not discriminitating against queers. The bigots who call themselves Christian were outraged that the Catholic church had not refused use of the hall because of the presence of legislators who don't want to discriminate. If you're wondering what's the connection between gay rights and helping poor people pay heating bills, you are at the end of a very long line.

We're still looking in the gospels for the part where Jesus said nasty things about queer people, but can't seem to find them. Helping poor folks pay their winter heating bills, on the other hand, strikes us as something Jesus would be down with. In the words of a dinner attendee, “ I’ve read my Bible as much as any one, and it seems like Jesus spent a lot more of his time helping the poor than he did worrying about sex.”

When Pudentilla's grandmother heard of particularly heinous and hypocritical behavior by anyone, but especially by public figures, she was wont to say in a brogue so thick you could cut it with a knife, "ah, that one - he's driving a nail through the flesh of Christ on the cross." Sound about right for Mr. Madore - who doesn't strike us as much of a Christian, even though he plays one on the t.v. news.

Anyways, the story has a happy ending - the dinner was a huge success.

Barratry, Champerty and Maintenance

Over in the land of the Rapists Bill of Rights (h/t - jane), it turns out that the reds in South Dakota have a daddy:

South Dakota passes abortion ban - Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

Now, it's been many a year since Pudentilla has had a legal concern that didn't involve the Praetor's Edict, but upon reading of the generous if anonymous patronage of the rapist friendly South Dakotans, the dim and distant bells of my law school class on legal ethics began to ring. What's the word I'm looking for? Could it be barratry or maintenance or champerty? Pudentilla's edition of Black's Law has long been donated to a prison law library, but fortunately, we live in the age of internets:

barratry - 2: the persistent incitement of litigation

maintenance - 5: unsought and unnecessary meddling in a lawsuit by assisting either party with means to carry it on (compare champerty)

champerty: : an unenforceable agreement by which a person with otherwise no interest in a lawsuit agrees to aid in or carry on its litigation in consideration of a share of the subject matter of the suit (as property or damages) (compare maintenance)

Could it possibly be, we wondered, that daddy of the friends of rapists in South Daddy has done something unethical? Perhaps even illegal. Again, the internets are our friend.

barratry:

22-12-1. (Text of section effective until July 1, 2006) Barratry as misdemeanor--Interest in proceedings no defense. Barratry is the practice of maliciously bringing or causing to be brought any groundless judicial proceedings. It is a Class 2 misdemeanor. The fact that an accused was himself a party in interest or upon the record to any proceedings at law complained of is not a defense.
(Text of section effective July 1, 2006) Barratry--Misdemeanor. Barratry is the offense of maliciously bringing or causing to be brought any groundless judicial proceeding. Barratry is a Class 2 misdemeanor. The fact that an accused was personally a party in interest or upon the record to any proceedings at law complained of is not a defense.
Source: SDC 1939, § 13.1252; SL 1976, ch 158, § 12-1; SL 1977, ch 189, § 26; SL 2005, ch 120, § 233

According to Theron McChesney of the South Dakota Progressive, we even have some gossip as to who the friends of rapists' daddy is:

UPDATE: The word on the street in Pierre is that Steve Kirby is the anonymous donor offering $1 million dollars to defend the abortion ban and former legislator Matt McCaully is on his payroll working behind the scenes on the issue. If anyone can confirm this please email me [theronat@atsdprogressivedot.com (you'll need to strip the address of "at"s and "dot" to use it.)]

According to the Village Voice, Steve Kirby is a very big, if coy, red kahuna in South Dakota:

It's not entirely clear why an abortion foe would desire so strongly to keep their bankroll on the down low. One suggested head of steam behind the war chest was identified as Steve Kirby, the Founding Partner of the Sioux Falls-based investment firm Bluestem Capital, with a market value of $200 million. Kirby is a familiar player in South Dakota, serving as Lieutenant Governor from 1993 to 1995, and an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 2002.

When interviewed by the Voice about the abortion ban, Kirby said, "There's been apparently some degree of support for private funding out of a passion of the supporters for seeing that the bill remains the law of the land, and maybe funding a lawsuit." But when asked if he was a donor, Kirby responded, "No comment on that one."

Matt McCaully, "on the payroll" for Kirby's flirtation with barratry, champerty and maintenance, according to the South Dakota Progressive sources has his own interesting association with allegation of ethical impropriety. He's been accused, though he denies it, of peddling affidavits to support a baseless vote fraud claim against South Dakota Democrats. It's so very republican to committ fraud in order to accuse Democrats of fraud, isn't it?

Now some of you no doubt are saying, Pudentilla, isn't the more important issue that wealthy, unelected men are directing South Dakota's legislature? - that in a real democracy legislators actually think about how much their political stunts will cost the tax payers and anonymous slush funds for legal fees generated by legislation are, therefore, anti-democratic?

Gentle Reader, you're right. And on election day, those who object to the decision of South Dakato legislatures to bow to their overlord and accept his barratry and maintenance, may vote the offenders out. But in the meantime, those in South Dakota who have reason to believe that folks involved in this little touch of barony on the plains, may simply wish to call the State Bar and ask for an ethics investigation of any involved who are licensed attornies. And if you'll settle for a misdemeanor, you might want to call the D.A., too.

Nonna, Get A Web Page!

The practically perfect partner and Pudentilla visited friends at Brown University this weekend and took the opportunity to go grocery shopping on Atwells Atreet in Federal Hill, the Italian neighborhood of Providence. Pudentilla's PPP is of Italian heritage, and the one design flaw the good lord coded into this small piece of heaven in Central Maine that we are fortunate enough to call home is the absence of good Italian salumerias, bakeries and, truth be told, gelaterias. The PPP was in heaven and managed to buy enough provisions at the different storefronts (Venda Ravioli, Tony's Colonial and Roma) to challenge the rear struts on our car.

Our only difficulty was in finding two of the PPPs favorite snacks from childhood, sesame cookies and bread stuffed with sausage. At each counter a pleasant and handsome man or woman would shake their head in such a way as to indicate they had never heard of sesame cookies and lard bread. A charming young undergrad from Brooklyn explained -

"They don't do that, here [ed. note: meaning Italian neighborhoods in RI - as opposed to those in Brooklyn]. I have to bring it back from my Nona's when I go home and visit."

"Your Nonna made it?" the PPP asked, "we always bought ours."

"She has a shop in Brooklyn."

"Get out! I'm from Brooklyn! Where?"

"Mona Lisa's on 86th and 15th."

"Get out! We used to shop there all the time. I'm from 77th and 13th. Oh my god, your Nonna's Mona Lisa? How'd you ever leave home."

"It's hard, I have to go back all the time."

"God, I know what you mean. There's nothing like that in Maine. We had friends send us cookies from Luigi Alba last year."

"In Brooklyn?"

"Yeah. Our friends live in Colorado now, but they're from the Bronx originally."

"My Nonna's better."

"You're Nona should have a web page."

"She says never."

The charming young women then paid for her purchases at Tony's Colonial and wished us a safe journey back to our home devoid of Italian bakeries and salumerias. We should note that the woman who ran the cash register did not seem the least offended by the Brooklyn analysis of Rhode Island Italian delis. Of course, both the charming young undergrad and the PPP had purchased enough grana and coppadel between them to last for aeons. "Darn," said the PPP, as we drove Maine-ward, "I wish Mona Lisa's had a web page."

Gentle Reader, the PPP, on sabbatical, has forgotten the cardinal rule of the professorate - just because an undergrad says something, doesn't mean it's true. A little googling and "ecco la pagina!" Mona Lisa indeed has a webpage. The cookies and sausage bread are already on the way. Thank you, Nonna.

update: The PPP made some geographical corrections - the sausage bread and cookies arrived. They're delicious. Thank you Nonna.

While Cheney Hunted

We think the media coverage of the Dark Lord (f.o.a.l)'s hunting mishap has reached Nero fiddling proportions. In Nero's case, the tag was undeserved. The merit of the particular charge were irrelevant because they allowed people (admittedly Nero's enemies) to describe succinctly their disgust with the emperor.

Here's the people mag version that people will come to believe about the Dark Lord. A) he wasn't hunting, he was doing this weird slaughter thing that rich old white guys do and call hunting; B) he was hammered; C) he shot a guy; D) he blamed the guy for getting shot; E) he wouldn't even apologize for it; andF) no one bothered to check in with il Ducetto on the details. Whether any or all of these particulars are true is irrelevant.

Just the way we now say the untrue aphorism, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned," folks will soon be saying "Cheney shot an old guy" and got a way with it." It's a perfect 5 second tag which captures the arrogance, hypocrisy and violence of the reds and their leader, the Dark Lord (f.o.a.l.).

Wewonder if this will be it. If people who've taken the corruption, torture, and tyranny in their stride will suddenly turn their backs on these felons, because, "Cheney shot an old guy and got away with it."

f.o.a.l.: father of a lesbian

We Write Letters

Dear Senator,

I ask that you vote against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court for the following reasons:

1) His long, clear judicial record in opposition to Roe – Judge Alito’s current claim that he’ll keep an open mind on abortion (as Clarence Thomas similarly claimed) should lead us to question his intellectual integrity, not believe that he will preserve Roe.


2) His failure to recuse himself from cases involving a mutual fund in which he had significant investments, after promising under oath to due so, and his failure to adequately explain how he broke his sworn promise should lead us to question his moral integrity.

3) His assertion that he has no memory of his involvement with CAP, an organization which deserved the extraordinary notoriety it achieved for its virulent sexism and racism, is, by under any reasonable analysis, not credible. His willingness to make such assertions under oath betray a brazen disregard for the integrity of the court and the Senate appoint review process.

4) His support for a unitary theory of executive power in a time when the White House has refused to comply with the Fourth Amendment and flouted Congressional statues is deeply alarming.

Finally, a no vote on the nomination and a yes vote on cloture will only be obvious and self-serving politics on your part. The president is not “entitled” to his nominations – the judiciary is an independent branch of government and the Senate must exercise its advise and consent duties if the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional authority of Congress as co-equal branches of government are to be preserved. If you vote “yes” on cloture, you will long be remembered one of the women who helped kill Roe, I am certain, and I fear, you will be recorded as one of the Senators who helped destroy our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Sincerely,

Pudentilla

The term, we believe, is “wanker”

Many liberals are taking the enemy of my enemy is my friend approach to Bob Barr’s recent lambasting of il ducetto's recently revealed grab for 1984 style tyrannical powers in an Atlanta Journal Constitution op-ed. Barr is right that his awol-ness is wrong but note the dirtly little slight of hand the old impeacher engages in:

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic, "it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper communications.

Talk about your false equivalencies. When Clinton did his little scramble he was accused of extra-marital sex (oh, yeah, and he was in the middle of a deposition, where lawyers parse words all the time – stupid, politically, but not unusual). His awol-ness stands accused of ordering government employees to break a federal law which prevents the government from violating the constitutional rights of citizens. And his little dances with wolves routine is in response to reporter, not a lawyer’s question. (Surely the correct analogy is to clinton’s notorious denial, “I didn’t have sex with that woman.”) And sue me, but I can distinguish between the lies a middle-age guy tells about violating his marriage vows and the lies a president tells about violating his oath of office.

Even as the old impeacher seeks a reputation as the scourge of executive branch evasion, the msm (Olbermann excepted) intones fatuously that no one serious is talking about impeachment. Why? In part, perhaps because, in brilliant anticipation of their control of the executive branch and the constitutional crisis that would inevitably follow, the republicans, under the leadership of the old impeacher, himself, turned the issue of what was a high crime into such a circus that the msm no longer has the stomach to demand one.

So the msm tells the citizens that we don’t have the stomach for an impeachment. And they don’t poll to see whether the citizens actually agrees with them (too truthy). And they don’t (Olbermann excepted) say things like, “there won’t be an impeachment because no republican would vote to impeach il Ducetto, even if he strangled Laura in a live interview with Katie Couric – because Republicans just don’t believe that constitutional restrictions apply to the executive when their party controls the executive. Their party means more to them their country.”

If our political system is incapable of impeaching a president who has admitted spying on American citizens without a warrant, which he could have gotten, after the fact, in a nano-second, it is in part because Bob Barr, the old impeacher, personally rendered that clause of the constitution useless.

Stranger Than Fiction

Unable to End 'Unlawful' Detention, Judge Says - A federal judge in Washington ruled yesterday that the continued detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is "unlawful," but he decided he had no authority to order their release.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson criticized the government's detention of Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim, who have been jailed at Guantanamo for four years; they have been cleared for release because the government has determined they are not enemy combatants and are not a threat to the United States. But Robertson said his court has "no relief to offer" because the government has not found a country to accept the men and because he does not have authority to let them enter the United States.

sounds ancien regime to us

The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas, Chapter 14 - The Two Prisoners

A year after Louis XVIII.'s restoration, a visit was made by the inspector-general of prisons. Dantes in his cell heard the noise of preparation, - sounds that at the depth where he lay would have been inaudible to any but the ear of a prisoner, who could hear the plash of the drop of water that every hour fell from the roof of his dungeon. He guessed something uncommon was passing among the living; but he had so long ceased to have any intercourse with the world, that he looked upon himself as dead.

The inspector visited, one after another, the cells and dungeons of several of the prisoners, whose good behavior or stupidity recommended them to the clemency of the government. He inquired how they were fed, and if they had any request to make. The universal response was, that the fare was detestable, and that they wanted to be set free.

The inspector asked if they had anything else to ask for. They shook their heads. What could they desire beyond their liberty? The inspector turned smilingly to the governor.

"I do not know what reason government can assign for these useless visits; when you see one prisoner, you see all, - always the same thing, - ill fed and innocent. Are there any others?"

"Yes; the dangerous and mad prisoners are in the dungeons."

"Let us visit them," said the inspector with an air of fatigue. "We must play the farce to the end. Let us see the dungeons."

"Let us first send for two soldiers," said the governor. "The prisoners sometimes, through mere uneasiness of life, and in order to be sentenced to death, commit acts of useless violence, and you might fall a victim."

"Take all needful precautions," replied the inspector.

Two soldiers were accordingly sent for, and the inspector descended a stairway, so foul, so humid, so dark, as to be loathsome to sight, smell, and respiration.

"Oh," cried the inspector, "who can live here?"

"A most dangerous conspirator, a man we are ordered to keep the most strict watch over, as he is daring and resolute."

"He is alone?"

"Certainly."

"How long has he been there?"

"Nearly a year."

"Was he placed here when he first arrived?"

"No; not until he attempted to kill the turnkey, who took his food to him."

"To kill the turnkey?"

"Yes, the very one who is lighting us. Is it not true, Antoine?" asked the governor.

"True enough; he wanted to kill me!" returned the turnkey.

"He must be mad," said the inspector.

"He is worse than that, - he is a devil!" returned the turnkey.

"Shall I complain of him?" demanded the inspector.

"Oh, no; it is useless. Besides, he is almost mad now, and in another year he will be quite so."

"So much the better for him, - he will suffer less," said the inspector. He was, as this remark shows, a man full of philanthropy, and in every way fit for his office.

"You are right, sir," replied the governor; "and this remark proves that you have deeply considered the subject. Now we have in a dungeon about twenty feet distant, and to which you descend by another stair, an abbe, formerly leader of a party in Italy, who has been here since 1811, and in 1813 he went mad, and the change is astonishing. He used to weep, he now laughs; he grew thin, he now grows fat. You had better see him, for his madness is amusing."

"I will see them both," returned the inspector; "I must conscientiously perform my duty." This was the inspector's first visit; he wished to display his authority.

"Let us visit this one first," added he.

"By all means," replied the governor, and he signed to the turnkey to open the door. At the sound of the key turning in the lock, and the creaking of the hinges, Dantes, who was crouched in a corner of the dungeon, whence he could see the ray of light that came through a narrow iron grating above, raised his head. Seeing a stranger, escorted by two turnkeys holding torches and accompanied by two soldiers, and to whom the governor spoke bareheaded, Dantes, who guessed the truth, and that the moment to address himself to the superior authorities was come, sprang forward with clasped hands.

The soldiers interposed their bayonets, for they thought that he was about to attack the inspector, and the latter recoiled two or three steps. Dantes saw that he was looked upon as dangerous. Then, infusing all the humility he possessed into his eyes and voice, he addressed the inspector, and sought to inspire him with pity.

The inspector listened attentively; then, turning to the governor, observed, "He will become religious - he is already more gentle; he is afraid, and retreated before the bayonets - madmen are not afraid of anything; I made some curious observations on this at Charenton." Then, turning to the prisoner, "What is it you want?" said he.

"I want to know what crime I have committed - to be tried; and if I am guilty, to be shot; if innocent, to be set at liberty."

"Are you well fed?" said the inspector.

"I believe so; I don't know; it's of no consequence. What matters really, not only to me, but to officers of justice and the king, is that an innocent man should languish in prison, the victim of an infamous denunciation, to die here cursing his executioners."

We Write Letters

Dear Senator,

Could you tell me whether I've been the subject of surveillance by the Pentagon or subject to a wiretap or email surveillance by the NSA. If you can't tell me, can you explain why not?


Sincerely,

Pudentilla

Carefully Chosen Words

This practice of catch and release has been the government's policy for decades. It is an unwise policy and we're going to end it. (Applause.) To help end catch and release, we need to increase the capacity in our detention facilities.

It wasn't an ad-lib, inadvertantly revealing the contempt il Ducetto feels for those not blessed by God, as he was, with a birth on third base. It's in the White House text of his comments. It's a deliberate appeal to their racists base. In a previous century politicians employed such dehumanizing rhetoric. The reasons why people talk like this are clear. We know the consequences of such speech. We do not wait for the Republicans to denounce this language with bated breath.

The Biblical Life

Abuse included use of lions, iraqis allege - Ex-detainees say troops also used mock executions - Two Iraqi men who were arrested in iraq in 2003 but never charged with crimes say that U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended to execute them in a firing line and humiliated them during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.

If this is true, it sounds to us like someone in the Pentagon skipped a crucial week in Vaction Bible School. Not to get all historical precedent or anything, but the last time imperial soldiers were putting folks in cages with lions, the imperial forces were Roman and the victims were Christians. The stories of the bravery of Christian martyers turned out to be good PR for the members of the annoying jesus cult (as the Romans saw them), so good that eventually the Christians won. We don’t believe this war is a clash of civilizations – but, if you’re a Christian, Americans don’t come out so well in this analogy. What’s more, some jihadi do think of this war as a clash of civilizations, and from their point of view, the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian)'s torture tactis are helping the cause.

Invidious Comparisons

Rich Lowry subbed for David, "the Babbler" Brooks on the NewsHour last night. We thought perhaps the substitution might reflect some concern on the part of PBS or perhaps Karl Rove that the Babbler is losing it. In his last appearance on the NewsHour, the Babbler suggested that those who suggest that the White House lied about and manipulated wmd intelligence in the run up to war were engaging in McCarthyite tactics.

While we love the new neo-con fall back position, "ok, we've totally screwed everything in Iraq up, but YOU CAN'T SAY WE LIED TO GET THERE!," we did think calling administration critics McCarthyites was a tad extreme. However, after reading il Ducetto's Veteran's Day speech, it appears that this is the party line and Rich, while more delicate than the Babbler, stuck to it like glue.

An amusing moment came when Lehrer asked Mark Shields, a marine vet, whether the right's claim that criticizing il Ducetto's case for war undermined troop morale. Shields laughed and noted that he couldn't say on a family show what a marine would think of that charge. Then he pointed out that soldiers fight for their buddies, for their unit, and that they basically don't have the luxury of caring about the terms of political debate back home.

Rich, "White Feather," Lowry, undeterred by the lack of his own military experience, did not blush to contradict Mr. Shields. Typical Friday night pap on PBS we thought, until they did their Veterans Day segment - an interview with Nathanial Fick, a marine vet of the war in Iraq who's written a book about his experience.

Mr. Fick is 28. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, he attended Dartmouth College, where he studied Classics and Government. Mr. Lowry is 37. He studied English and History at the University of Virginia. Mr. Fick's study of classical history (his college thesis treated the implications of Thucydides for American policy) led him to join the Marines upon his graduation from college. Mr. Lowry worked as Charles Krauthamer's research assistance after he left college.

While in the Marines, Mr. Fick served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Lowry's career path led him to a job as a reporter for a Virginia paper and editorship of the National Review. Mr. Fick, having finished his tours as a Captain in the Marine Corps, resigned his commission and is presently pursuing graduate work at Harvard University. Mr. Lowry appears on Fox a lot, and on the NewsHour whenever the Babbler needs to get his meds adjusted. We have not one clue about Mr. Fick's partisan identity. Mr. Lowry considers himself a conservative.

During his interview on the NewsHour, Mr. Fick responded to a question about the affect of claims that the war in Iraq is based on a lie on troop morale. Like Mr. Shields, he laughed. He described how his men had a shortwave radio on which they listened to the BBC World Service. They knew about the political debate about the wmd claims. They, themselves, had a range of opinions about the legitimacy of the war. They did not deem their political opinions relevant to their duty to perform their mission. Really, what they cared about was protecting the guys in their unit. Marines 1: Lowry 0.

Mr. Fick also observed that he was concerned that the opinion-making class in the U.S. has no experience of war, and that soldiers have no knowledge of politics. There's no use in having cowards for leaders and fools for soldiers, he opined. Marines 2: Lowry 0.

Finally, when asked about the ethical ground rules that guided his own decision making in the fog of war, he answered simply, that he wanted his guys to be able to look at themselves in the mirror 30 years from now and believe that they had never been asked to do anything dishonorable in Iraq. He also wanted, if necessary, to be able to explain honestly to the parent of any of his marines, why they died. Based on what we've read, we do not believe that such straightforward ethical principles guide the decisions of the National Review editorial staff. Marines 3: Lowry 0. To be fair, we should note, that as far as we know it has been some decades since any employee of the National Review has ever risked his life (or money or time) for his country - so Mr. Fisk's second ethical principal probably doesn't apply to the crowd at NR.

Mr. Lowry should avoid appearances on news shows with Mr. Fick - unless the National Review plans to swiftboat Mr. Fick. We wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Snowe Job

The NYT reports:

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Ms. Snowe, characterized her boss's concerns this way: "Do we need all those lawyers going down there to hear their complaints? It seems a little extreme to her. After all, we're talking about enemy combatants."

If approved in its current form by both the Senate and the House, which has not yet considered it but where approval is considered likely, the measure would nullify a June 2004 Supreme Court opinion that detainees had a right to challenge their detentions in court. Nearly 200 such petitions have been filed so far and are working their way through the federal court system.

A group of legal scholars, including Judith Resnick of Yale Law School, David Shapiro and Frank Michelman of Harvard Law School, and Burt Neuborne of New York University Law School, were circulating a letter on Friday urging senators to reject Mr. Graham's measure.

"The Graham amendment embodies an effort to alter fundamental precepts of our constitutional order," the letter said. "It consigns the protection of fundamental human liberties to unilateral executive determination

Maybe you can be against torture, but there's no way il Ducetto's minions can be against torturing prisoners and for permitting them legal representation, so that a court, could, you know, stop il Ducetto and the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian) from torturing.

The human right to be free from torture with no legal remedy to challenge the executive when it violates that right is meaningless. Snowe's for torture. There is no such thing as a "moderate" Republican.

In His Own Words

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682

Facts / Issue:

Five abortion clinics and one physician (the "clinics") raise a facial constitutional challenge to certain 1988 and 1989 amendments to the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 (the "Act"). See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 3201-3220 (1983 & Supp. 1991). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that §§ 3205 (informed consent), 3206 (parental consent), 3209 (spousal notice), 3214(a) (reporting requirements), and 3207(b) and 3214(f) (public disclosure of clinics' reports) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Commonwealth defendants (the "Commonwealth") appeal. Because we find unconstitutional only § 3209, which requires notice to a spouse of a planned abortion, we will affirm in part and reverse in part.

Alito's Comments in Dissent:

In this case, the plaintiffs, who made a facial attack n1 on Section 3209, did not [*722] prove that this provision would impose an undue burden. Section 3209 does not create an "absolute obstacle" or give a husband "veto power." Rather, this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions. [snip]

The [**116] plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209. As previously noted, Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes n4 that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her. If Section 3209 were allowed to take effect, it seems safe to assume that some percentage of the married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands would qualify for and invoke these exceptions. The record, however, is devoid of evidence showing how many women could or could not invoke an exception.

Pudentilla Notes:

That Judge Alito's argument rests on a case which rejected the right of a state to require a minor to get the permission of two parents before getting an abortion. Inherent in this argument is the equation of adult women with minor children. A tad disingenuous and more than a little offensive to adult women, you ask, Gentle Reader. Well, remember, this is exactly what the Reds have been fighting for, for 30 years.

Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232

Facts:

On March 6, 1998, as the result of a long-term investigation of John Doe for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug Task Force ("Task Force") sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence. n1 The typed affidavit in support of the warrant application stated, in pertinent part, that a reliable confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine on several occasions from John Doe, at Doe's "residence/office," or from a Volkswagen automobile parked in front. In addition, the affidavit noted that individuals with histories of prior narcotics use or with drug gang affiliations had been observed by Task Force members entering or leaving John Doe's residence. Finally, the affidavit indicated [**3] that the most recent methamphetamine purchase by the informant had occurred within the preceding 48 hours. [snip]

Armed with the warrant, Task Force police went to the John Doe house to carry out the search. Evidently, they anticipated [**6] encountering females because they enlisted a female traffic meter patrol officer to be available if necessary to assist in the search. As the officers approached the house, they met John Doe, and brought him into the house. Once inside, however, the officers found no visitors, but only John Doe's wife, Jane, and their ten year old daughter, Mary.

The officers decided to search Jane and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for the meter patrol officer. When she arrived, [*237] the female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom. They were instructed to empty their pockets and lift their shirts. The female officer patted their pockets. She then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their pants and turn around. No contraband was found. With the search completed, both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to the ground floor to await the end of the search.

Issue:

Do police officers have a qualified immunity against lawsuits claiming that their decision to strip search persons (including minor children) not named in a valid search warrant?

Alito's Dissent:

[*249] In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. I share the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out [**43] their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged - and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority - I would reverse.

Pudentilla's Comment:

Even if Alito's argument that drug dealers exploit their kids to hide drugs, should cops re-exploit those kids? Would it be such a bad thing in this world if cops felt compelled to get a specific warrant before strip-searching 10 year olds unexpectedly found on the premises when they were executing search warrants? If cops know that drug dealers so exploit kids, can't they identify these kids in the warrant in advance, or if they don't realize the kids exist until they get to the scene - would a phone call to the magistrate's chambers be such a burden.

In some cultures, apparently not Alito's, the prospect of strangers in the costume and cloak of authority having control over minor and naked children is a cause for great concern.

What did they put in the attack poodles' alpo?

Last night we watched 60 Minutes and what to our surprise did we find but an entire segment about the propriety and consequences of the outing of Valerie Plame. Ex-CIA NOC after ex-CIA NOC interviewed testified to the expense of training an agent and the human and economic cost of outing one. Not a single red spinmeister to argue the opposite. It was weird. We suppose that the whatever CBS's problems with the White House, the CIA still has some serious clout in the newsotainment division.

At one point they replayed a clip of Robert Novak talking about Brewster Jennings. The practically perfect partner turned to me and asked, "why isn't he in jail?" We suggested he was singing to the grand jury. "Then he should be ostracized," she opined. We had a brief fantasy of a world in which pundits of all partisan stripes refused to appear on shows that offered a guest slot to Novak. Then we realized that we might as well fantasize about Democrats refusing to appear on Fox News Propaganda outlets.

Seeing the clip, however, made us wonder whether Wilson was the target of the leak, so much as the C.I.A., in general. "Watch us knock over your agents and your fronts with nary a care. We got a hundred more shills like Novak," we imagine the agency was supposed to hear the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian) chortle. These reds are surely thugs.

Meanwhile, on Hardball, Chris Matthews was doing his best to convince us that the death penalty (or alternatively, the right to bear personal nuclear devices) might not be such a bad thing. Such an ego that man has, with so little to justify it. We have the following questions from watching the bloviator:

1) just how much does the RNC pay Mike Allen of Time Magazine?
2) Did the stare of utter disbelief and contempt which graced the faces of Matthews and Andrea Mitchell when Kate O'Beirne suggested that Friday was a good day for the White House presage a new phase in MSM coverage in news will not consist of RNC spin repeated without challenge?
3) Watching Matthews, Mitchell and the other panelists' utter inability to challenge O'Beirne's transparent mendacity about the "16 words," would this new phase last more than a weekend?

Matthews, Mitchell and their ilk are obviously not going to prepare (you know, work - read up, do some research) for these little pornagraphic moments in political propaganda. So we'll have a few weeks of blank stares of disbelief before the RNC reimposes its "reality" upon the MSM. What we saw last night was just some indigestion on the part of the MSM. No one's fortifying the Alpo.

Unindicted Co-conspirators

Maybe Fitz is squeezing Scooter to get Cheney. Maybe Rove is going to confront the new reality in the next week or two. Maybe not. But who's going to hold the media accountable? Tim Russert, Walter Pincus, Robert Novak, Matt Cooper, Judith Millar.

Inside the White House, the President's man Libby, and maybe his men, Libby, Rove, Cheney, Fleischer, etc., all thought that for theprice of a phone call to their special friends, they could trash a critic. True, they'd have to endanger national security to trash the critic. But they knew no one would ever ask the reporters and if someone did the reporters would not chat and the institutions for which they worked would pay millions to protect the reporters from the prospect of telling the truth.

Luckily for us, none of these mendacious bags of excrement could imagaine a reality which included a jesuit trained, Harvard educated, boyscout of a prosecutor. Let's be fair. How could they? They think Ken Starr was a prosecutor. More to the point, they obviously held the reporters in as much contempt as the reporters held their readers. Maybe there's a reason the powerplayers regard the media types with such scorn. All the reporters and their corporte lawyers folded their tents as soon as the boyscout prosecutor called. Except for Judy and the New York Times, who fought like tigers until the election was over. Then they folded too.

So, will it affect media coverage of the White House - the knowledge that these government officials hold them in such profound contempt? Will it cause reporters to question their committment to their invitations to a-list parties, oops, I mean, "sources?" Maybe the 4th estate should look at the mess they've gotten themselves into. Their "sources" despise them and their readers don't trust them. Maybe they should try reporting for a change, instead of transcribing gossip, or in this case, treason.

The Criminalization of Politics

What with Miers tanking, and fitzmas speculation running riot, the story today that the Dark Lord (who is the father of a lesbian), over the objections of White House lawyers, withheld documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee when it was investigating the intelligence (odd word there) that led to il Ducetto's not so excellent adventure in Iraq, gave us pause today. Someday, someone will ask to see the provision of the Constitution that provided Cheney with such authority, assuing a Constitution still exists, but that post is for another day.

Instead, today we're trying to imagine the right analogy for the mania that is Washington, D.C. today. We've decided that what's happening is not unlike what happens when a very good prosecution team successfully takes on a mob family. We, in fact, have never prosecuted a mob family, but we know folks who have, and, of course, we've watched the Sopranos and loved the Godfather series. So it's not like we know any less than other bloggers on this point.

Still, we think that the leak of the Dark Lord's little crime (it is a crime to withhold documents and information from Congress) tells us that Fitz, experienced mob prosecutor that he is, has cracked la famiglia bush wide open. It's not that BushCo is over, but the end is in sight.

The old hands in la famiglia have enough horses still to do a great deal of damage. But, the various cappos are eyeing their chances to strike out on their own. David Frum, a button man at best, whose only claim to fame was the coining of the term, "axis of evil." We know this is his claim to fame because he kept telling us so. But Frum, known within BushCo circles as, David, "the Cliche," Frum, is now the hero of the wingnuts over Harriet Miers. And Trent Lott, humiliated so publicly by la famiglia, left the Senate Republican caucus this morning singing, "Happy Days are here again." So the sorry saga of Harry, "Horsemeat" Miers, itself tells us that il Ducetto's iron hand is not so widely feared as it once was.

No doubt the Miers rebellion happened in part because il Ducetto's own consiglere, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove has spent more time quivering before Fitz's grand jury than he has disciplining the unruly crew that is la famiglia. In the meanwhile, all the bagmen and numbers runners are furtively glancing at il Ducetto on the one hand, and Fitz on the other. And if and as they crack, Fitz gains more and more leverage on men who are never supposed to caught. And as we and the ordinary folk of la famiglia read the blogs and the headlines nervously, we all wonder, will Karl go down? Could Fitz even take down the Dark Lord?

And at a certain point in this downward spiral, someone decides to give the Dark Lord a push. So he drops a dime on the National Journal telling a dirty little secret about the mess that was Colin "the Suit" Powell's abortion of a wmd speech to the U.N. Even if Fitz doesn't get him, the thinking goes, the media will.

"We got newspapers guys on our payroll. They might like a story like that."

all this and fitzmas too?

Game 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R H E sox 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 astros 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

With The Callow and Uncouth, Always A Little Patience

It happens that Pudentilla was fortunate enough to meet Desmond Tutu when he came to speak at a graduation ceremony on our happy campus some years back. What she remembers most particularly about his speech was the bishop's assertion that he "will always have an abundance of patience for the young." Pudentilla rather took this philosophy to heart and tries to let it guide her conduct in her relationship with all her students, especially the College Republicans. Pudentilla has a long standing interest in College Republicans and the activities of CRs in Maine of late has only whetted her enthusiasm for stories documenting the standards of citizenship towards which CRs strive..

Sometimes when dealing with post-pubescent youth, an abundance of patience is absolutely necessary. Sometimes post-pubescent youth, especially College Republicans, test the limits of the abundance of patience Pudentilla strives to maintain. In those cases, Pudentilla is reminded not of Bishop Tutu's motto, but of the old proverb, "with the rich and mighty, always a little patience." The latest stunt by CRs in Maine has moved Pudentilla to modify that formulation. When dealing with CRs, perhaps we would best be guided by the new adage, "with the callow and uncouth, always a little patience."

It seems that a Mainer who attends Bowdoin College, an estimable institution, not too far from the campus in Central Maine at which Pudentilla is lucky enough to teach, is also in the Marine Reserves. Thanks to Atrios, we learn from the local paper that the young man in question is also quite active in community service organizations.

A government and legal studies major, Cornell du Houx is also involved in a variety of activities at Bowdoin. Aside from his work with the Democrats, he is the co-president of Community Service Council, an active volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and the Young Alumni Leadership Program, and a tutor at local schools in the America Counts Tutor Program. He also works at the youth think tank — Youth Empowerment Program.

He has also been a leading light in campus and local Democratic political groups. Indeed, our hero, had entered the race for the local town council.* Well it seems that Marines have called Mr. du Houx up and he will have to postpone not merely his senior year in college, but will also withdraw from the political campaign in order to answer his country's call to service. As he understands it, he made a committment to the Marines and he's duty bound to fulfill it. It happens that du Houx is an opponent of the il Ducetto's not so excellent adventure in Iraq, where Mr. du Houx will serve.

Some might find the decision to honor one's committments to serve one's country, even as one excercises his rights of political expression and organziation in opposition to the country's foreign policy, an expression of patriotism of the highest order. We shall pass over mention of the raw courage it must take to face deployment to Iraq these days with the equanimity Mr. du Houx displays. Mr. du Houx is not without his campus critics, however.

It seems the CRs at his college, while they "respect his service", are trouble by his excercise of his First Amendment rights. Thus, comments Daniel Schuberth, a Bowdoin CR, who faces no imminent danger of being asked to serve his country because one must volunteer to serve it:

I find it troubling, however, that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx's rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation.

One of the reasons college professors like Pudentilla need vast reserves of patience in dealing with the young in general, and CRs in particular, is the fact that young people in general and CRs especially are not overly burdened by a sense of irony, much less a capacity for self-reflection. It fell to a Bowdoin prof to explain the obvious to the CRs on campus.

"He exemplifies democratic citizenship at its best," Franco said of Cornell du Houx. "Though he opposes Bush's war policies, he still feels obligated to fulfill his duty. ... This is the exact opposite of what is done by those supporters of the war who would never dream of fighting in it themselves or sending their own children to fight in it."

Professor Franco, you're a more patient prof than we could ever hope to be. We certainly thought when we read Mr. Schuberth's comments, "stupid, cowardly, self-serving, ungenerous and worse, ungreatful, git you are." We'd like to think we, we'd have bitten back such words, however. Because, as you know, Gentle Reader, our motto, with CRs, anyway, is "with the callow and uncouth, always a little patience."

*Note to College Republicans - such service to community and party is part of what is called being a good citizen.